January 2010 - dfdl-wg - lists.ogf.org

Fw: DFDL: TLOG proposal
by Steve Hanson 29 Jan '10

29 Jan '10

Updated below as agreed on DFDL WG call Jan 29th. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect, WebSphere Message Broker, OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair, Hursley, UK, Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com, Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 29/01/2010 17:40 ----- From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM To: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org Date: 26/01/2010 12:26 Subject: DFDL: TLOG proposal TLOG The individual fields are a mixture of ASCII strings, proprietary packed decimals, and the occasional pure binary data. All fields are delimited by a separator. Fields of all types can be fixed length or variable length with a maximum. Pure binary data is preceded by a field giving the actual length. All lengths in bytes. Packed decimals. Like a packed decimal in the IBM sense. These can carry negative numbers but use a leading xD sign nibble. No sign nibble if positive or unsigned. Odd number of digits (including sign if present) are padded with xF nibble. This is best illustrated using examples. 1234 => x12x34 123 => xF1x23 -1234 => xFDx12x34 -123 => xD1x23 Proposal 1) The 'variable length with a maximum' will be handled using a post-timing assertion. Note this only applies on parsing. ** 2) dfdl:lengthKind 'delimited' is permitted for numbers when dfdl:representation is 'binary' and dfdl:binaryNumberRep is 'packed' or 'bcd' because it is possible to know in advance the range of bytes being used, and therefore to choose suitable delimiters. 3) Core DFDL 1.0 will not be enhanced to handle the TLOG packed decimal type. A future version of DFDL will provide an extensibility mechanism that allows user-defined types to be handled. In the 1.0 timeframe IBM may implement its own proprietary extension to handle this type. ** While this can result in output from a DFDL unparser that can not be re-parsed, that is a problem general to the use of assertions, and a future version of DFDL may choose to change this by enhancements to the assertion annotation. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect, WebSphere Message Broker, OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair, Hursley, UK, Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com, Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

1 0

DFDL: Action 071 - modified
by Steve Hanson 29 Jan '10

29 Jan '10

Updated below. Agreed on DFDL WG extra call on Fri 29th Jan. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect, WebSphere Message Broker, OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair, Hursley, UK, Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com, Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 29/01/2010 17:27 ----- From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM To: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org Date: 26/01/2010 12:52 Subject: DFDL: Action 071 Changed unparsing behaviour - we must honour the property - the existing behaviour of always writing the initiator means we can not successfully re-parse if writing empty content and enum is 'suppress'. When reading, assume that section 15.13 has been updated to include complex as well as simple elements. No change to enums. missingValueInitiatorPolicy Enum Valid values ‘required', ‘prohibited' Specifies whether to expect an initiator when an element is missing. Ignored unless dfdl:initiator is specified and is not "" (empty string). 'required' - Indicates that the dfdl:initiator followed by empty content is the required syntax to indicate that the element is missing. 'prohibited' - Indicates that empty content is the required syntax to indicate that the element is missing. The presence of an initiator implies that real content must follow. Use of ‘prohibited’ implies an ordered sequence. If used on an initiated element of an unordered group it is a schema definition error. If the element is required, defaulting occurs as defined above. This property also applies on unparsing, when the data to be written (after nil value and default value processing) is empty content. Annotation: dfdl:element Unparsing. The branch of a choice output when a complex element is required but missing from the infoset is the first branch of the choice that does not result in a processing error. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect, WebSphere Message Broker, OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair, Hursley, UK, Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com, Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

1 0

Invitation: OGF DFDL Working Group extra call (2 Feb 13:00 GMT in DE3S09 for IBM Hursley participants (Peter - you have this room booked already))
by Steve Hanson 29 Jan '10

29 Jan '10

1 0

Agenda for OGF DFDL WG call 29 January 2010- 13:00 UK (8:00 ET)
by Alan Powell 29 Jan '10

