<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Apologies: Steve Hanson, Suman Kalia</b></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>1. Go through actions</b></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>2. AOB</b></font>
<br>
<p><font size=3 face="sans-serif"><b>Current Actions:</b></font>
<table border width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=7%>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>No</b></font></div>
<td width=92%><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Action </b></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>012</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">AP/SH: Update decimalCalendarScheme</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">10/9: Not allocated yet</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">17/9: No update</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/9: Add calendar binary formats to
actions</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/10: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">16/1: proposal distributed and discussed.
Will be redistributed</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">21/1: add locale, </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">04/02: changed from locale to specific
properties</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">18/2: Need more investigation of ICU
strict/lax behaviour.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">08/04: Not discussed</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/04: AP to complete asap once the
ICU strict/lax behaviour is understood. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">13/05: Calendar has been added to latest
spec version v034 but still a few details to clarify.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">27/05: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">03/06: No Progress (low priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/06: No Progress (low priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">17/06: SH to check ICU code for lax
calendar behaviour</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: no progress</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>026</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Arial">SH: Envelopes and Payloads</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">08/04: Not discussed</font><font size=2 face="Arial">
explicity, but recursive use of DFDL is tied up with this</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">22/04: Two aspects. Firstly compositional
- do sufficient mechanisms exist to model an envelope with a payload that
varies. Secondly markup syntax - this might be defined in the envelope.
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">The second of these is very much tied up
with the variable markup action 028, so will be considered there. SH to
verify the composition aspect.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">29/04: SH and AP working on proposal. related
to Action 028</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">27/05: Still a number of aspects
to be decided.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- Compostion - Does the envelope and
payload need to be defined in the same schema or should they be dynamically
bound at runtime?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- Compostion- How is a variable payload
specified. Choice or xs:any; New action raised to discuss xs:any</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- extracting dymanic syntax from data.
Covered by action 029 valuecalc.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">03/06: Dynamic runtime binding will
not be supported.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">SH investigating use of variables to
enable standalone and use in envelope of global element.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/06: Payload should be specified using
a choice rather than xs:any</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">17/06: SH still working on example using
variables </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: SH to document how property list
satisfies uses cases.</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>027</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Arial">SH: Property precedence tables</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">08/04: Not discussed</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/04: Two things missing from the existing
precedence trees. Firstly, does not show alternates (eg, initiator v initiatorkind).
Secondly, need a tree per concrete DFDL object (eg, element). SH to update.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: SH is updating tables which will
be ready for next call</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">13/05: SH emailed updated version. AP
commented.. See minutes for issues and property changes.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: Updated version circulated. Review
before next call and be ready for vote.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">27/05: Updated version circulated. more
comments raised. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">03/06: Further updates to clarify 'core'.
Also identified missing design for outputMinLength</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">17/06: Being updated to include outputMinlength</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: Table now in maintenance mode.
Move to work item</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>029</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Arial">MB: valueCalc (output length calculation)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">08/04: Not discussed</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/04: Action allocated to MB, this
is to complete the work started at the Hursley WG F2F meeting.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: MB will have update for next
call</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">13/05: MB will have update for next
call</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: Some progress. will be circulated
this week</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">27/05: MB circulated proposal and got
comments. Will update and review on next call</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">03/06: Discussed proposal. MB to update
dealing with uses cases raised. Options include a new lenghtKind='Reference'
to make it easier to distinguish from fixed length case. Or use outputLengthCalc
to separate calculation of parsing and unparsing length.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/06: SH/AP proposal discussed and
MB to document</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">17/06: MB to document proposal.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Grammar updated and reviewed. Minor
changes needed.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: Grammar description was updated
and approved. Need to describe new function.</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>033</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="Arial">AP/TK: Assert/Discriminator semantics. AP
to document. TK to check uses of discriminator besides choice.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">08/04: In progress within IBM</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/04: Waiting for TK to return from
leave to complete. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: TK has sent examples shown need
for discriminators beyond choice. Agreed. MB to respond to TK </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: Discussed suggestion of adding
type indicator to discriminator. MB to provide examples.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">15/03: Semantic documented in v034.
