- dfdl-wg - lists.ogf.org

Variable definitions in the defineFormat block
by Suman Kalia 16 Jun '09

16 Jun '09

Alan/Steve - Changes after our meeting this morning (June 16, 2009) Define a variable format block just like we define textNumberFormat. The variable block could be at schema level but preferably should be defined within the defineFormat definition so that variables are scoped to format definition and do not pollute the schema namespace.. Variable block is referenced from dfdl:format annotation just like textNumberFormat block is referenced through textNumberFormatRef annotation. It addresses the problem hilited today in the meeting related to semantics of dfdl:ref="myFormat" annotation on a xsd constructs. The net effect of this annotation is as if the dfdl:format annotation (along with the attribute settings) is specified explicitly on the xsd construct. By providing a level of indirection and referencing variable block through varRef annotations, we have permitted visibility to variables but not to the definition of variables. Excerpts from MyEnvelopeFormat.xsd - attached for perusal.. Also attached is the PI for the example ( see updated xsd files under the folder enveloper_skk) <xsd:annotation> <xsd:appinfo source="http://dataformat.org/"> <dfdl:defineFormat name="MyEnvelopeFormat" baseFormat="dfdlDefaultFormat:defaultFormat" >  <dfdl:format byteOrder="big-Endian" varRef="./MyEnvelopeFormatVariables"/>      <dfdl:defineVariableBlock name="MyEnvelopeFormatVariables"> <dfdl:defineVariable name="sep" type= "string" /> <dfdl:defineVariable name="enc" type= "string" /> <dfdl:defineVariable name= "outputDirPathSep" type="string" default="/" use="output" /> <dfdl:defineVariable name="outputMsgKind" type="string" use="output" /> <dfdl:defineVariable name="inputMsgKind" type="string" use="input" /> </dfdl:defineVariableBlock> </dfdl:defineFormat> </xsd:appinfo> </xsd:annotation> 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

1 0

Fw: Minute for OGF DFDL Working Group Calls, June 8-10 2009 ( Action item 042)
by Suman Kalia 15 Jun '09

