- dfdl-wg - lists.ogf.org

Fw: questions on setVariable
by Steve Hanson 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

For discussion on today's WG call... 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 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 24/09/2013 14:09 ----- From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM To: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com>, Cc: "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> Date: 11/09/2013 15:36 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] questions on setVariable Mike, I have several email threads that track the original design discussion for action 186. You originally wrote down an algorithm for combining statement annotations into an ordered list, but then the next version scrapped that and proposed the current scheme. I think there must have been some reason for this? Are we just talking setVariable here, or also newVariableInstance and assert as well? If so would the ordering rules be the same within, and across, annotation points? A couple of users have asked about short form versions of statement annotations. Imposing an execution order is not compatible with this. This was discussed in one of the action 186 emails. 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 From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Cc: "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> Date: 11/09/2013 14:48 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] questions on setVariable It is when there is more than one setVariable at one single annotation point that I believe they should definitely execute in lexical order. I am much less worried about across different annotation points that get resolved together which is what the Errata was clarifying. My preference would be this: If an element ref has 2 setVariable statements for variables A, B, and the element declaration has setVariable statements for variables X, Y, then ABXY, AXBY, AXYB, XYAB are all possible interleavings, but A is always before B, and X is always before Y so execution is always consistent with lexical order. I want to just clarify the hole we've left by not being tight enough about specifying the order of this evaluation of setVariables within or across annotation points in a resolved set. I can build a completely non-deterministic schema: <defineVariable name="x" defaultValue="1"/> <defineVariable name="y" defaultValue="2"/> <defineVariable name="z" defaultValue="0"/> <group name="coinFlip"/> <choice> <sequence> <annotation><appinfo> <dfdl:setVariable name="x" value="{ if ($y = 2) then 5/$z else 3 }"/>  <dfdl:setVariable name="y" value="1"/> </appinfo></annotation> <element name="nonLexicalOrder" type="string" dfdl:inputValueCalc="{ '' }"/> </sequence> <element name="lexicalOrder" type="string" dfdl:inputValueCalc="{ '' }"/> </choice> </group> The above group definition illustrates how we can test what order a particular implementation executes these setVariable statements. You get <lexicalOrder/> or <nonLexicalOrder/> depending on what the implementation does. It could even vary from run to run for one implementation if the implementation is using a hash implementation that is using different random seeds at different times. It could even vary within a run, if this group is reused several times in the schema. Now, why would somebody write this, I don't know, but it does illustrate the hole in the spec. Certainly it would be better if DFDL could not express things like this. computing x reads the value of y. If the assignment to y has not yet happened, then we get a processing error when we divide by zero. This can cause backtracking, and the schema will effectively dodge the SDE that is supposed to happen to prevent this sort of assignment-timing stuff. This doesn't fix the problem entirely. I think our current 'non-specification' of the precise order here even across annotation points was a bit of a cop-out. 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 On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: "I think the execution order needs to be specific within the annotations at one annotation point." The problem is that action 186 allowed scenarios like setVariable annotations simultaneously on an element ref, its global element and the element's simple type (*). So there is no longer 'one annotation point', there are multiple. That's when we formalised the concept of a 'resolved set of annotations' for a component, and stated that for all annotations of the same kind (**) in that set, the order of execution is not defined. We also state schema authors can insert sequences to provide more precise control over when annotations are executed. Several reasons for this. Is the lexical order of elements in appinfos, or of multiple appinfos, guaranteed in XSDL? If not then an editor could serialize appinfos or their content in any order. We also wanted to reserve the right to add explicit timing control in the future. And it made implementations easier. IBM DFDL 1.0.3 has been out in the field with this support since 1Q 2013. Tim, can you say what the execution order is for a resolved set of setVariables please? Or can we not tell because of the model? (*) Must be different variables, else SDE. (**) Asserts and discriminators with testKind 'pattern' are a different 'kind' from those with 'expression', for this purpose. 