29 Jan '10

1 Review Schedule OGF prereview is confirmed to take about 4 weeks assuming no document updates are required. We are behind schedule to be available for public review by March. Activity Schedule Who Complete Action items - 18 Dec 2009 WG Complete Spec Write up work items ? 23 Dec 2009 AP Restructure and complete specification - 23 Dec 2009 AP Issue Draft 038 23 Dec 2009 WG review WG review 7 Dec ? 08 Jan 2010 WG Incorporate review comments 4 Jan - 29 Jan 2010 AP + Issue Draft 039 15 Jan 2010 Incorporate review comments 4 Jan - 29 Jan 2010 AP + Issue Draft 040 29 Jan 2010 Initial OGF Editor Review Initial Editor review 1 Feb - 1 Mar 2010 OGF Initial GFSG review 1 Feb - 1 Mar 2010 Issue Draft 041 1 Mar 2010 OGF Public Comment period (60 days) 1 Mar - 30 Apr 2010 OGF OGF 28 Munich 15-19 March 2010 Incorporate comments Incorporate comments 28 May 2010 Issue Draft 042 28 May 2010 Final OGF Editor Review Final Editor review June 2010 OGF final GFSG review June 2010 Issue Final specification 30 June 2010 Publish proposed recommendation 1 July 2010 Grid recommendation process 1 Jan - 1 April 2011 2. Go through Actions 3. TLog Confirm decision to allow dfdl:lengtKind=delimited for all binary representation 4 Action 071 Semantics of length=0, nil handling and defaults. 5. Go through Actions 6. Discriminators Review two options (attached) 7. Draft 037 review issues - Case of enumerations. We should follow the XSDL convention which is that enumerations are case sensitive - dfdl:lengthKind='Pattern scannability: A complex element with lengthKind=Pattern will use its dfdl:encoding property as the encoding when scanning its children irrespective of the child's encoding property. Go through unanswered issues in Mike's comments document Regards Alan Powell Development - MQSeries, Message Broker, ESB IBM Software Group, Application and Integration Middleware Software ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBM MP211, Hursley Park Hursley, SO21 2JN United Kingdom Phone: +44-1962-815073 e-mail: alan_powell(a)uk.ibm.com Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