15 Jun '09

Alan, >>> SKK proposed scoping by putting dfdl:defineVariable within a dfdl:defineFormat.. Will update the file path example to illustrate the design. Attached is the original example re-worked by defining variables in the define format.. -- directory enveloper_skk contains the xsds based on the proposal.. 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 06/15/2009 04:40 PM ----- From: Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> To: Alan Powell <alan_powell(a)uk.ibm.com> Cc: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org, dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org Date: 06/12/2009 09:30 AM Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Minute for OGF DFDL Working Group Calls, June 8-10 2009 Alan Thanks for writing up the three days worth of discussions. A couple of small corrections: 1) Peter Lambros & Tim Kimber took part in some of the calls. 2) Action 028 Variable Markup The uses cases for variable markup are: a) Case insensitivity of data (eg, true & TRUE for text boolean) b) Case insensitivity of markup (eg, hdr & HDR for initiator) c) Different possible values for non-white space markup (eg, @ and # for separator) d) Different possible values for data (eg, true & yes for text boolean) e) Encoding of markup different to encoding of data (eg, initiator and terminator different to data) SH proposed a solution to each of these that did not require variable markup recursive use of DFDL see email 9/6/2009. After discussion so minor changes were agreed and will be documented. Variable markup recursive use of DFDL will not be supported for markup in DFDL v1 (it is used for dfdl:prefixLengthType property still) 3) Action 043 Types in the infoset. It was agreed that the types in the infoset will be schema the built-in types. When parsing, sufficient checking validation occurs to ensure the data can be converted to the built-in type. Rules have been defined for the valid data representations for each built-in type. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 Alan Powell/UK/IBM@IBMGB Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org 11/06/2009 15:43 To dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org cc Subject [DFDL-WG] Minute for OGF DFDL Working Group Calls, June 8-10 2009 Open Grid Forum: Data Format Description Language Working Group OGF DFDL Working Group Calls, June 8-10 2009 These minutes cover the series of meetings and calls which took place June 8-10 2009 Meeting opened, 14:00 UK Attendees Steve Hanson (IBM) Mike Beckerle (Oco) Suman Kalia (IBM) Alan Powell (IBM) Stephanie Fetzer (IBM) Apologies Agenda: Action 026 Envelopes and payloads It is expected that an xs:choice will be the way that payloads are defined in an envelope. xs:any support, as currently defined is not sufficient for this purpose (see action 050). There will be no support for dynamic binding of envelope and payload at runtime. Markup define in the data is covered under action 042 Variables Action 027 Property Precedence Tables are being updated to incorporate recent decisions. Action 028 Variable Markup The uses cases for variable markup are: a) Case insensitivity of data (eg, true & TRUE for text boolean) b) Case insensitivity of markup (eg, hdr & HDR for initiator) c) Different possible values for non-white space markup (eg, @ and # for separator) d) Different possible values for data (eg, true & yes for text boolean) e) Encoding of markup different to encoding of data (eg, initiator and terminator different to data) SH proposed a solution to each of these that did not require variable markup see email 9/6/2009. After discussion so minor changes were agreed and will be documented. Variable markup will not be supported in DFDL v1 Action 029 valueCalc SH and AP proposed that a new xpath function ( or new parameter on dfdl:length) that gave the representation length of an element without padding or truncation being applied allowed all the uses cases to be supported. The meaning of the various lengthKinds is unchanged. In particular lengthKind='explicit' always gets the length from the dfdl:length property on parsing and unparsing even when it is an expression. If the expression gets the length from a previous data field then the new function can be used to ensure that the field contains the correct length. MB to update description MB to update grammar diagrams to add padding fields. Action 042 Variables. The uses cases for variables are 1. Extracting syntax data fields 2. As an indicator to identify Payload 3. As an easier way to set bits in bitmap 4. As the way dfdl properties can be set from outside the parser. And the following aspects need to be defined Scoping of defineVariable naming/namespaces - include/import Unparsing Variable Type - enums Multiple setVariables in loops etc SKK proposed scoping by putting dfdl:defineVariable within a dfdl:defineFormat.. Will update the file path example to illustrate the design. Action 043 Types in the infoset. It was agreed that the types in the infoset will be schema the built-in types. Sufficient validation occurs to ensure the data can be converted to the built-in type. Rules have been defined the valid data representations for each built-in type. Action 042 Scoping for non-format annotations Scoping rules have been defined and agreed. Awaiting the resolution of defineVariable discussion Action 050 xs:any Support The support for xs:any is currently limited to allowing initiated string fields which is very limited. Support should be either dropped or extended to allow complex content. It is proposed that xs:any is dropped from dfdl V1. Implement concerns with current scoping rules. Concerns have been raised that the current scoping rules make it difficult to design good implementations. In particular it is difficult for an editor to be able to should which dfdl properties are set on an element without extensive tree walking. A dfdl schema validator would not be able to tell the context where global components where reused to global components would have to be valid in their own right. A number of possible solutions were discussed including removing scoping and introducing dfdl:schema wide defaults. A proposal to keep scoping but modify the rules was the favoured option. MB to document. Next call 16 and 17th June 14:00 UK Scheduled for 2 hours Meeting closed, 16:30 UK Actions raised at this meeting No Action 051 Scoping rules. MB: to document change to scoping rules to satisfy implementation concerns Current Actions: No Action 012 AP/SH: Update decimalCalendarScheme 10/9: Not allocated yet 17/9: No update 24/9: Add calendar binary formats to actions 22/10: No progress 16/1: proposal distributed and discussed. Will be redistributed 21/1: add locale, 04/02: changed from locale to specific properties 18/2: Need more investigation of ICU strict/lax behaviour. 08/04: Not discussed 22/04: AP to complete asap once the ICU strict/lax behaviour is understood. 29/04: No progress 06/05: No progress 13/05: Calendar has been added to latest spec version v034 but still a few details to clarify. 20/05: No Progress 27/05: No Progress 03/06: No Progress (low priority) 09/06: No Progress (low priority) 026 SH: Envelopes and Payloads 08/04: Not discussed explicity, but recursive use of DFDL is tied up with this 22/04: Two aspects. Firstly compositional - do sufficient mechanisms exist to model an envelope with a payload that varies. Secondly markup syntax - this might be defined in the envelope. The second of these is very much tied up with the variable markup action 028, so will be considered there. SH to verify the composition aspect. 29/04: SH and AP working on proposal. related to Action 028 06/05: No progress 06/05: No progress 20/05: No Progress 27/05: Still a number of aspects to be decided. - Compostion - Does the envelope and payload need to be defined in the same schema or should they be dynamically bound at runtime? - Compostion- How is a variable payload specified. Choice or xs:any; New action raised to discuss xs:any - extracting dymanic syntax from data. Covered by action 029 valuecalc. 03/06: Dynamic runtime binding will not be supported. SH investigating use of variables to enable standalone and use in envelope of global element. 09/06: Payload should be specified using a choice rather than xs:any 027 SH: Property precedence tables 08/04: Not discussed 22/04: Two things missing from the existing precedence trees. Firstly, does not show alternates (eg, initiator v initiatorkind). Secondly, need a tree per concrete DFDL object (eg, element). SH to update. 