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 From: Suman Kalia <kalia(a)ca.ibm.com> To: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com>, Cc: "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>, "dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org>, Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 10/09/2013 19:23 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] questions on setVariable Mike - In the use case hilited by Jonathan where 2 annotations are defined on the same point. I would suggest the execution order to be based on the lexical order i.e. the order in which annotations appear.. Suman Kalia IBM Canada Lab WMB Toolkit Architect and Development Lead Tel: 905-413-3923 T/L 313-3923 Email: kalia(a)ca.ibm.com For info on Message broker http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/zones/businessintegration/wmb.h… From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com>, Cc: "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>, "dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org> Date: 09/10/2013 02:14 PM Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] questions on setVariable Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org If the first setVariable executes first, that will read variable baz, which will cause the second setVariable to SDE because you cannot set after the variable has been read. I believe this is the right semantics for this schema, because both these setVariable annotations are written at the same annotation point. If the second setVariable executes first, that will assign variable baz, which is OK, then when the first setVariable executes, it will get the value that was just assigned. While the spec says you shouldn't depend on this kind of ordering stuff, I think it is pretty unsatisfactory if the order is unspecified. Section 9.5 lays out the order of the different kinds of statement annotations relative to each other, but doesn't say what happens between two setVariable statements that appear at the same annotation point. I think the execution order needs to be specific within the annotations at one annotation point. 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 On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: 1) I'll let Tim comment more on this but a relative expression uses as its context the current element on the stack. So using '.' on a simple element or its type resolves to the simple element, and using '.' on a complex element or a group child (recursively) of a complex element resolves to the complex element. Same deal when using the '..' parent axis, so beware - as this example shows: <xs:element name="root"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="delim" type="xs:string"/> <xs:element name="body"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence dfdl:separator="{../delim}"> ...and not {../../delim} ! This is all implied by the way XPath works. XPath only knows about elements. 2) I don't see why Jonathan's example could give an SDE. The defineVariables will always be executed first. However the result is ambiguous, depending on the order each setVariable is executed, as 'bar' could end up as 'biff' or 'fooey'. "Schema authors can insert sequences to provide more precise control over when variables are set" - quote from section 9.5.3 (errata 3.25). 3) To Mike's comment, the order of execution of setVariable and newVariableInstance on the same annotation is strictly defined, see section 9.5 (errata 3.25) 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 From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: "Cranford, Jonathan W." <jcranford(a)mitre.org>, Cc: "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> Date: 10/09/2013 18:23 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] questions on setVariable Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org Those are both public-comment-class issues. The issue of what does "." mean in various places is interesting. It is referring to an infoset node, but how to explain exactly which one it is.... The out-of-order issue with evaluation that you mention is definitely an issue. The schema you gave will work or SDE depending on the order of evaluation of the statements and the language is not precise enough to say what the order is. I think the order of the setVariable and newVariableInstance statements at any annotation point, must be linear first to last. The order of setVariable and newVariableInstance combined into the resolved set of annotations, but from multiple annotation points (e.g., an element and a global type definition it references), those can be interleaved in any order. 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 On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Cranford, Jonathan W. < jcranford(a)mitre.org> wrote: These questions may go towards public comment if the answers aren't straight-forward. Section references are against latest editor's draft. · Section 7.9 - 5th paragraph after first example - "A dfdl:setVariable value expression may refer to the value of this element using a relative path value '.'. " Which element? If dfdl:setVariable is attached to a simpleType, then the "element" referred to here is the element of that type, correct? But when it's attached to group reference, sequence, or choice, is it the parent element which contains the group reference, sequence, or choice? · Section 7.9 - next-to-last paragraph: "However, the order of execution among them is not specified." Wouldn't this be ambiguous, then? <xs:schema> <xs:annotation> <xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/"> <xs:defineVariable name="bar" /> <xs:defineVariable name="baz" defaultValue="biff"/> </xs:appinfo> </xs:annotation> ... <xs:element name="foo"> <xs:annotation> <xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/"> <xs:setVariable ref="bar" value="{$tns:baz}"/> <xs:setVariable ref="baz" value="fooey"/> </xs:appinfo> </xs:annotation> </xs:element> ... </xs:schema> If the order of execution isn't specified, isn't it ambiguous whether tns:bar gets the value of "biff" (defaultValue of tns:baz) or "fooey"? Respectfully, -- Jonathan W. Cranford Senior Information Systems Engineer The MITRE Corporation (http://www.mitre.org) -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org https://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 -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org https://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 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