MB to provide examples of need for scope indicator on discriminator</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: MB to provide examples of need
for scope indicator on discriminator (but lower priority than action 029)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">27/05: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">03/06: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/06: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>037</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">All: Approach for XML Schema 1.0 UPA
checks.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/04: Several non-XML models, when
expressed in their most obvious DFDL Schema form, would fail XML Schema
1.0 Unique Particle Attribution checks that police model ambiguity. And
even re-jigging the model sometimes fails to fix this. Note this is equally
applicable to XMl Schema 1.1 and 1.0. While the DFDL parser/unparser can
happily resolve the ambiguities, the issue is one of definition. If an
XSD editor that implements UPA checks is used to create DFDL Schema, then
errors will be flagged. DFDL may have to adopt the position that: </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">a)DFDL parser/unparser will not implement
some/all UPA checks (exact checks tbd)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">b) XML Schema editors that implement
UPA checks will not be suitable for all DFDL models</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">c) If DFDL annotations are removed,
the resulting pure XSD will not always be valid (ie, the equivalent XML
is ambiguous and can't be modelled by XML Schema 1.0)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Ongoing in case another solution can
be found.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: Will ask DG and S Gao for opinion
before closing</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: Discussed S Gao email and suggestions.
Decided need to review all XML UPA rules and decide which apply to dfdl.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: SH or SKK to investigate</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">27/05: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">03/06: The concern is that some dfdl
schemas will fail UPA check when validation is turned on or when editted
using tooling that enforces UPA checks. Renaming fields will resolve some/most
issues. Need documentation that describes issue and best practice.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">17/06: no change</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: no change</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>038</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">MB: Submit response to OMG RFI for non-XML
standardization</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">22/04: First step is for MB to mail
the OGF Data Area chair to say that we want to submit</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/04: MB has been in contact with OMG
and will sunbit dfdl.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: MB has prepared response to OMG.
Will send DFDL sepc v033</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: Response has been sent to OMG
based on v034</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">27/05: Awaiting response from OMG. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">03/06: On hold</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>042</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">MB: Complete variable specification.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">To include how properties such as encoding
can be set externally. Must be a known variable name.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">06/05: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: AP to make proposal</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">27/05: MB proposed differentiating between
input and output variables to avoid unnecessary evaluations during parse
and unparse. Need to complete rest of variable specification.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">03/06: Pointed out problem of declaring
variables input or output when used to define syntax which is used both
times. MB to update proposal to include how variables are set externally
and how specific properties such as encoding are set.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/06: SKK to use example to dicument
his proposal</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">17/06: SKK to refine proposal. Other
aspects need progress.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: SKK proposal discussed but not
accepted. PL to document simpler proposal.</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>044</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">13/05: Bidi</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05: AP: will check what IBM products
support.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">27/05: Bidi is supported so will be
needed in dfdl v1</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">03/06: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/06: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: No Progress</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>045</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05 AP: Speculative Parsing</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">27/05: Psuedo code has been circulated.
Review for next call</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">03/06: Comments received and will be
incorporated</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/06: Progress but not discussed</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">17/06: Discussed briefly</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: No Progress</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>049</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">20/05 AP Built-in specification description
and schemas</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">03/06: not discussed</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: No Progress</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>051</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Scoping rules.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">MB: to document change to scoping rules
to satisfy implementation concerns</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">17/06: MB and SH proposals discussed.
Needs further discussion</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: AP to update presentation with
latest proosal</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>052</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Discriminator timing property</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: Need to add timing property to
discriminator</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>053</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">poistion() function</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: agreed to add</font></table>
<p>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Alan Powell<br>
<br>
MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley, Winchester, SO21 2JN, England<br>
Notes Id: Alan Powell/UK/IBM email: alan_powell@uk.ibm.com
<br>
Tel: +44 (0)1962 815073
Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898<br>
<br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<hr><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<i><br>
</i></font>
<p><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><i>Unless stated otherwise above:<br>
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. <br>
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU</i></font>
<p><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>