1 0

Remaining 037 review issues for today WG call (20 Jan)
by Alan Powell 29 Jan '10

29 Jan '10

I have answered most of the issues and comments raised by Steve and Mike but some need further discussion. Issues from Steve H General. Although dfdl:encoding enums are case insensitive, we should stick to UC throughout in examples. 2. I agree with the existing comment that the RFC2119 key words should be upper case. 14.3.4. There are type/rep combinations where lengthKind="implicit" is not allowed - so saying that 'pattern' is replaced by 'implicit' on unparsing does not work. TBD 16.2. I'm not sure that scannability in this constant encoding sense is necessary for patterns. I can create a regular expression that extracts all characters up to hex value xXX or all characters up to xYY, thereby treating the content as an encoding in-sensitive black box. Issues from Mike B · Tracker issue: codepoints outside BMP, as literals and in data. · If I put in a value that requires use of a high/low surrogate pair, is that an error, does it require me to put in two separate %#...; thingys, one for each of the surrogates (in which case these are not really code points in ISO10646). If I put in a codepoint for one of the supplemental characters and the schema itself is written in UTF-16 then that has to translate into literal surrogate pair. Ok, but I?m very uncertain about all this stuffTracker Issue: illegal character encodings for parsing and unparsing. TBD: how do these make it into the infoset or are they replaced, and if so how TBD: can one represent these in the infoset for output? Ideally not, but? · Tracker Issue: Processing-time Schema Definition Errors This section (2.3.1 in this draft), is problematic as we?re trying to allow simple DFDL implementations to not do a bunch of static checking, yet if implementations differ on when Schema Definition errors are detected, then the second paragraph says they are converted to processing errors. This lets different implementations do very different things in terms of how the speculative parsing back-tracks around. Grammar ambiguity is a very tricky case. Unless a DFDL implementation can prove a grammar to be unambiguous, then it is very hard to say that any particular combinatino of delimiters make up a legal DFDL schema definition. If the parser simply fails because the grammar was ambiguous, there?s no way to tell the difference between this and just broken data without proving the grammar is unambiguous. In general it is formally undecidable whether a grammar is ambiguous or unambiguous. ( http://books.google.com/books?id=lIuu53IcKWoC&pg=PT217&lpg=PT217&dq=proving… ) Since DFDL v1.0 doesn?t allow recursive declarations/definitions, it may be possible to provide the ambiguity or unambiguity of a DFDL schema (or rather, the data syntax grammar described by it ? if you want to bother to distinguish the two), but recursion isn?t something we want to rule out for the future, so Type checking is decidable in DFDL?s expression language, so we could always detect type safety before run time; however, if we allow a simplistic DFDL implementation to just check types at run time then this would, by the definition in this section (2.3.1), issue processing errors when it detects these at run time, thereby allowing backtracking of the speculative parser to be driven off of type-checks in the expression language. It seems to me that we need to find a way to put this problem back into the hands of the user, and say that a schema where this actually matters (one where a type error causes a backtrack, which ultimately causes a successful parse) are illegal but implementations are allowed to not detect this particular illegality. It seems to me we need to put this problem back into the hands of the user. · Tracker Issue: "round trip" for infoset. Should we omit the whole point? · Tracker Issue: [schema] is an absolute or relative