OGF DFDL WG Call Minutes 2013-09-17
by Steve Hanson 18 Sep '13

18 Sep '13

Please find minutes from the above call at http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13123?download= Public Comment The following set are now in Public Comment until 15th October. Revised DFDL 1.0 Specification: https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/117 DFDL Experience Document 1 (Spec Errata): https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/118 DFDL Experience Document 2 (Action 140): https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/119 Please download, review and create comments as necessary. 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

Fw: Time zones with seconds - Re: errata r14.1, and spec internal draft with these integrated in - review #3
by Steve Hanson 17 Sep '13

17 Sep '13

Investigation reveals that XML Schema 1.0 does not allow seconds in time zones anyway. So the spec and erratum 2.121 will be updated to state that for Z, ZZ, ZZZ no seconds are allowed. Public comment raised against spec - http://redmine.ogf.org/boards/15/topics/24. 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 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 17/09/2013 17:48 ----- From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM To: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org, Date: 17/09/2013 15:28 Subject: Fw: Time zones with seconds - Re: errata r14.1, and spec internal draft with these integrated in - review #3 I think my suggestion of not supporting time zones with optional seconds has put us into an inconsistent place. I've just re-read the ICU SimpleDateFormat class entry for Z, reproduced below. I had not spotted that Z, Z, ZZZ now also imply optional seconds, and are equivalent to 'xxxx' which we said we don't support. Z 1..3 -0800 The ISO8601 basic format with hours, minutes and optional seconds fields. The format is equivalent to RFC 822 zone format (when optional seconds field is absent). This is equivalent to the "xxxx" specifier. 4 GMT-8:00 The long localized GMT format. This is equivalent to the "OOOO" specifier. 5 -08:00 -07:52:58 The ISO8601 extended format with hours, minutes and optional seconds fields. The ISO8601 UTC indicator "Z" is used when local time offset is 0. This is equivalent to the "XXXXX" specifier. We've always supported Z (as RFC 822) so we can't now drop Z 1..3. 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 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 17/09/2013 15:21 ----- From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Date: 30/08/2013 00:25 Subject: Re: Time zones with seconds - Re: errata r14.1, and spec internal draft with these integrated in - review #3 Made this change. Also, updated Errata 2.3 (Unsure about the references at the top of that errata description. 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 On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: Agreed that the ICU symbol combinations below that include optional seconds will not be supported in DFDL 1.0. Erratum 2.121 will be updated. 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 From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Cc: "Cranford, Jonathan W." <jcranford(a)mitre.org>, Suman Kalia < kalia(a)ca.ibm.com>, Tim Kimber/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 24/08/2013 04:04 Subject: Time zones with seconds - Re: errata r14.1, and spec internal draft with these integrated in - review #3 One question - do we really need to support time zones with seconds? If we think this is not needed then we could drop ZZZZZ, xxxx, xxxxx, XXXX, XXXXX, and stick with standard ISO8601. I would be happy to remove these, and I have no clue the meaning or use of a time zone with seconds. I have edited in the other ICU calendar pattern review comments, but this is outstanding. Let's close on this on next WG call. 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 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

Fw: Time zones with seconds - Re: errata r14.1, and spec internal draft with these integrated in - review #3
by Steve Hanson 17 Sep '13

17 Sep '13

I think my suggestion of not supporting time zones with optional seconds has put us into an inconsistent place. I've just re-read the ICU SimpleDateFormat class entry for Z, reproduced below. I had not spotted that Z, Z, ZZZ now also imply optional seconds, and are equivalent to 'xxxx' which we said we don't support. Z 1..3 -0800 The ISO8601 basic format with hours, minutes and optional seconds fields. The format is equivalent to RFC 822 zone format (when optional seconds field is absent). This is equivalent to the "xxxx" specifier. 4 GMT-8:00 The long localized GMT format. This is equivalent to the "OOOO" specifier. 5 -08:00 -07:52:58 The ISO8601 extended format with hours, minutes and optional seconds fields. The ISO8601 UTC indicator "Z" is used when local time offset is 0. This is equivalent to the "XXXXX" specifier. We've always supported Z (as RFC 822) so we can't now drop Z 1..3. 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 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 17/09/2013 15:21 ----- From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Date: 30/08/2013 00:25 Subject: Re: Time zones with seconds - Re: errata r14.1, and spec internal draft with these integrated in - review #3 Made this change. Also, updated Errata 2.3 (Unsure about the references at the top of that errata description. 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 On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: Agreed that the ICU symbol combinations below that include optional seconds will not be supported in DFDL 1.0. Erratum 2.121 will be updated. 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 From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Cc: "Cranford, Jonathan W." <jcranford(a)mitre.org>, Suman Kalia < kalia(a)ca.ibm.com>, Tim Kimber/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 24/08/2013 04:04 Subject: Time zones with seconds - Re: errata r14.1, and spec internal draft with these integrated in - review #3 One question - do we really need to support time zones with seconds? If we think this is not needed then we could drop ZZZZZ, xxxx, xxxxx, XXXX, XXXXX, and stick with standard ISO8601. I would be happy to remove these, and I have no clue the meaning or use of a time zone with seconds. I have edited in the other ICU calendar pattern review comments, but this is outstanding. Let's close on this on next WG call. 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

Re: [DFDL-WG] OGF DFDL WG Call Agenda 2013-09-17
by Steve Hanson 17 Sep '13

17 Sep '13

The call is at 16:00 UK which is 11am Eastern (5 hours difference). 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 From: "David E. Martin" <martinde(a)northwestern.edu> To: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill(a)ttu.edu>, Cc: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>, "Cranford, Jonathan W." <jcranford(a)mitre.org>, Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle(a)tresys.com>, Greg Newby <gbnewby(a)alaska.edu> Date: 17/09/2013 15:19 Subject: Re: OGF DFDL WG Call Agenda 2013-09-17 I believe the call is at 11AM CDT. -David On 9/17/13 9:05 AM, Sill, Alan wrote: > I'm connected now to the conference numb er your provided. > > Alan > > On Sep 17, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> > wrote: > >> Please find agenda for call on Redmine at http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13123?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 >> 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 2013-09-17
by Steve Hanson 17 Sep '13