29/04: No progress 06/05: SH is updating tables which will be ready for next call 13/05: SH emailed updated version. AP commented.. See minutes for issues and property changes. 20/05: Updated version circulated. Review before next call and be ready for vote. 27/05: Updated version circulated. more comments raised. 03/06: Further updates to clarify 'core'. Also identified missing design for outputMinLength 09/06: 028 SH: Variable markup 08/04: Discussed briefly at end of call, IBM to see whether there any use cases that require recursive use of DFDL. 15/04: Use case was distributed and will be discussed on next call. 22/04: The use case in question is EDI where the terminating markup for the payload segments is defined in the ISA envelope segment. The markup is modelled as an element of simple type where the allowable markup values are defined as enums on the type. But we need to handle two cases - firstly where the envelope is present, so the value used by the payload is taken from the envelope. Secondly where only the payload is present. Here we need a way of scanning for all the enum values, and adopting the one we actually find, when parsing. And using a default when unparsing. SH to explore use of a DFDL variable, where the variable has a default, but also has a type that is the same as the markup element - that way we get to use the enums without defining everything twice. 29/04: SH and AP working on proposal. 06/05: No progress 13/05: No progress 20/05: No Progress 27/05: Progress made and will tie to other actions 03/06: General desire to avoid having to introduce variable markup in V1. Proposed having a property to control case behaviour of all syntax (initiator, terminator,separator) rather than separate ones for each. Similar property to 'values' (textZeroRep, textBooleanTrueRep, etc). and allowing lists of values. SH need to solve remaining uses case as described in action 026 09/06: SH proposal discussed. ICU questions to be researched 029 MB: valueCalc (output length calculation) 08/04: Not discussed 22/04: Action allocated to MB, this is to complete the work started at the Hursley WG F2F meeting. 29/04: No progress 06/05: MB will have update for next call 13/05: MB will have update for next call 20/05: Some progress. will be circulated this week 27/05: MB circulated proposal and got comments. Will update and review on next call 03/06: Discussed proposal. MB to update dealing with uses cases raised. Options include a new lenghtKind='Reference' to make it easier to distinguish from fixed length case. Or use outputLengthCalc to separate calculation of parsing and unparsing length. 09/06: SH/AP proposal discussed and MB to document 033 AP/TK: Assert/Discriminator semantics. AP to document. TK to check uses of discriminator besides choice. 08/04: In progress within IBM 22/04: Waiting for TK to return from leave to complete. 29/04: TK has sent examples shown need for discriminators beyond choice. Agreed. MB to respond to TK 06/05: Discussed suggestion of adding type indicator to discriminator. MB to provide examples. 15/03: Semantic documented in v034. MB to provide examples of need for scope indicator on discriminator 20/05: MB to provide examples of need for scope indicator on discriminator (but lower priority than action 029) 27/05: No Progress (lower priority) 03/06: No Progress (lower priority) 09/06: No Progress (lower priority) 037 All: Approach for XML Schema 1.0 UPA checks. 22/04: Several non-XML models, when expressed in their most obvious DFDL Schema form, would fail XML Schema 1.0 Unique Particle Attribution checks that police model ambiguity. And even re-jigging the model sometimes fails to fix this. Note this is equally applicable to XMl Schema 1.1 and 1.0. While the DFDL parser/unparser can happily resolve the ambiguities, the issue is one of definition. If an XSD editor that implements UPA checks is used to create DFDL Schema, then errors will be flagged. DFDL may have to adopt the position that: a)DFDL parser/unparser will not implement some/all UPA checks (exact checks tbd) b) XML Schema editors that implement UPA checks will not be suitable for all DFDL models c) If DFDL annotations are removed, the resulting pure XSD will not always be valid (ie, the equivalent XML is ambiguous and can't be modelled by XML Schema 1.0) Ongoing in case another solution can be found. 29/04: Will ask DG and S Gao for opinion before closing 06/05: Discussed S Gao email and suggestions. Decided need to review all XML UPA rules and decide which apply to dfdl. 20/05: SH or SKK to investigate 27/05: No Progress 03/06: The concern is that some dfdl schemas will fail UPA check when validation is turned on or when editted using tooling that enforces UPA checks. Renaming fields will resolve some/most issues. Need documentation that describes issue and best practice. 038 MB: Submit response to OMG RFI for non-XML standardization 22/04: First step is for MB to mail the OGF Data Area chair to say that we want to submit 29/04: MB has been in contact with OMG and will sunbit dfdl. 06/05: MB has prepared response to OMG. Will send DFDL sepc v033 20/05: Response has been sent to OMG based on v034 27/05: Awaiting response from OMG. 03/06: On hold 042 MB: Complete variable specification. To include how properties such as encoding can be set externally. Must be a known variable name. 06/05: No progress 20/05: AP to make proposal 27/05: MB proposed differentiating between input and output variables to avoid unnecessary evaluations during parse and unparse. Need to complete rest of variable specification. 03/06: Pointed out problem of declaring variables input or output when used to define syntax which is used both times. MB to update proposal to include how variables are set externally and how specific properties such as encoding are set. 09/06: SKK to use example to dicument his proposal 043 13/05: Types in the infoset. Currently infoset types have defined value space but that implies a parser would have to validate input. Is this correct? 20/05: SH No progress 27/05: No Progress 03/06: No Progress 09/06: SH proposed staying with XML built-in types. Closed 044 13/05: Bidi 20/05: AP: will check what IBM products support. 27/05: Bidi is supported so will be needed in dfdl v1 03/06: No Progress 09/06: No Progress 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 047 20/05 AP: Scoping for non-format annotations 27/05: Discussed briefly. AP to distribute 03/06: Proposal discussed briefly. Will be updated. 09/06: Doc emailed. Awaiting outcome of variable to define/setvariable rules. 048 20/05: AP investigate Restart 27/05: Suggest RESTART is not part of the scope for DFDL. 03/06: not discussed 09/06: Closed 049 20/05 AP Built-in specification description and schemas 03/06: not discussed 050 27/05: xs:any currently limited to initiated text element. Is this sufficient? Should xs:any in its current form be deferred? 03/06: not discussed 09/06: Proposed dropping xs:any support 051 Scoping rules. MB: to document change to scoping rules to satisfy implementation concerns Closed actions: Work items: No Item target version status 003 Variables - ??, 2008 (Mike) 005 Improvements on property descriptions - ??, 2008 (All - split TBD) 006 Envelopes and Payloads (Steve) - Apr 30, 2008 007 (from draft 32) valueCalc (Mike) - ??, 2008 mostly complete 008 (from draft 32) Property precedence for writing (Steve) - under review 009 (from draft 32) Variable markup (Steve) - Mar 31, 2008 proposal needs writing up 011 (from draft 32) How speculative parsing works (combining choice and variable-occurence - currently these are separate) ??, 2008 (IBM) in progress 012 (from draft 32) Reordering the properties discussion: move representation earlier, improve flow of topics ??, 2008 (Alan) not started 027 Calendar schemes 034 032 Floating components 033 Changes from action 020 and 027 - renaming properties etc 035 Remove unorderedInitiated, add initiated content (a041) 036 Update dfdl schema with change properties (Suman) 037 Infoset text codepage 038 Improve length section 039 Change scoping of simple types (A 046) 040 Document outputMinLength (A027) 042 mapping of the dfdl infoset to XDM Not required for V1 specification 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 -- 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 -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg

1 0

Fw: Recursive use of DFDL for variable markup - action 028 - updated
by Steve Hanson 15 Jun '09

15 Jun '09

The use cases for considering the inclusion of the recursive use of DFDL to define markup or other DFDL properties are: a) Case insensitivity of data (eg, true & TRUE for text boolean) b) Case insensitivity of markup (eg, hdr & HDR for initiator) c) Different possible values for non-white space markup (eg, @ and # for separator) d) Different possible values for data (eg, true & yes for text boolean) e) Encoding of markup different to encoding of data (eg, initiator and terminator different to data) The proposal is to use various existing mechanisms to handle all these use cases, and negate the need to include recursive use of DFDL in 1.0. a) Case insensitivity of data (eg, true & TRUE for text boolean) - Use a single flag dfdl:ignoreCase to cover all affected properties - Properties: - dfdl:occursStopValue - dfdl:numberZeroRep ** - dfdl:nilValues - dfdl:textBooleanTrue - dfdl:textBooleanFalse - dfdl:numberInfinityRep ** - dfdl:numberNanRep ** - dfdl:numberExponentCharacter ** b) Case insensitivity of markup (eg, hdr & HDR for initiator) - Use same flag dfdl:ignoreCase to cover all affected properties - Properties: - dfdl:initiator - dfdl:terminator - dfdl:separator c) Different possible values for non-white space markup (eg, @ and # for separator) - Use multi-value property. Propose that property name remains singular. - Properties: - dfdl:initiator - dfdl:terminator - dfdl:separator d) Different possible values for data (eg, true & yes for text boolean) - Use multi-value property. Propose that property name remains singular, so dfdl:nilValues becomes dfdl:nilValue singular. - Properties: - dfdl:occursStopValue - dfdl:numberZeroRep ** - dfdl:nilValues - dfdl:textBooleanTrue - dfdl:textBooleanFalse e) Encoding of markup different to encoding of data (eg, initiator and terminator different to data) - Use <xs:sequence> to wrap the element and carry the markup, for example: <sequence dfdl:encoding="ascii" dfdl:separator=":"> <sequence dfdl:encoding="ebcdic" dfdl:initiator="VAL" dfdl:terminator="END"> <element name="val" type="..." dfdl:encoding="ascii" /> </sequence> </sequence> - This should be able to handle all cases of what is a rare occurrence anyway, and still allows speculative parsing rules to apply. - This technique also allows you to change the dfdl:ignoreCase property between markup and data. - Alternative is to treat the markup as a value (the EDI scenario) - this is the subject of a separate action 026, which will be solved using variables or another technique, but not by using DFDL recursively. There are some other properties to which cases a), b), c), d) could apply, but it has been decided that the flexibility is not needed in practice. - dfdl:textPadCharacter - dfdl:escapeCharacter - dfdl:escapeForEscapeCharacter - dfdl:escapeBlockStart - dfdl:escapeBlockEnd - dfdl:numberGroupSeparator - dfdl:numberDecimalSeparator ** ICU assumes a single char for nan, infinity, and exponent. That's too restrictive for us, so propose using the DFDL nan, infinity and exponent properties like the zero rep property - they are used to pre-process the data for ICU on parsing, and applied to the ICU output on unparsing. For date/time support, the comparisons made by ICU when checking days, months, etc are case-insensitive, so DFDL does not need to provide any extra behaviour. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 09/06/2009 13:27 ----- Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org 15/04/2009 13:47 To dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org cc Subject [DFDL-WG] Recursive use of DFDL for variable markup - use case >From last week's call: 7. Recursive use of DFDL for variable markup Use of a DFDL annotated element/type to describe an initiator, length prefix, terminator, separator, etc. Steve suggested the most important use of "variable markup-like mechanism" in IBM's WTX product is to reference a location earlier in the bit stream where a delimiter value is found. We handle this already by use of a path expression. The additional variable markup mechanism was to avoid proliferation of keywords for various corner cases on initiator, terminator and separator. Eg., what if you want the initiator to be "Name" or "name" only, not "NAME", "nAmE", etc. So case insensitive is not expressive enough. This can always be modeled, just not as an initiator tag. Feeling was to leave out variable markup (other than for prefix lengths) for v1.0, and to propose the minimum set of extra properties that can be used to address the common use cases, but that IBM needed to see whether this satisfied all WTX use cases. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 -- 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