SCD. Why bother allowing absolute? · Tracker Issue: Glossary as the place for centralized definitions, or should they be repeated there, but also introduced at point of first use, or should we put the definitions only at the places where they are discussed, and xref from the glossary? · TBD: Issue - semantics of expressions containing relative paths that are inherited via ref to a dfdl:defineFormat. (also section 10.3) · TBD: Issue - XPath term - we are not consistent about using the term XPath, or "expression" when referring to our expression language. I prefer to call it our expression language, and then in the section that defines it state that it is a strict subset of XPath 2.0. · TBD: Issue - fn:position is unclear given that we've just said we don't support sequences in the expression language. · TBD: Issue - order of sections. Scoping rules section should come before variables section, which uses these concepts. TBD: Issue: Case sensitivity of enum names - did we say whether this is case sensitive or not? I believe it should be case sensitive. · Issue: dfdl:representation - Strings in binary rep. I see no reason why elements of type xs:string will examine dfdl:representation. They shouldn?t' care what it is, they are always "text". I should be able to specify a bunch of inter-mixed binary number and string elements without having to specify dfdl:representation="text' just to avoid an error on the string type elements. I believe xs:string type ignores dfdl:representation (always behaves as if dfdl:representation is 'text').(If we change this then the property precedence section for simpletypes changes slightly as representation="text" is implied if type is string.) That will make it impossible to introduce a binary representation of text later textStringPadCharacter textNumberPadCharacter - did we agree that this character must be a "minimum width" character if the char set encoding is variable width? (i.e., the pad char must be 1 byte if the encoding is UTF-8. numberInfinityRep numberNanRep - Is this applicable only to xs:double and xs:float? Also, what I've seen requires a distinction of sign. I.e., there are positive and negative infinities often printing as -inf and +inf. · TBD: Issue - \n in regular expressions - clarify relationship of this to entities like NL entity. Also, if I include an entity like WSP* in a regular expression (can I?) does it then match accordingly? It appears that some of our multi-valued entities like WSP+ create conditional "matching" behavior without having to use regular expressions, e.g., when WSP+ is used as a separator. But can you use entities like WSP+ in a regular expression? It seems you should be able to use regular "single valued" entities in a regular expression, its these multi-valued ones that have tricky semantics. Added Unicode values to /n, /t,/r. Disallow DFDL entities in regular expressions. 14.1 Alignment - TBD: Issue - zero-based thinking here. But all the bits stuff and everything else in DFDL uses 1-based reasoning. Need to revisit to make this sensible for 1 based world. Added implicit alignment table. TBD zero-based finalTerminatorCanBeMissing - spec is not clear. Also is there a finalSeparatorCanBeMissing Chaned to finalDocumentTerminatorCanBeMissing and finalDocumentSeparatorCanBeMissing. Not sure where finalDocumentSeparatorCanBeMissing should be specified. Looks odd on 'distinguished root'. These properties operate differently from other properties as they are defined on the 'distinguished root' but affect some lower down element. Effectively they are put in scope by a different mechanism Alan Powell MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley, Winchester, SO21 2JN, England Notes Id: Alan Powell/UK/IBM email: alan_powell(a)uk.ibm.com Tel: +44 (0)1962 815073 Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898 Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