17 Sep '13

Please find agenda for call on Redmine at http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13123?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

2 1

Re: [DFDL-WG] Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification
by Sill, Alan 16 Sep '13

16 Sep '13

Thanks, Greg. Steve, that link to the Editor project is http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/editor You may be interested in pointing your members to the overall description of the different types of OGF documents and their use, along with various other useful links including copies of the document template that include the latest IPR boilerplate, at the link below. http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/editor/wiki/About_OGF_Documents I recommend that everyone involved read this page. As we are meeting for the GFSG this coming Sunday in Madrid, getting something in front of us that we can act on then, at least to get the review process started, would be the most expeditious way to proceed. Hope this helps, Alan On Sep 12, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Greg Newby <gbnewby(a)alaska.edu> wrote: > Understood, and no problem for pre-allocating a number. Would you > please make a new tracker in the Editor pipeline, so I can put the number > there? That's where we keep track of assigned numbers. It's ok > if you don't add the draft document yet. > > The idea of an expedited review process seems reasonable to me. Once > we have the document, we can bring that suggestion to the GFSG for > their decision on how to handle it. I'm sure they'll be receptive. > > -- Greg > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 09:52:23AM +0100, Steve Hanson wrote: >> Greg >> >> GFD.152 implies that there is a 15-day GFSG review followed by a 60-day >> public comment period. We had a public comment period for GFD.174, and the >> changes in the revision are based on actual experience from implementers >> and users. I would question whether the public comment period is >> necessary for the revision, and request that the revision just undergoes >> the 15-day GFSG review. There will no doubt be a few more errata as >> implementations progress further, and so we anticipate one more revision >> at some point in the future, and that is the revision that would move to >> full Grid Recommendation. >> >> We are on a tight schedule and want to publish by end of September. We >> have users eagerly awaiting the appearance of the revision, and to publish >> an internal WG draft is not appropriate (IBM product infocenters embed the >> HTML rendering of the spec so needs to be official document). >> >> We requested the GFD number simply so that Mike Beckerle can complete the >> document edits. The document pushes the boundaries of MS Word and I think >> Mike also uses an additional plugin, so edits are best done by him. >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> From: Greg Newby <gbnewby(a)alaska.edu> >> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, >> Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill(a)ttu.edu>, "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" >> <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>, "David E. Martin" <martinde(a)northwestern.edu> >> Date: 11/09/2013 21:07 >> Subject: Re: Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification >> >> >> >> Steve, >> >> Is this document in the editor pipeline somewhere? I'm >> not seeing it: >> https://redmine.ogf.org/projects/editor/issues >> >> Usually we wait until a document has undergone most of the >> review process (per GFD #152) before assigning a GFD number. >> If you have a reason to need one sooner, we can allocate >> one sooner. The usual practice, though, is to wait until >> publication is imminent. >> >> We're looking forward to these revisions to #174. >> -- Greg >> >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 06:08:36PM +0100, Steve Hanson wrote: >>> Alan, Greg >>> >>> Please can you allocate us a new GFD number so we can complete the >>> document? >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill(a)ttu.edu> >>> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, >>> Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill(a)ttu.edu>, "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" >>> <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>, Greg Newby <gbnewby(a)alaska.edu>, "David E. Martin" >>> <martinde(a)northwestern.edu> >>> Date: 11/09/2013 15:49 >>> Subject: Re: Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 11, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> When you say 'new version' what does that imply about version numbers? >> >>> The WG still considers what we are working on to be DFDL 1.0 plus >> errata. >>> Are you suggesting that the new revision is 1.1 ? >>> >>> OGF doesn't generally have a concept or framework for revision numbers >> for >>> specifications. Some working groups do number their specifications, and >> we >>> leave this to the work group to manage. >>> >>> The process of obsoleting and replacing a document does give a good >>> opportunity for changing an internally-managed revision number. >>> >>> Regarding the next DFDL call, this will be during OGF 39. I could try to >> >>> join, but that time overlaps one of the sessions that I should attend. >>> Perhaps David or Greg (or both) could attend your call at 16:00 Tues >> 17th >>> September? If so, please provide details. We'll be happy to >> communicate >>> with you as much as possible on this topic before then, of course. >>> >>> Alan >>> >>> >>> ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 11/09/2013 16:35 ----- >>> >>> From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM >>> To: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill(a)ttu.edu>, >>> Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill(a)ttu.edu>, "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" >>> <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>, Greg Newby <gbnewby(a)alaska.edu>, "David E. Martin" >>> <martinde(a)northwestern.edu> >>> Date: 11/09/2013 15:08 >>> Subject: Re: Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification >>> >>> >>> Alan >>> >>> Thanks for your reply. I forgot to say that the next call is on Tues >> 17th >>> September. >>> >>> I think that the WG would probably go for your 2nd suggestion, ie, >> publish >>> an updated P_REC that obsoletes GFD.174 but does not yet propose to >>> promote the spec to full recommendation