1 0

Minute for OGF DFDL Working Group Calls, June 8-10 2009
by Alan Powell 12 Jun '09

12 Jun '09

Open Grid Forum: Data Format Description Language Working Group OGF DFDL Working Group Calls, June 8-10 2009 These minutes cover the series of meetings and calls which took place June 8-10 2009 Meeting opened, 14:00 UK Attendees Steve Hanson (IBM) Mike Beckerle (Oco) Suman Kalia (IBM) Alan Powell (IBM) Stephanie Fetzer (IBM) Apologies Agenda: Action 026 Envelopes and payloads It is expected that an xs:choice will be the way that payloads are defined in an envelope. xs:any support, as currently defined is not sufficient for this purpose (see action 050). There will be no support for dynamic binding of envelope and payload at runtime. Markup define in the data is covered under action 042 Variables Action 027 Property Precedence Tables are being updated to incorporate recent decisions. Action 028 Variable Markup The uses cases for variable markup are: a) Case insensitivity of data (eg, true & TRUE for text boolean) b) Case insensitivity of markup (eg, hdr & HDR for initiator) c) Different possible values for non-white space markup (eg, @ and # for separator) d) Different possible values for data (eg, true & yes for text boolean) e) Encoding of markup different to encoding of data (eg, initiator and terminator different to data) SH proposed a solution to each of these that did not require variable markup see email 9/6/2009. After discussion so minor changes were agreed and will be documented. Variable markup will not be supported in DFDL v1 Action 029 valueCalc SH and AP proposed that a new xpath function ( or new parameter on dfdl:length) that gave the representation length of an element without padding or truncation being applied allowed all the uses cases to be supported. The meaning of the various lengthKinds is unchanged. In particular lengthKind='explicit' always gets the length from the dfdl:length property on parsing and unparsing even when it is an expression. If the expression gets the length from a previous data field then the new function can be used to ensure that the field contains the correct length. MB to update description MB to update grammar diagrams to add padding fields. Action 042 Variables. The uses cases for variables are Extracting syntax data fields As an indicator to identify Payload As an easier way to set bits in bitmap As the way dfdl properties can be set from outside the parser. And the following aspects need to be defined Scoping of defineVariable naming/namespaces - include/import Unparsing Variable Type - enums Multiple setVariables in loops etc SKK proposed scoping by putting dfdl:defineVariable within a dfdl:defineFormat.. Will update the file path example to illustrate the design. Action 043 Types in the infoset. It was agreed that the types in the infoset will be schema the built-in types. Sufficient validation occurs to ensure the data can be converted to the built-in type. Rules have been defined the valid data representations for each built-in type. Action 042 Scoping for non-format annotations Scoping rules have been defined and agreed. Awaiting the resolution of defineVariable discussion Action 050 xs:any Support The support for xs:any is currently limited to allowing initiated string fields which is very limited. Support should be either dropped or extended to allow complex content. It is proposed that xs:any is dropped from dfdl V1. Implement concerns with current scoping rules. Concerns have been raised that the current scoping rules make it difficult to design good implementations. In particular it is difficult for an editor to be able to should which dfdl properties are set on an element without extensive tree walking. A dfdl schema validator would not be able to tell the context where global components where reused to global components would have to be valid in their own right. A number of possible solutions were discussed including removing scoping and introducing dfdl:schema wide defaults. A proposal to keep scoping but modify the rules was the favoured option. MB to document. Next call 16 and 17th June 14:00 UK Scheduled for 2 hours Meeting closed, 16:30 UK Actions raised at this meeting No Action 051 Scoping rules. MB: to document change to scoping rules to satisfy implementation concerns Current Actions: No Action 012 AP/SH: Update decimalCalendarScheme 10/9: Not allocated yet 17/9: No update 24/9: Add calendar binary formats to actions 22/10: No progress 16/1: proposal distributed and discussed. Will be redistributed 21/1: add locale, 04/02: changed from locale to specific properties 18/2: Need more investigation of ICU strict/lax behaviour. 08/04: Not discussed 22/04: AP to complete asap once the ICU strict/lax behaviour is understood. 29/04: No progress 06/05: No progress 13/05: Calendar has been added to latest spec version v034 but still a few details to clarify. 20/05: No Progress 27/05: No Progress 03/06: No Progress (low priority) 09/06: No Progress (low priority) 026 SH: Envelopes and Payloads 08/04: Not discussed explicity, but recursive use of DFDL is tied up with this 22/04: Two aspects. Firstly compositional - do sufficient mechanisms exist to model an envelope with a payload that varies. Secondly markup syntax - this might be defined in the envelope. The second of these is very much tied up with the variable markup action 028, so will be considered there. SH to verify the composition aspect. 29/04: SH and AP working on proposal. related to Action 028 06/05: No progress 06/05: No progress 20/05: No Progress 27/05: Still a number of aspects to be decided. - Compostion - Does the envelope and payload need to be defined in the same schema or should they be dynamically bound at runtime? - Compostion- How is a variable payload specified. Choice or xs:any; New action raised to discuss xs:any - extracting dymanic syntax from data. Covered by action 029 valuecalc. 03/06: Dynamic runtime binding will not be supported. SH investigating use of variables to enable standalone and use in envelope of global element. 09/06: Payload should be specified using a choice rather than xs:any 027 SH: Property precedence tables 08/04: Not discussed 22/04: Two things missing from the existing precedence trees. Firstly, does not show alternates (eg, initiator v initiatorkind). Secondly, need a tree per concrete DFDL object (eg, element). SH to update. 29/04: No progress 06/05: SH is updating tables which will be ready for next call 13/05: SH emailed updated version. AP commented.. See minutes for issues and property changes. 20/05: Updated version circulated. Review before next call and be ready for vote. 27/05: Updated version circulated. more comments raised. 03/06: Further updates to clarify 'core'. Also identified missing design for outputMinLength 09/06: 028 SH: Variable markup 08/04: Discussed briefly at end of call, IBM to see whether there any use cases that require recursive use of DFDL. 15/04: Use case was distributed and will be discussed on next call. 22/04: The use case in question is EDI where the terminating markup for the payload segments is defined in the ISA envelope segment. The markup is modelled as an element of simple type where the allowable markup values are defined as enums on the type. But we need to handle two cases - firstly where the envelope is present, so the value used by the payload is taken from the envelope. Secondly where only the payload is present. Here we need a way of scanning for all the enum values, and adopting the one we actually find, when parsing. And using a default when unparsing. SH to explore use of a DFDL variable, where the variable has a default, but also has a type that is the same as the markup element - that way we get to use the enums without defining everything twice. 29/04: SH and AP working on proposal. 06/05: No progress 13/05: No progress 20/05: No Progress 27/05: Progress made and will tie to other actions 03/06: General desire to avoid having to introduce variable markup in V1. Proposed having a property to control case behaviour of all syntax (initiator, terminator,separator) rather than separate ones for each. Similar property to 'values' (textZeroRep, textBooleanTrueRep, etc). and allowing lists of values. SH need to solve remaining uses case as described in action 026 09/06: SH proposal discussed. ICU questions to be researched 029 MB: valueCalc (output length calculation) 08/04: Not discussed 22/04: Action allocated to MB, this is to complete the work started at the Hursley WG F2F meeting. 29/04: No progress 06/05: MB will have update for next call 13/05: MB will have update for next call 20/05: Some progress. will be circulated this week 27/05: MB circulated proposal and got comments. Will update and review on next call 03/06: Discussed proposal. MB to update dealing with uses cases raised. Options include a new lenghtKind='Reference' to make it easier to distinguish from fixed length case. Or use outputLengthCalc to separate calculation of parsing and unparsing length. 09/06: SH/AP proposal discussed and MB to document 033 AP/TK: Assert/Discriminator semantics. AP to document. TK to check uses of discriminator besides choice. 08/04: In progress within IBM 22/04: Waiting for TK to return from leave to complete. 29/04: TK has sent examples shown need for discriminators beyond choice. Agreed. MB to respond to TK 06/05: Discussed suggestion of adding type indicator to discriminator. MB to provide examples. 15/03: Semantic documented in v034. MB to provide examples of need for scope indicator on discriminator 20/05: MB to provide examples of need for scope indicator on discriminator (but lower priority than action 029) 27/05: No Progress (lower priority) 03/06: No Progress (lower priority) 09/06: No Progress (lower priority) 037 All: Approach for XML Schema 1.0 UPA checks. 22/04: Several non-XML models, when expressed in their most obvious DFDL Schema form, would fail XML Schema 1.0 Unique Particle Attribution checks that police model ambiguity. And even re-jigging the model sometimes fails to fix this. Note this is equally applicable to XMl Schema 1.1 and 1.0. While the DFDL parser/unparser can happily resolve the ambiguities, the issue is one of definition. If an XSD editor that implements UPA checks is used to create DFDL Schema, then errors will be flagged. DFDL may have to adopt the position that: a)DFDL parser/unparser will not implement some/all UPA checks (exact checks tbd) b) XML Schema editors that implement UPA checks will not be suitable for all DFDL models c) If DFDL annotations are removed, the resulting pure XSD will not always be valid (ie, the equivalent XML is ambiguous and can't be modelled by XML Schema 1.0) Ongoing in case another solution can be found. 29/04: Will ask DG and S Gao for opinion before closing 06/05: Discussed S Gao email and suggestions. Decided need to review all XML UPA rules and decide which apply to dfdl. 20/05: SH or SKK to investigate 27/05: No Progress 03/06: The concern is that some dfdl schemas will fail UPA check when validation is turned on or when editted using tooling that enforces UPA checks. Renaming fields will resolve some/most issues. Need documentation that describes issue and best practice. 038 MB: Submit response to OMG RFI for non-XML standardization 22/04: First step is for MB to mail the OGF Data Area chair to say that we want to submit 29/04: MB has been in contact with OMG and will sunbit dfdl. 06/05: MB has prepared response to OMG. Will send DFDL sepc v033 20/05: Response has been sent to OMG based on v034 27/05: Awaiting response from OMG. 03/06: On hold 042 MB: Complete variable specification. To include how properties such as encoding can be set externally. Must be a known variable name. 06/05: No progress 20/05: AP to make proposal 27/05: MB proposed differentiating between input and output variables to avoid unnecessary evaluations during parse and unparse. Need to complete rest of variable specification. 03/06: Pointed out problem of declaring variables input or output when used to define syntax which is used both times. MB to update proposal to include how variables are set externally and how specific properties such as encoding are set. 09/06: SKK to use example to dicument his proposal 043 13/05: Types in the infoset. Currently infoset types have defined value space but that implies a parser would have to validate input. Is this correct? 20/05: SH No progress 27/05: No Progress 03/06: No Progress 09/06: SH proposed staying with XML built-in types. Closed 044 13/05: Bidi 20/05: AP: will check what IBM products support. 27/05: Bidi is supported so will be needed in dfdl v1 03/06: No Progress 09/06: No Progress 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 047 20/05 AP: Scoping for non-format annotations 27/05: Discussed briefly. AP to distribute 03/06: Proposal discussed briefly. Will be updated. 09/06: Doc emailed. Awaiting outcome of variable to define/setvariable rules. 048 20/05: AP investigate Restart 27/05: Suggest RESTART is not part of the scope for DFDL. 03/06: not discussed 09/06: Closed 049 20/05 AP Built-in specification description and schemas 03/06: not discussed 050 27/05: xs:any currently limited to initiated text element. Is this sufficient? Should xs:any in its current form be deferred? 03/06: not discussed 09/06: Proposed dropping xs:any support 051 Scoping rules. MB: to document change to scoping rules to satisfy implementation concerns Closed actions: Work items: No Item target version status 003 Variables - ??, 2008 (Mike) 005 Improvements on property descriptions - ??, 2008 (All - split TBD) 006 Envelopes and Payloads (Steve) - Apr 30, 2008 007 (from draft 32) valueCalc (Mike) - ??, 2008 mostly complete 008 (from draft 32) Property precedence for writing (Steve) - under review 009 (from draft 32) Variable markup (Steve) - Mar 31, 2008 proposal needs writing up 011 (from draft 32) How speculative parsing works (combining choice and variable-occurence - currently these are separate) ??, 2008 (IBM) in progress 012 (from draft 32) Reordering the properties discussion: move representation earlier, improve flow of topics ??, 2008 (Alan) not started 027 Calendar schemes 034 032 Floating components 033 Changes from action 020 and 027 - renaming properties etc 035 Remove unorderedInitiated, add initiated content (a041) 036 Update dfdl schema with change properties (Suman) 037 Infoset text codepage 038 Improve length section 039 Change scoping of simple types (A 046) 040 Document outputMinLength (A027) 042 mapping of the dfdl infoset to XDM Not required for V1 specification 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