2 1

Minutes for OGF DFDL Working Group Call, January-26 & 27-2010
by Alan Powell 28 Jan '10

28 Jan '10

Open Grid Forum: Data Format Description Language Working Group OGF DFDL Working Group Call, January-26 & 27-2010 Attendees Mike Beckerle (Oco) (27) Steve Hanson (IBM) (26 & 27) Alan Powell (IBM) (26 & 27) Steve Marting (Progeny) (27) Suman Kalia (IBM) (27) Peter Lambros (IBM) (26) Tim Kimber(IBM) (26 & 27) Apologies Stephanie Fetzer (IBM) 1. Discriminators There was a long discussion of Alan's document which merged the 'Resolving Uncertainty' and 'Discriminators' documents. It proposes that discriminators 'confirm the existence of their parent sequence' and did not allow discriminators on simple elements to confirm the existence of that element based on its contents or other data. Mike pointed out that this did not allow the uses case of a previous field in the data stream (eg a flag) indicating the existence of a field without wrapping that field in a extra sequence. The uses cases are: - A sequence is 'known to exist' by testing one or more of its children - A sequence is 'known to exist' by testing some previous data - A simple element is 'known to exist' by testing some previous data - A simple element is 'known to exist' by testing its content An alternative proposal was discussed where a discriminator where allowed on particles and 'confirmed the existence of the a component' Alan will write up both proposals. Also mentioned was the meaning of minOccurs= 0 on a choice branch. Steve will ask Sandy Gao 2. Unparsing lengthKind=Pattern The table below was modified to make the text unparing length the minLength/outputMinLength. Mike suggested that lengtKind pattern should be limited to text fields but need to understand Tlog requirements. Representation text binary String minLength Not applicable Float outputMinLength 32 Double outputMinLength 64 Decimal/Integer outputMinLength Minimum number of bytes to represent significant digits and sign Long, UnsignedLong outputMinLength packed/bcd : as decimal binary: 64 Int, Unsignedint outputMinLength packed/bcd : as decimal binary: 32 Short, Unsignedshort outputMinLength packed/bcd : as decimal binary: 16 Byte, Unsignedbyte outputMinLength packed/bcd : as decimal binary: 8 DateTime outputMinLength packed/bcd : as decimal binarySeconds: 32, binaryMilliseconds:64 Date outputMinLength packed/bcd : as decimal binarySeconds: 32, binaryMilliseconds:64 Time outputMinLength packed/bcd : as decimal binarySeconds: 32, binaryMilliseconds:64 Boolean outputMinLength 32 HexBinary Not applicable Length of infoset value 3. TLog Reviewed Steve's proposal Proposal 1) The 'variable length with a maximum' can not be handled using a post-timing assertion, because assertions only apply on parsing. Given that IBM MRM allows you to model this case, I think we should allow dfdl:length & dfdl:lengthUnits to be specified when dfdl:lengthKind is 'delimited' or 'pattern'. Extraction during parse is still by scanning. If the physical representation exceeds that length after extraction, it is a processing error. Similarly when unparsing, if the physical representation exceeds that length prior to output, it is a processing error. 2) dfdl:binaryNumberRep is extended with another value 'tlog'. Associated property dfdl:binaryDecimalVirtualPoint is applicable. Associated property dfdl:binaryPackedSignCodes is not applicable, there being only xD to indicate negative numbers, and no distinct nibbles for unsigned or zero. 3) dfdl:lengthKind 'delimited' is permitted for numbers when dfdl:representation is 'binary' and dfdl:binaryNumberRep is 'packed' or 'bcd' or 'tlog' because it is possible to know in advance the range of bytes being used, and therefore to choose suitable delimiters. 1) can be achieved on parsing with an assert but cannot be enforced on unparsing 2) Discussed the desirability of properties/enumerations specific particular formats versus providing more extensibility. Decided neither were needed for DFDL v1 3) Steve H felt that this was needed. It was agreed to add to spec (I need to confirm this) 4 Action 071 Semantics of length=0, nil handling and defaults. Not discussed 5. Go through Actions 6. Draft 037 review issues - Case of enumerations. We should follow the XSDL convention which is that enumerations are case sensitive - dfdl:lengthKind='Pattern scannability: A complex element with lengthKind=Pattern will use its dfdl:encoding property as the encoding when scanning its children irrespective of the child's encoding property. Go through unanswered issues in Mike's comments document 7 Review Schedule OGF prereview is confirmed to take about 4 weeks assuming no document updates are required. We are behind schedule to be available for public review by March. Draft 038 will be available at the end of this week. Activity Schedule Who Complete Action items - 18 Dec 2009 WG Complete Spec Write up work items ? 23 Dec 2009 AP Restructure and complete specification - 23 Dec 2009 AP Issue Draft 038 23 Dec 2009 WG review WG review 7 Dec ? 