status, because we know there >> are >>> a few more errata that will be discovered before the implementations are >> >>> completed. >>> >>> When you say 'new version' what does that imply about version numbers? >> The >>> WG still considers what we are working on to be DFDL 1.0 plus errata. >> Are >>> you suggesting that the new revision is 1.1 ? >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill(a)ttu.edu> >>> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "David E. Martin" >>> <martinde(a)northwestern.edu>, >>> Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill(a)ttu.edu>, "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" >>> <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>, Greg Newby <gbnewby(a)alaska.edu> >>> Date: 11/09/2013 14:51 >>> Subject: Re: Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification >>> >>> >>> >>> Steve, >>> >>> Answers inline. Short summary: My recommendation would be to publish a >> new >>> version that obsoletes the current GFD.174, and optionally to use this >>> opportunity to migrate the specification from a P-REC to full REC >> status. >>> This would be facilitated by documenting, in any form that is convenient >> >>> including but not limited to an informational GFD, the experience gained >> >>> from implementations to date. Another option is to publish an updated >>> P_REC that obsoletes GFD.174 but does not yet propose to promote the >> spec >>> to full recommendation status. >>> >>> On Sep 11, 2013, at 6:47 AM, Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Alan >>>> >>>> Since the DFDL 1.0 specification was published in Feb 2011, the two >>> implementation teams (IBM and the Daffodil project) have identified a >>> number of errata in the specification. These have been recorded in an >>> errata document held on Redmine. The number of errata is currently at >>> around 190, and include both clarifications to the specification and >>> changes that affect an implementation, both major and minor. Typically >> as >>> errata have been raised, the implementation teams include any implied >>> changes in the next release of their implementation. >>> >>> Is there any documentation as to the experience gained from >>> implementations that has led to these updates? I as not as an OGF >>> requirement, but just for information. >>> >>>> Both implementation teams, and users of the two implementations, have >>> requested that the DFDL 1.0 specification is revised to include all >> errata >>> to date, so that the specification more closely reflects the >>> implementations. Accordingly all errata to date have been incorporated >>> into a new revision of the specification, which as a result has grown >> from >>> 168 pages to 234 pages. >>>> >>>> This new revision of the specification supersedes the original. >>> >>> This statement is what leads to my suggestion to publish a new document. >> >>> Note that our procedures do allow for replacement of a REC or P-REC for >>> non-normative changes that do not substantially affect compatibility of >>> implementations, but that just clarify or correct errors in the original >> >>> publication. It is the statement that the new revision supersedes the >>> original coupled with your earlier observation that major implementation >> >>> issues are addressed in your new version that causes me to suggest that >>> you pursue a new GFD that obsoletes the old one. >>> >>>> There is no implementation that exactly reflects the original as >>> published on the OGF web site, they both adhere more closely to the new >>> revision. The DFDL WG would therefore like to publish the new revision. >>> The DFDL WG also recognises that there may be comments against the new >>> revision, and that there may still be some errata undetected by the >>> implementation teams, so that a further revision may be necessary in the >> >>> future. Nonetheless it is important that the new revision in its current >> >>> form is externally visible, and not just kept as an internal working >>> document, as there are now many dozens of DFDL users, and they need an >>> up-to-date specification. In particular, IBM DFDL wants to ship the HTML >> >>> version of the new revision to IBM customers in its next release. >>>> >>>> We are looking to the OGF for guidance on how next to proceed. >>> >>> My guidance would be to publish a new version that obsoletes the old >> one, >>> and optionally to use this opportunity to advance the specification from >> >>> P-REC to REC status. Note that this is exactly the pattern that OGF >>> documents are supposed to follow in the life cycle described in GFD.152 >> -- >>> experience gained fro real-world implementation is fed back to produce a >> >>> new version of the specification, which at some point can declare itself >> >>> to be mature enough to request full REC status. >>> >>> As for further revisions, they would be handled by the procedure I >>> mentioned above: non-normative changes can be folded in as corrections >>> through the errata process. THis is controlled by the OGF editor (Greg >>> Newby) and whether to accept and publish an errata is decided >> essentially >>> entirely by his recommendation to the GFSG (Standards Council) to do so. >> >>> If the changes would affect the interoperability of implementations >>> written to the earlier spec in a substantial way, they should be handled >> >>> by the process of a new publication that obsoletes the old one, as we >> have >>> just discussed. >>> >>> The process of going from a P-REC to a REC is largely decoupled from >>> errata revisions, but as I have tried to point out, you may be in a >>> position do do this at thei point - especially if the group were to >>> publish its experiences with the spec as one or more informational >>> documents to provide a paper trail motivating the proposed changes. >> (This >>> part is your choice on how to produce the documentation, which does not >>> have to be in the form of a GFD but can and often is done this way. The >>> experiences of each group can be jointly or separately documented, at >> your >>> group's choice.) >>> >>>> Would it be possible for the OGF to join our next DFDL WG call to >>> discuss further? The call is at 16:00 UK (11:00 Eastern). >>> >>> If today, I can do this if you provide connection details. I include >> David >>> Martin in this reply in case he is available. >>> >>> Alan >>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >> >> >> >> 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