leading/trailing skip bytes
by Mike Beckerle 11 Jun '09

11 Jun '09

This comment appears in draft 034 with respect to leading/trailing skip bytes. Since I am in there fixing up the grammar and associated pictures I'd like to fix this also if a change is needed. Unfortunately, MS Word change tracking says this comment is by "Lab User" ... so I have no idea who said this, but I assume it's an IBMer. In our MRM model, for repeating element we state that a leading skipCount applies only to first occurrence of array element and trailing skipCount applies to all elements of the array. The model in that sense is not symmetrical. I thinking if we should model this properly for array where we state that an array construct as such has a prefix Region and suffix Region which carry these alignment attributes. I will try to find the COBOL test case which demonstrates this issue. Right now leading/trailing skip bytes are symmetric, and would apply to every element of an "array". There is no asymetry as per this comment. Can someone check into this so I can fix these grammars/diagrams including this change (if needed)? ...mike

1 0

Agenda for OGF WG call 10 June 2009
by Alan Powell 10 Jun '09

10 Jun '09

Agenda: 1. Go through actions. 2. Implementation concerns The implementation of a dfdl editor, validator and parser have highlighted some some concern. SH to send email 3. AOB Current Actions: No Action 012 AP/SH: Update decimalCalendarScheme 10/9: Not allocated yet 17/9: No update 24/9: Add calendar binary formats to actions 22/10: No progress 16/1: proposal distributed and discussed. Will be redistributed 21/1: add locale, 04/02: changed from locale to specific properties 18/2: Need more investigation of ICU strict/lax behaviour. 08/04: Not discussed 22/04: AP to complete asap once the ICU strict/lax behaviour is understood. 29/04: No progress 06/05: No progress 13/05: Calendar has been added to latest spec version v034 but still a few details to clarify. 20/05: No Progress 27/05: No Progress 03/06: No Progress (low priority) 09/06: No Progress (low priority) 026 SH: Envelopes and Payloads 08/04: Not discussed explicity, but recursive use of DFDL is tied up with this 22/04: Two aspects. Firstly compositional - do sufficient mechanisms exist to model an envelope with a payload that varies. Secondly markup syntax - this might be defined in the envelope. The second of these is very much tied up with the variable markup action 028, so will be considered there. SH to verify the composition aspect. 29/04: SH and AP working on proposal. related to Action 028 06/05: No progress 06/05: No progress 20/05: No Progress 27/05: Still a number of aspects to be decided. - Compostion - Does the envelope and payload need to be defined in the same schema or should they be dynamically bound at runtime? - Compostion- How is a variable payload specified. Choice or xs:any; New action raised to discuss xs:any - extracting dymanic syntax from data. Covered by action 029 valuecalc. 03/06: Dynamic runtime binding will not be supported. SH investigating use of variables to enable standalone and use in envelope of global element. 09/06: Payload should be specified using a choice rather than xs:any 027 SH: Property precedence tables 08/04: Not discussed 22/04: Two things missing from the existing precedence trees. Firstly, does not show alternates (eg, initiator v initiatorkind). Secondly, need a tree per concrete DFDL object (eg, element). SH to update. 29/04: No progress 06/05: SH is updating tables which will be ready for next call 13/05: SH emailed updated version. AP commented.. See minutes for issues and property changes. 20/05: Updated version circulated. Review before next call and be ready for vote. 27/05: Updated version circulated. more comments raised. 03/06: Further updates to clarify 'core'. Also identified missing design for outputMinLength 09/06: 028 SH: Variable markup 08/04: Discussed briefly at end of call, IBM to see whether there any use cases that require recursive use of DFDL. 15/04: Use case was distributed and will be discussed on next call. 22/04: The use case in question is EDI where the terminating markup for the payload segments is defined in the ISA envelope segment. The markup is modelled as an element of simple type where the allowable markup values are defined as enums on the type. But we need to handle two cases - firstly where the envelope is present, so the value used by the payload is taken from the envelope. Secondly where only the payload is present. Here we need a way of scanning for all the enum values, and adopting the one we actually find, when parsing. And using a default when unparsing. SH to explore use of a DFDL variable, where the variable has a default, but also has a type that is the same as the markup element - that way we get to use the enums without defining everything twice. 29/04: SH and AP working on proposal. 06/05: No progress 13/05: No progress 20/05: No Progress 27/05: Progress made and will tie to other actions 03/06: General desire to avoid having to introduce variable markup in V1. Proposed having a property to control case behaviour of all syntax (initiator, terminator,separator) rather than separate ones for each. Similar property to 'values' (textZeroRep, textBooleanTrueRep, etc). and allowing lists of values. SH need to solve remaining uses case as described in action 026 09/06: SH proposal discussed. ICU questions to be researched 029 MB: valueCalc (output length calculation) 08/04: Not discussed 22/04: Action allocated to MB, this is to complete the work started at the Hursley WG F2F meeting. 29/04: No progress 06/05: MB will have update for next call 13/05: MB will have update for next call 20/05: Some progress. will be circulated this week 27/05: MB circulated proposal and got comments. Will update and review on next call 03/06: Discussed proposal. MB to update dealing with uses cases raised. Options include a new lenghtKind='Reference' to make it easier to distinguish from fixed length case. Or use outputLengthCalc to separate calculation of parsing and unparsing length. 09/06: SH/AP proposal discussed and MB to document 033 AP/TK: Assert/Discriminator semantics. AP to document. TK to check uses of discriminator besides choice. 08/04: In progress within IBM 22/04: Waiting for TK to return from leave to complete. 29/04: TK has sent examples shown need for discriminators beyond choice. Agreed. MB to respond to TK 06/05: Discussed suggestion of adding type indicator to discriminator. MB to provide examples. 15/03: Semantic documented in v034. MB to provide examples of need for scope indicator on discriminator 20/05: MB to provide examples of need for scope indicator on discriminator (but lower priority than action 029) 27/05: No Progress (lower priority) 03/06: No Progress (lower priority) 09/06: No Progress (lower priority) 037 All: Approach for XML Schema 1.0 UPA checks. 22/04: Several non-XML models, when expressed in their most obvious DFDL Schema form, would fail XML Schema 1.0 Unique Particle Attribution checks that police model ambiguity. And even re-jigging the model sometimes fails to fix this. Note this is equally applicable to XMl Schema 1.1 and 1.0. While the DFDL parser/unparser can happily resolve the ambiguities, the issue is one of definition. If an XSD editor that implements UPA checks is used to create DFDL Schema, then errors will be flagged. DFDL may have to adopt the position that: a)DFDL parser/unparser will not implement some/all UPA checks (exact checks tbd) b) XML Schema editors that implement UPA checks will not be suitable for all DFDL models c) If DFDL annotations are removed, the resulting pure XSD will not always be valid (ie, the equivalent XML is ambiguous and can't be modelled by XML Schema 1.0) Ongoing in case another solution can be found. 29/04: Will ask DG and S Gao for opinion before closing 06/05: Discussed S Gao email and suggestions. Decided need to review all XML UPA rules and decide which apply to dfdl. 20/05: SH or SKK to investigate 27/05: No Progress 03/06: The concern is that some dfdl schemas will fail UPA check when validation is turned on or when editted using tooling that enforces UPA checks. Renaming fields will resolve some/most issues. Need documentation that describes issue and best practice. 038 MB: Submit response to OMG RFI for non-XML standardization 22/04: First step is for MB to mail the OGF Data Area chair to say that we want to submit 29/04: MB has been in contact with OMG and will sunbit dfdl. 06/05: MB has prepared response to OMG. Will send DFDL sepc v033 20/05: Response has been sent to OMG based on v034 27/05: Awaiting response from OMG. 03/06: On hold 042 MB: Complete variable specification. To include how properties such as encoding can be set externally. Must be a known variable name. 06/05: No progress 20/05: AP to make proposal 27/05: MB proposed differentiating between input and output variables to avoid unnecessary evaluations during parse and unparse. Need to complete rest of variable specification. 03/06: Pointed out problem of declaring variables input or output when used to define syntax which is used both times. MB to update proposal to include how variables are set externally and how specific properties such as encoding are set. 09/06: SKK to use example to dicument his proposal 043 13/05: Types in the infoset. Currently infoset types have defined value space but that implies a parser would have to validate input. Is this correct? 20/05: SH No progress 27/05: No Progress 03/06: No Progress 09/06: SH proposed staying with XML built-in types. Closed 044 13/05: Bidi 20/05: AP: will check what IBM products support. 27/05: Bidi is supported so will be needed in dfdl v1 03/06: No Progress 09/06: No Progress 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 047 20/05 AP: Scoping for non-format annotations 27/05: Discussed briefly. AP to distribute 03/06: Proposal discussed briefly. Will be updated. 09/06: Doc emailed. Awaiting outcome of variable to define/setvariable rules. 048 20/05: AP investigate Restart 27/05: Suggest RESTART is not part of the scope for DFDL. 03/06: not discussed 09/06: Closed 049 20/05 AP Built-in specification description and schemas 03/06: not discussed 050 27/05: xs:any currently limited to initiated text element. Is this sufficient? Should xs:any in its current form be deferred? 03/06: not discussed 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