08 Jan 2010 WG Incorporate review comments 4 Jan - 29 Jan 2010 AP + Issue Draft 039 15 Jan 2010 Incorporate review comments 4 Jan - 29 Jan 2010 AP + Issue Draft 040 29 Jan 2010 Initial OGF Editor Review Initial Editor review 1 Feb - 1 Mar 2010 OGF Initial GFSG review 1 Feb - 1 Mar 2010 Issue Draft 041 1 Mar 2010 OGF Public Comment period (60 days) 1 Mar - 30 Apr 2010 OGF OGF 28 Munich 15-19 March 2010 Incorporate comments Incorporate comments 28 May 2010 Issue Draft 042 28 May 2010 Final OGF Editor Review Final Editor review June 2010 OGF final GFSG review June 2010 Issue Final specification 30 June 2010 Publish proposed recommendation 1 July 2010 Grid recommendation process 1 Jan - 1 April 2011 Meeting closed, 15:10 Next call Friday 29 January 2010 13:00 UK Next action: 077 Actions raised at this meeting No Action 076 SH semantics of minOccurs= 0 on choice branches Current Actions: No Action 045 20/05 AP: Speculative Parsing 27/05: Psuedo code has been circulated. Review for next call 03/06: Comments received and will be incorporated 09/06: Progress but not discussed 17/06: Discussed briefly 24/06: No Progress 01/07: No Progress 15/07: No progress. MB not happy with the way the algorithm is documented, need to find a better way. 29/07: No Progress 05/08: No Progress. Will document behaviour as a set of rules. 12/08: No Progress ... 16/09: no progress 30/09: AP distributed proposal and others commented. Brief discussion AP to incorporate update and reissue 07/10: Updated proposal was discussed.Comments will be incorporated into the next version. 14/10: Alan to update proposal to include array scenario where minOccurs > 0 21/10: Updated proposal reviewed 28/10: Updated proposal reviewed see minutes 04/11: Discussed semantics of disciminators on arrays. MB to produce examples 11/11: Absorbing action 033 into 045. Maybe decorated discrminator kinds are needed after all. MB and SF to continue with examples. 18/11: Went through WTX implementation of example. SF to gather more documentation about WTX discriminator rules. 25/11: Further discussion. Will get more WTX documentation. Need to confirm that no changes need to Resolving Uncertainty doc. 04/11: Further discussion about arrays. 09/12: Reviewed proposed discriminator semantic. 16/12: Reviewed discriminator examples and WTX semantic. 23/12: SF to provide better description of WTX behaviour and invite B Connolley to next call 06/01:B Connolly not available. SF to provide more complete description. 13/01: Stephaine took us through a description of WTX identifiers. Mike agreed to write up in DFDL terms. 20/01: Mike will write up 27/01: further discussion of disciminators 049 20/05 AP Built-in specification description and schemas 03/06: not discussed 24/06: No Progress 24/06: No Progress (hope to get these from test cases) 15/07: No progress. Once available, the examples in the spec should use the dfdl:defineFormat annotations they provide. ... 14/10: no progress 21/10: Discussed the real need for this being in the specification. It seemed that the main value is it define a schema location for downloading 'known' defaults from the web. 28/10: no progress 04/11: no progress 11/11: no update 18/11: no update 25/11: Agreed to try to produce for CSV and fixed formats 04/12: no update 09/12: no update 16/12: no update 23/12: no update 06/01: no progress. If there is no resource to complete this action it can be deferred 13/01:no progress 20/01: no progress 27/01: no progress 064 MB/SH Request WG presentation at OGF 28 25/11: Session requested 04/12: no update 09/12: no update 16/12: SH has changed request to a general session rather tha WG in the hope of attracting more people. 23/12: no update 06/01: not heard anything yet 13/01: no update 20/01: no update 27/01: Session confirmed 066 Investigate format for defining test cases 25/11:IBM to see if it is possible to publish its test case format. 04/12: no update 09/12: no update 16/12: reminded dent to project manager 23/12: SH will send another reminder. 06/01: Another reminder will be sent 13/01: no update 20/01: no update 27/01: no progress 071 Semantics of length=0, nil handling and defaults. 23/12:SH no update 06/01: SH has started 13/01: SH proposal review. Minor updates to be made 20/01: Reviewed updated proposal. Need to agree on unparsing empty choices. 27/01: Steve H had sent update but not discussed due to lack of time 074 SH: Proposal for parsing TLog 27/01: Proposal discussed and agreed to allow delimited for binary packed/bcd fields 075 SH: rewrite empty sequences section 27/01: Steve provide written section 076 SH semantics of minOccurs= 0 on choice branches Closed actions No Action Work items: No Item target version status 005 Improvements on property descriptions not started 012 Reordering the properties discussion: move representation earlier, improve flow of topics not started 036 Update dfdl schema with change properties ongoing 042 Mapping of the DFDL infoset to XDM none not required for V1 specification 069 ICU fractional seconds 039 070 Write DFDL primer 071 Write test cases. 072 it is a processing error if the number of occurrences in the data does not match the value of the expression or prefix 039 073 Rename dfdl:separatorPolicy="required" to "always". 039 Defferred untilaction 071 agreed 078 document UPA checks 039 Regards Alan Powell Development - MQSeries, Message Broker, ESB IBM Software Group, Application and Integration Middleware Software ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBM MP211, Hursley Park Hursley, SO21 2JN United Kingdom Phone: +44-1962-815073 e-mail: alan_powell(a)uk.ibm.com Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

