- dfdl-wg - lists.ogf.org

Analysis of bitOrder and byteOrder (public comment: byteOrder not sufficient to implement MIL-STD-2045-47001D)
by Mike Beckerle 11 Nov '13

11 Nov '13

I have done a fairly thorough analysis of the bit-order issue. Bit order only matters when an element constructs a value from part of a byte, or spans bytes, with a partial byte somewhere on one end, the other, or both. The attached spreadsheet walks through all the cases. Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy<http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php>

1 0

OGF DFDL WG Call Minutes 2013-11-05 - updated
by Steve Hanson 07 Nov '13

07 Nov '13

Please find minutes from the above call at http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13151?download= Minutes updated to cover extra WG call on 2013-11-07. Public Comment for the revised DFDL 1.0 specification is now finished. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM DFDL, Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848

1 0

Count is 14 unresolved/undeferred public comments
by Mike Beckerle 07 Nov '13

07 Nov '13

I just marked some of the simple public comments (like broken links, typos) as Resolved - will fix. I also marked the issues that have action items and are not deferred with "Action NNN" in their subject line. What remains to discuss are 14 public comments that are neither resolved, deferred, nor have action items assigned. Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy<http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php>

1 0

OGF DFDL WG Call Minutes 2013-11-05
by Steve Hanson 06 Nov '13

06 Nov '13

Please find minutes from the above call at http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13151?download= Public Comment for the revised DFDL 1.0 specification is now finished. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM DFDL, Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848

1 0

Public comment 25 / action 227
by Steve Hanson 05 Nov '13

05 Nov '13

Resending with corrections after review.... Erratum 2.100 clarified that such an element has variable length when unparsing. Sections 12.3.7 and dfdl:textPadKind have not been fully updated to make this clear. Attached Word document has marked up changes to correct the above, plus some comments. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 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

1 0

Re: [DFDL-WG] possible editorial issue - Schema Definition Warning
by Cranford, Jonathan W. 05 Nov '13

05 Nov '13

On second thought, instead of a Schema Definition Warning, could this be a recoverable error instead? That is, would the following convey the originally intended meaning better? Note: Unrecognized DFDL properties or property values can produce a recoverable error, and an implementation can attempt to process data despite the error. IIRC, this section on specific errors was added *before* recoverable errors were added to the spec. Thoughts? -Jonathan >-----Original Message----- >From: Cranford, Jonathan W. >Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 8:30 AM >To: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org >Subject: possible editorial issue - Schema Definition Warning > >The phrase "Schema Definition Warning" only occurs once in the published 1.0.4 >spec (without respect to capitalization), in Section 2.6 Specific Errors Classified: > > "Note: Unrecognized DFDL properties or property values can produce a >Schema Definition Warning and an implementation can attempt to process data >despite the warning." > >Is the concept of a Schema Definition Warning a nascent concept already present >in the spec but not well-defined? If so, this might be a minor issue that warrants >an errata. My recommendation would be that Schema Definition Warning be >defined and used consistently throughout the document. > >Otherwise, I recommend that "Schema Definition Warning" be replaced in the >above sentence with simply "warning". In this case, this is probably just an >editorial issue. > >Very respectfully, > >-- >Jonathan W. Cranford >Senior Information Systems Engineer >The MITRE Corporation (http://www.mitre.org)

2 1

possible editorial issue - Schema Definition Warning
by Cranford, Jonathan W. 05 Nov '13

05 Nov '13

The phrase "Schema Definition Warning" only occurs once in the published 1.0.4 spec (without respect to capitalization), in Section 2.6 Specific Errors Classified: "Note: Unrecognized DFDL properties or property values can produce a Schema Definition Warning and an implementation can attempt to process data despite the warning." Is the concept of a Schema Definition Warning a nascent concept already present in the spec but not well-defined? If so, this might be a minor issue that warrants an errata. My recommendation would be that Schema Definition Warning be defined and used consistently throughout the document. Otherwise, I recommend that "Schema Definition Warning" be replaced in the above sentence with simply "warning". In this case, this is probably just an editorial issue. Very respectfully, -- Jonathan W. Cranford Senior Information Systems Engineer The MITRE Corporation (http://www.mitre.org)

1 0

Public comment 25 / action 227
by Steve Hanson 05 Nov '13

05 Nov '13

Erratum 2.100 clarified that such an element has variable length when unparsing. Sections 12.3.7 and dfdl:textPadKind have not been fully updated to make this clear. Attached Word document has marked up changes to correct the above, plus some comments. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 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

1 0

OGF DFDL WG Call Agenda 2013-11-05
by Steve Hanson 05 Nov '13

05 Nov '13

Please find agenda for call on Redmine at http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13151?download= Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848

1 0

IBM DFDL error messages
by Steve Hanson 31 Oct '13

31 Oct '13

IBM is sharing the error messages that it issues for schema definition errors in order to assist other DFDL implementations. Attached are the IBM DFDL model component and validator component error messages. Between them they should cover all SDEs, except those caused by violation of XML 1.0 and base XML Schema 1.0 rules - we just echo what we get back from the EMF code. Notice that the messages all have a consistent structure for the text. However considerable rationalisation is possible if one combines error messages that are essentially the same and use appropriate inserts. If the DFDL WG agrees that is the right thing to do then IBM can do this and re-distribute. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 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

1 0