1 0

Fw: Recursive use of DFDL for variable markup - action 028
by Steve Hanson 09 Jun '09

09 Jun '09

The use cases for considering the inclusion of the recursive use of DFDL to define markup or other DFDL properties are: a) Case insensitivity of data (eg, true & TRUE for text boolean) b) Case insensitivity of markup (eg, hdr & HDR for initiator) c) Different possible values for non-white space markup (eg, @ and # for separator) d) Different possible values for data (eg, true & yes for text boolean) e) Encoding of markup different to encoding of data (eg, initiator and terminator different to data) The proposal is to use various existing mechanisms to handle all these use cases, and negate the need to include recursive use of DFDL in 1.0. a) Case insensitivity of data (eg, true & TRUE for text boolean) - Use a single flag dfdl:valueIgnoreCase to cover all affected properties - Properties: - dfdl:occursStopValue - dfdl:numberZeroRep - dfdl:nilValues - dfdl:textBooleanTrue - dfdl:textBooleanFalse b) Case insensitivity of markup (eg, hdr & HDR for initiator) - Use a single flag dfdl:valueIgnoreCase to cover all affected properties - Properties: - dfdl:initiator - dfdl:terminator - dfdl:separator c) Different possible values for non-white space markup (eg, @ and # for separator) - Use multi-value property. Propose that property name remains singular. - Properties: - dfdl:initiator - dfdl:terminator - dfdl:separator d) Different possible values for data (eg, true & yes for text boolean) - Use multi-value property. Propose that property name remains singular, so dfdl:nilValues becomes dfdl:nilValue singular. - Properties: - dfdl:occursStopValue - dfdl:numberZeroRep - dfdl:nilValues - dfdl:textBooleanTrue - dfdl:textBooleanFalse e) Encoding of markup different to encoding of data (eg, initiator and terminator different to data) - Use <xs:sequence> to wrap the element and carry the markup, for example: <sequence dfdl:encoding="ascii" dfdl:separator=":"> <sequence dfdl:encoding="ebcdic" dfdl:initiator="VAL" dfdl:terminator="END"> <element name="val" type="..." dfdl:encoding="ascii" /> </sequence> </sequence> - This should be able to handle all cases of what is a rare occurrence anyway, and still allows speculative parsing rules to apply. - Alternative is to treat the markup as a value (the EDI scenario) - this is the subject of a separate action 026, which will be solved using variables or another technique, but not by using DFDL recursively. There are some other properties to which cases a), b), c), d) could apply. We need to decide whether or not case sensitivity and/or multi-values are appropriate to these: - dfdl:textPadChar - dfdl:escapeCharacter - dfdl:escapeForEscapeCharacter - dfdl:escapeBlockStart - dfdl:escapeBlockEnd - dfdl:numberGroupSeparator - dfdl:numberDecimalSeparator - dfdl:numberExponentCharacter - dfdl:numberInfinityRep - dfdl:numberNanRep Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 09/06/2009 13:27 ----- Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org 15/04/2009 13:47 To dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org cc Subject [DFDL-WG] Recursive use of DFDL for variable markup - use case >From last week's call: 7. Recursive use of DFDL for variable markup Use of a DFDL annotated element/type to describe an initiator, length prefix, terminator, separator, etc. Steve suggested the most important use of "variable markup-like mechanism" in IBM's WTX product is to reference a location earlier in the bit stream where a delimiter value is found. We handle this already by use of a path expression. The additional variable markup mechanism was to avoid proliferation of keywords for various corner cases on initiator, terminator and separator. Eg., what if you want the initiator to be "Name" or "name" only, not "NAME", "nAmE", etc. So case insensitive is not expressive enough. This can always be modeled, just not as an initiator tag. Feeling was to leave out variable markup (other than for prefix lengths) for v1.0, and to propose the minimum set of extra properties that can be used to address the common use cases, but that IBM needed to see whether this satisfied all WTX use cases. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 -- 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