1 0

Invitation: OGF DFDL Working Group extra call (29 Jan 13:00 GMT in Participant Passcode: 8190865 )
by Steve Hanson 28 Jan '10

28 Jan '10

1 0

Fw: [wg-all] OGF28 Registration is now open!
by Steve Hanson 27 Jan '10

27 Jan '10

----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 27/01/2010 16:19 ----- From: Joel Replogle <replogle(a)ogf.org> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 27/01/2010 16:04 Subject: Re: [wg-all] OGF28 Registration is now open! Hi Steve - All the group sessions were accepted, including DFDL. We are working on the schedule and hope to have a draft soon for review. Thanks, Joel From: Joel Replogle <replogle(a)ogf.org> To: wg-all(a)ogf.org Date: 27/01/2010 05:47 Subject: [wg-all] OGF28 Registration is now open! Sent by: wg-all-bounces(a)ogf.org All - I'm pleased to announce that registration for OGF28 is now open! OGF28 will be held at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München in Munich, Germany on March 15-19, 2010. The theme is "The Future of Distributed Computing Infrastructures (DCI)" and will prove to be the premier event relating to DCI, Clouds and Grids in Europe this spring. To register, please visit: http://www.ogf.org/OGF28/registration.php or go directly to the registration site: http://www.interplan.de/reg/2010/OGF10/ See you in Munich! Joel -------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Replogle Executive Director, Open Grid Forum replogle(a)ogf.org http://www.ogf.org -- The wg-all mailing list is an umbrella list for all OGF mailing lists. If you are subscribed to any OGF mailing list, you will receive mails to wg-all. You can unsubscribe from this list on http://www.ogf.org/cgi-bin/perl/unsubscribe-wg-all.pl wg-all mailing list wg-all(a)ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-all Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Replogle Executive Director, Open Grid Forum replogle(a)ogf.org http://www.ogf.org Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

1 0

Uncertainty and Discriminators
by Alan Powell 27 Jan '10

27 Jan '10

There was quite a lot of overlap between the Discriminators document and the previous Resolving Uncertainty document so I merged the two together and incorporated Suman's and Steve's comment. It is a bit of a rushed job but should help the discussion. I didn't have time for examples. Regards Alan Powell Development - MQSeries, Message Broker, ESB IBM Software Group, Application and Integration Middleware Software ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBM MP211, Hursley Park Hursley, SO21 2JN United Kingdom Phone: +44-1962-815073 e-mail: alan_powell(a)uk.ibm.com ----- Forwarded by Alan Powell/UK/IBM on 27/01/2010 12:10 ----- From: Alan Powell/UK/IBM@IBMGB To: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org Date: 26/01/2010 12:59 Subject: [DFDL-WG] Fw: discriminators - such as it is Regards Alan Powell Development - MQSeries, Message Broker, ESB IBM Software Group, Application and Integration Middleware Software ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBM MP211, Hursley Park Hursley, SO21 2JN United Kingdom Phone: +44-1962-815073 e-mail: alan_powell(a)uk.ibm.com ----- Forwarded by Alan Powell/UK/IBM on 26/01/2010 12:59 ----- From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: Alan Powell/UK/IBM@IBMGB Cc: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 21/01/2010 16:12 Subject: discriminators - such as it is Alan, This is where I am with discriminators. I won't have an opportunity to work on this again for a bit, and it's close, though not perfect. In particular, there's a numbered list of points here, and the order of those points is probably not right. ...mikeb Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU [attachment "dfdl-discriminators.doc" deleted by Alan Powell/UK/IBM] -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

2 1

Fw: Fw: discriminators - such as it is
by Suman Kalia 26 Jan '10

26 Jan '10

- some comments / clarifications.. Suman Kalia IBM Toronto Lab WMB Toolkit Architect and Development Lead WebSphere Business Integration Application Connectivity Tools http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/zones/businessintegration/wmb.h… Tel : 905-413-3923 T/L 969-3923 Fax : 905-413-4850 T/L 969-4850 Internet ID : kalia(a)ca.ibm.com ----- Forwarded by Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM on 01/26/2010 06:12 PM ----- From: Alan Powell <alan_powell(a)uk.ibm.com> To: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org Date: 01/26/2010 08:01 AM Subject: [DFDL-WG] Fw: discriminators - such as it is Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org Regards Alan Powell Development - MQSeries, Message Broker, ESB IBM Software Group, Application and Integration Middleware Software ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBM MP211, Hursley Park Hursley, SO21 2JN United Kingdom Phone: +44-1962-815073 e-mail: alan_powell(a)uk.ibm.com ----- Forwarded by Alan Powell/UK/IBM on 26/01/2010 12:59 ----- From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: Alan Powell/UK/IBM@IBMGB Cc: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 21/01/2010 16:12 Subject: discriminators - such as it is Alan, This is where I am with discriminators. I won't have an opportunity to work on this again for a bit, and it's close, though not perfect. In particular, there's a numbered list of points here, and the order of those points is probably not right. ...mikeb Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg

1 0