<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Note: I cannot make this call so can
Steve take notes please?</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>1. 051 Scoping Rules</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Review new description (email Scoping
Rules with Schema default 13/10/2009) and examples.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>2. Binary/Boolean</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">For a Boolean with representation='binary'
you can specify separate values for true and false. However you cannot
say true = 0 and false = non-zero (or vice versa). I suggest we need
a simple way to specify 'non-zero'</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>3. NumberBase and textNumberxxx </b>(email
Problem with dfdl:numberBase and number representation properties 9/10/2009)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">It looks as though we didn't properly
consider dfdl:NumberBase when defining the number representation properties
as they mostly assume base 10.</font><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">dfdl:numberBase should be ignored if
textNumberRepresentation is 'zoned'. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The dfdl:textNumberFormat properties
which are really only for decimal numbers so perhaps dfdl:NumberBase should
be moved out. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The alternative is to say which of the
dfdl:textNumberFormat properties apply when dfdl:numberBase is not '10'</font><font size=3>
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>4. Validating min/maxOccurs </b>(email
Validation of min/mxOccurs 8/10/2009)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Tim Kimber had asked some questions
about min/maxOccurs which I answered concluding:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Default San Serif"><i>"So if an array has too
few occurrences (and no default) it is a processing error, if it has too
many it is a validation error</i></font><font size=3><i> </i>"</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The WG should confirm this conclusion</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>5. 045 Resolving points of uncertainty
and parsing rules</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Review latest draft.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>6. Comments on Draft 036</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Please review the latest draft</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>7. Go through remaining actions</b></font>
<br>
<br><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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">01/07: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">15/07: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/07: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">05/08: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">12/08: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">19/08: Inconsistencies are being found
in ICU behaviour so Calendars need reviewing again.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">26/08: Specific three character short
time zones may not be maintained during round tripping when there
is more than one short form for a time zone offset. Because dates and datetimes
in the infoset only maintain a time zone offset so on unparsing it isn't
possible to say which short form will be selected for a particular offset
when there is more than one possible. Need to document.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">16/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">30/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: no progress</font>
<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">....</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">19/08: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">26/08: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">16/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">30/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: no progress</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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">01/07: no prgress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">15/07: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/07: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">05/08: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">12/08: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">19/08: Clarify that this action is to
go through the XML UPA checks to assess impact on dfdl schemas and advice
best practice. Name clashes is just one example. SH or SKK</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">26/08: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">16/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">30/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: 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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">01/07: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">15/07: No progress. MB not happy with
the way the algorithm is documented, need to find a better way.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/07: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">05/08: No Progress. Will document behaviour
as a set of rules.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">12/08: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">19/08: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">26/08: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">16/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">30/09: AP distributed proposal and others
commented. Brief discussion AP to incorporate update and reissue</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: Updated proposal was discussed.Comments
will be incorporated into the next version.</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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: No Progress (hope to get these
from test cases)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">15/07: No progress. Once available,
the examples in the spec should use the dfdl:defineFormat annotations they
provide.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">.....</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">19/08: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">26/08: No Progress (lower priority)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">30/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: 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>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">24/06: AP had updated presentation.
MB to review</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">08/07: Discussed at length. Simple types
will now take annotations. Variables will be used for parameters.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">15/07: No further progress. Needs final
write up.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/07: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">05/08: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">12/08: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">19/08: AP will document new syntax rules.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">26/08: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/09: AP has documented new scoping
rules. Not discussed</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">16/09: Not disussed. AP to update element
reference examples</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">30/09: Significant dissatisfaction with
proposed new rules. New proposal developed during call. AP to document.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: New proposal was refind. Details
in minutes.</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>054</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">ICU DecimalNumber/ Calendar behaviour</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">15/07: No progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">29/07: No Progress.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">05/08: No Progress. This action is to
discover and document ICU behaviour. DFDL will do whatever ICU does.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">12/08: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">19/09: More examples of inconsistent
behaviour discovered</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">16/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">30/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: no progress</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>056</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">resolve lenghtUnit=bits including fillbytes</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">12/08: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">19/08: No Progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">26/08: No Progress </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">09/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">30/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: no progress</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>059</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">9/9: define how encoding, byteorder
and floating point format externally</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">16/09: no progress</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">07/10: no progress</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>060</b></font></div>
<td><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Should dfdl bcome more type oriented
and split dfdl:properties between eleement and simpleType/complexType</font></table>
<p><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>