3 5

Re: [DFDL-WG] Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification
by Steve Hanson 12 Sep '13

12 Sep '13

Greg GFD.152 implies that there is a 15-day GFSG review followed by a 60-day public comment period. We had a public comment period for GFD.174, and the changes in the revision are based on actual experience from implementers and users. I would question whether the public comment period is necessary for the revision, and request that the revision just undergoes the 15-day GFSG review. There will no doubt be a few more errata as implementations progress further, and so we anticipate one more revision at some point in the future, and that is the revision that would move to full Grid Recommendation. We are on a tight schedule and want to publish by end of September. We have users eagerly awaiting the appearance of the revision, and to publish an internal WG draft is not appropriate (IBM product infocenters embed the HTML rendering of the spec so needs to be official document). We requested the GFD number simply so that Mike Beckerle can complete the document edits. The document pushes the boundaries of MS Word and I think Mike also uses an additional plugin, so edits are best done by him. 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 From: Greg Newby <gbnewby(a)alaska.edu> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill(a)ttu.edu>, "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>, "David E. Martin" <martinde(a)northwestern.edu> Date: 11/09/2013 21:07 Subject: Re: Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification Steve, Is this document in the editor pipeline somewhere? I'm not seeing it: https://redmine.ogf.org/projects/editor/issues Usually we wait until a document has undergone most of the review process (per GFD #152) before assigning a GFD number. If you have a reason to need one sooner, we can allocate one sooner. The usual practice, though, is to wait until publication is imminent. We're looking forward to these revisions to #174. -- Greg On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 06:08:36PM +0100, Steve Hanson wrote: > Alan, Greg > > Please can you allocate us a new GFD number so we can complete the > document? > > 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 > > > > From: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill(a)ttu.edu> > To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, > Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill(a)ttu.edu>, "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" > <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>, Greg Newby <gbnewby(a)alaska.edu>, "David E. Martin" > <martinde(a)northwestern.edu> > Date: 11/09/2013 15:49 > Subject: Re: Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification > > > > > On Sep 11, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> > wrote: > > > When you say 'new version' what does that imply about version numbers? > The WG still considers what we are working on to be DFDL 1.0 plus errata. > Are you suggesting that the new revision is 1.1 ? > > OGF doesn't generally have a concept or framework for revision numbers for > specifications. Some working groups do number their specifications, and we > leave this to the work group to manage. > > The process of obsoleting and replacing a document does give a good > opportunity for changing an internally-managed revision number. > > Regarding the next DFDL call, this will be during OGF 39. I could try to > join, but that time overlaps one of the sessions that I should attend. > Perhaps David or Greg (or both) could attend your call at 16:00 Tues 17th > September? If so, please provide details. We'll be happy to communicate > with you as much as possible on this topic before then, of course. > > Alan > > > ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 11/09/2013 16:35 ----- > > From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM > To: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill(a)ttu.edu>, > Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill(a)ttu.edu>, "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" > <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>, Greg Newby <gbnewby(a)alaska.edu>, "David E. Martin" > <martinde(a)northwestern.edu> > Date: 11/09/2013 15:08 > Subject: Re: Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification > > > Alan > > Thanks for your reply. I forgot to say that the next call is on Tues 17th > September. > > I think that the WG would probably go for your 2nd suggestion, ie, publish > an updated P_REC that obsoletes GFD.174 but does not yet propose to > promote the spec to full recommendation status, because we know there are > a few more errata that will be discovered before the implementations are > completed. > > When you say 'new version' what does that imply about version numbers? The > WG still considers what we are working on to be DFDL 1.0 plus errata. Are > you suggesting that the new revision is 1.1 ? > > 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 > > > > From: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill(a)ttu.edu> > To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "David E. Martin" > <martinde(a)northwestern.edu>, > Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill(a)ttu.edu>, "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" > <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>, Greg Newby <gbnewby(a)alaska.edu> > Date: 11/09/2013 14:51 > Subject: Re: Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification > > > > Steve, > > Answers inline. Short summary: My recommendation would be to publish a new > version that obsoletes the current GFD.174, and optionally to use this > opportunity to migrate the specification from a P-REC to full REC status. > This would be facilitated by documenting, in any form that is convenient > including but not limited to an informational GFD, the experience gained > from implementations to date. Another option is to publish an updated > P_REC that obsoletes GFD.174 but does not yet propose to promote the spec > to full recommendation status. > > On Sep 11, 2013, at 6:47 AM, Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> > wrote: > > > Alan > > > > Since the DFDL 1.0 specification was published in Feb 2011, the two > implementation teams (IBM and the Daffodil project) have identified a > number of errata in the specification. These have been recorded in an > errata document held on Redmine. The number of errata is currently at > around 190, and include both clarifications to the specification and > changes that affect an implementation, both major and minor. Typically as > errata have been raised, the implementation teams include any implied > changes in the next release of their implementation. > > Is there any documentation as to the experience gained from > implementations that has led to these updates? I as not as an OGF > requirement, but just for information. > > > Both implementation teams, and users of the two implementations, have > requested that the DFDL 1.0 specification is revised to include all errata > to date, so that the specification more closely reflects the > implementations. Accordingly all errata to date have been incorporated > into a new revision of the specification, which as a result has grown from > 168 pages to 234 pages. > > > > This new revision of the specification supersedes the original. > > This statement is what leads to my suggestion to publish a new document. > Note that our procedures do allow for replacement of a REC or P-REC for > non-normative changes that do not substantially affect compatibility of > implementations, but that just clarify or correct errors in the original > publication. It is the statement that the new revision supersedes the > original coupled with your earlier observation that major implementation > issues are addressed in your new version that causes me to suggest that > you pursue a new GFD that obsoletes the old one. > > > There is no implementation that exactly reflects the original as > published on the OGF web site, they both adhere more closely to the new > revision. The DFDL WG would therefore like to publish the new revision. > The DFDL WG also recognises that there may be comments against the new > revision, and that there may still be some errata undetected by the > implementation teams, so that a further revision may be necessary in the > future. Nonetheless it is important that the new revision in its current > form is externally visible, and not just kept as an internal working > document, as there are now many dozens of DFDL users, and they need an > up-to-date specification. In particular, IBM DFDL wants to ship the HTML > version of the new revision to IBM customers in its next release. > > > > We are looking to the OGF for guidance on how next to proceed. > > My guidance would be to publish a new version that obsoletes the old one, > and optionally to use this opportunity to advance the specification from > P-REC to REC status. Note that this is exactly the pattern that OGF > documents are supposed to follow in the life cycle described in GFD.152 -- > experience gained fro real-world implementation is fed back to produce a > new version of the specification, which at some point can declare itself > to be mature enough to request full REC status. > > As for further revisions, they would be handled by the procedure I > mentioned above: non-normative changes can be folded in as corrections > through the errata process. THis is controlled by the OGF editor (Greg > Newby) and whether to accept and publish an errata is decided essentially > entirely by his recommendation to the GFSG (Standards Council) to do so. > If the changes would affect the interoperability of implementations > written to the earlier spec in a substantial way, they should be handled > by the process of a new publication that obsoletes the old one, as we have > just discussed. > > The process of going from a P-REC to a REC is largely decoupled from > errata revisions, but as I have tried to point out, you may be in a > position do do this at thei point - especially if the group were to > publish its experiences with the spec as one or more informational > documents to provide a paper trail motivating the proposed changes. (This > part is your choice on how to produce the documentation, which does not > have to be in the form of a GFD but can and often is done this way. The > experiences of each group can be jointly or separately documented, at your > group's choice.) > > > Would it be possible for the OGF to join our next DFDL WG call to > discuss further? The call is at 16:00 UK (11:00 Eastern). > > If today, I can do this if you provide connection details. I include David > Martin in this reply in case he is available. > > Alan > > > 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 > > > > 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 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] Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification
by Steve Hanson 11 Sep '13

11 Sep '13

Alan Thanks for your reply. I forgot to say that the next call is on Tues 17th September. I think that the WG would probably go for your 2nd suggestion, ie, publish an updated P_REC that obsoletes GFD.174 but does not yet propose to promote the spec to full recommendation status, because we know there are a few more errata that will be discovered before the implementations are completed. When you say 'new version' what does that imply about version numbers? The WG still considers what we are working on to be DFDL 1.0 plus errata. Are you suggesting that the new revision is 1.1 ? 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 From: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill(a)ttu.edu> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "David E. Martin" <martinde(a)northwestern.edu>, Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill(a)ttu.edu>, "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>, Greg Newby <gbnewby(a)alaska.edu> Date: 11/09/2013 14:51 Subject: Re: Latest draft of DFDL 1.0 specification Steve, Answers inline. Short summary: My recommendation would be to publish a new version that obsoletes the current GFD.174, and optionally to use this opportunity to migrate the specification from a P-REC to full REC status. This would be facilitated by documenting, in any form that is convenient including but not limited to an informational GFD, the experience gained from implementations to date. Another option is to publish an updated P_REC that obsoletes GFD.174 but does not yet propose to promote the spec to full recommendation status. On Sep 11, 2013, at 6:47 AM, Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: > Alan > > Since the DFDL 1.0 specification was published in Feb 2011, the two implementation teams (IBM and the Daffodil project) have identified a number of errata in the specification. These have been recorded in an errata document held on Redmine. The number of errata is currently at around 190, and include both clarifications to the specification and changes that affect an implementation, both major and minor. Typically as errata have been raised, the implementation teams include any implied changes in the next release of their implementation. Is there any documentation as to the experience gained from implementations that has led to these updates? I as not as an OGF requirement, but just for information. > Both implementation teams, and users of the two implementations, have requested that the DFDL 1.0 specification is revised to include all errata to date, so that the specification more closely reflects the implementations. Accordingly all errata to date have been incorporated into a new revision of the specification, which as a result has grown from 168 pages to 234 pages. > > This new revision of the specification supersedes the original. This statement is what leads to my suggestion to publish a new document. Note that our procedures do allow for replacement of a REC or P-REC for non-normative changes that do not substantially affect compatibility of implementations, but that just clarify or correct errors in the original publication. It is the statement that the new revision supersedes the original coupled with your earlier observation that major implementation issues are addressed in your new version that causes me to suggest that you pursue a new GFD that obsoletes the old one. > There is no implementation that exactly reflects the original as published on the OGF web site, they both adhere more closely to the new revision. The DFDL WG would therefore like to publish the new revision. The DFDL WG also recognises that there may be comments against the new revision, and that there may still be some errata undetected by the implementation teams, so that a further revision may be necessary in the future. Nonetheless it is important that the new revision in its current form is externally visible, and not just kept as an internal working document, as there are now many dozens of DFDL users, and they need an up-to-date specification. In particular, IBM DFDL wants to ship the HTML version of the new revision to IBM customers in its next release. > > We are looking to the OGF for guidance on how next to proceed. My guidance would be to publish a new version that obsoletes the old one, and optionally to use this opportunity to advance the specification from P-REC to REC status. Note that this is exactly the pattern that OGF documents are supposed to follow in the life cycle described in GFD.152 -- experience gained fro real-world implementation is fed back to produce a new version of the specification, which at some point can declare itself to be mature enough to request full REC status. As for further revisions, they would be handled by the procedure I mentioned above: non-normative changes can be folded in as corrections through the errata process. THis is controlled by the OGF editor (Greg Newby) and whether to accept and publish an errata is decided essentially entirely by his recommendation to the GFSG (Standards Council) to do so. If the changes would affect the interoperability of implementations written to the earlier spec in a substantial way, they should be handled by the process of a new publication that obsoletes the old one, as we have just discussed. The process of going from a P-REC to a REC is largely decoupled from errata revisions, but as I have tried to point out, you may be in a position do do this at thei point - especially if the group were to publish its experiences with the spec as one or more informational documents to provide a paper trail motivating the proposed changes. (This part is your choice on how to produce the documentation, which does not have to be in the form of a GFD but can and often is done this way. The experiences of each group can be jointly or separately documented, at your group's choice.) > Would it be possible for the OGF to join our next DFDL WG call to discuss further? The call is at 16:00 UK (11:00 Eastern). If today, I can do this if you provide connection details. I include David Martin in this reply in case he is available. Alan > 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 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 2

questions on setVariable
by Cranford, Jonathan W. 11 Sep '13

11 Sep '13

These questions may go towards public comment if the answers aren't straight-forward. Section references are against latest editor's draft. * Section 7.9 - 5th paragraph after first example - "A dfdl:setVariable value expression may refer to the value of this element using a relative path value '.'. " Which element? If dfdl:setVariable is attached to a simpleType, then the "element" referred to here is the element of that type, correct? But when it's attached to group reference, sequence, or choice, is it the parent element which contains the group reference, sequence, or choice? * Section 7.9 - next-to-last paragraph: "However, the order of execution among them is not specified." Wouldn't this be ambiguous, then? <xs:schema> <xs:annotation> <xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/"> <xs:defineVariable name="bar" /> <xs:defineVariable name="baz" defaultValue="biff"/> </xs:appinfo> </xs:annotation> ... <xs:element name="foo"> <xs:annotation> <xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/"> <xs:setVariable ref="bar" value="{$tns:baz}"/> <xs:setVariable ref="baz" value="fooey"/> </xs:appinfo> </xs:annotation> </xs:element> ... </xs:schema> If the order of execution isn't specified, isn't it ambiguous whether tns:bar gets the value of "biff" (defaultValue of tns:baz) or "fooey"? Respectfully, -- Jonathan W. Cranford Senior Information Systems Engineer The MITRE Corporation (http://www.mitre.org)

5 10