1 0

outputValueCalc and unparse example
by Mike Beckerle 09 Jun '09

09 Jun '09

I did not get as far as I wanted to on this issue. I would like to discuss this example: <sequence> <element name="len" type="int" dfdl:fillByte="%#r0;" dfdl:outputValueCalc= "{ dfdl:representation-output-length(../val) }" /> ... many elements in between .... <element name="val" type="string" dfdl:encoding="utf-8" dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" dfdl:lengthUnits="bytes" dfdl:useLengthForOutput="false" dfdl:length="{ ../len }" dfdl:outputLength="{ fix:ceiling( dfdl:representation-inherent-length(.) div 4 ) * 4 }" dfdl:textTrimKind="padChar" dfdl:textStringJustification="left" dfdl:textPadCharacter="%#r0;" /> </sequence> You will notice I added a dfdl:outputLength property, and a dfdl:representation-output-length() function and dfdl:representation-inherent-length(). I am accepting candidates for better names for these properties and functions. We need to distinguish these 3 concepts: 1) inherent length - of the infoset item without reference to any facets, and with out respect to escape sequences, padding or truncation. (TBD: think about escape sequences? Is this right) 2) output target length - the length of the box we're filling in with the data value representation. The box can be bigger or smaller than the inherent length, which implies use of padding/filling, or truncation. 3) input length - length of the box we're getting when parsing. The inherent length of the value after parsing can be smaller than the length of the box due to removal of escape characters, and the trimming of padding.

2 1

Action 020 - completed
by Steve Hanson 08 Jun '09

08 Jun '09

Firstly, there had been a debate about what simple types should appear in the infoset. Various proposals below. We've decided not to go with any of those, but to stick with existing infoset behaviour (reprod). It means that the DFDL parser will do enough to convert input data to the (nearest) schema built-in type. This gives better interop with XML Schema (eg, ecore) based trees. There is an important implication when speculatively parsing - the parser will use the schema built-in type to distinguish data, but will not use user-defined restrictions. [datatype] String. The name of the XML Schema 1.0 built-in simple type to which the value corresponds. DFDL supports a subset of these types listed in the specification at section 4.1. [dataValue] The value in the value space of the [datatype] member or special value nil. Secondly, given the above decision, we can complete action 020. On parse, if the physical data can not be handled by the logical type, it is a processing error. On unparsing, data must conform to the infoset type, by definition. Logical type textNumberRepresentation= text (4) textNumberRepresentation= zoned (2) (6) binaryNumberRepresentation= packed (5) binaryNumberRepresentation= bcd (1) binaryNumberRepresentation= binary Signed (decimal, integer, and user restrictions thereof) Parse: OK Unparse: OK Parse: Unpunched data => +ve Unparse: Data always punched with sign Parse: Unsigned nibble => +ve Unparse: Data signed as per +ve/-ve nibble specifiers, unsigned nibble specifier never used Parse: Data always +ve Unparse: -ve data is processing error N/A Signed (long, int, short, byte, and user restrictions thereof) Ditto Ditto Ditto Ditto Parse: Data assumed 2's complement binary Unparse: Data output as 2's complement binary Unsigned (unsigned long, unsigned int, unsigned short, unsigned byte, and user restrictions thereof) (3) Parse: +ve data => OK, -ve data is processing error Unparse: Data output according to pattern Parse: +ve punched data => OK, -ve data is processing error Unparse: Data never punched with sign Parse: +ve nibble & unsigned nibble => OK, -ve nibble is processing error Unparse: Unsigned nibble specifier always used Parse: OK Unparse: OK Parse: Data assumed unsigned binary Unparse: Data output as unsigned binary Notes (1) Can not physically carry a sign (2) Some systems omit to punch for +ve, but accept punched on input (eg, IBM iSeries) (3) Assumes that on unparsing, the infoset can not present a -ve value (4) The -ve sign is indicated by numberPattern property (5) The exact sign nibbles are given by the packedDecimalSignCodes property (6) The punching style to use is given by the numberZonedSignStyle property Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 08/06/2009 11:27 ----- Steve Hanson/UK/IBM 13/05/2009 13:25 To Dave Glick cc dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org Subject Fw: Action 020 completion Hi Dave We should also bear the problem below in mind when thinking about DFDL Infoset & XDM. XDM assumes that an element with a concrete type-name has a typed-value conforming to the type-name, ie, it has been 'validated'. If this is not the case then the type-name is set to xs:untyped or xs:untypedAtomic (extra types added to XDM for this purpose). In DFDL Infoset we had been assuming that the [dataType] would be set to that implied by the DFDL xsd, regardless of whether validation succeeded or not - though there are issues with this as explained below. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 13/05/2009 12:51 ----- Steve Hanson/UK/IBM 29/04/2009 15:54 To Alan Powell, Dave Glick, Mike Beckerle (Work) cc Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Tim Kimber/UK/IBM Subject Fw: Action 020 completion Hi Dave We discussed this on the call and agreed that the unsigned types are just range restrictions so treating negative numbers in the data as parse errors instead of validation errors seemed inconsistent. Various options discussed: 1) Remove the unsigned types altogether. - Means we'd need an extra property to describe binary integer representation, as we could no longer infer the rep from the logical type - Loses type information for applications where the fact that data is unsigned is important. - Means DFDL modelers would have to create their own duplicate restrictions for common C etc data types. 2) Change [dataType] to point to the XML Schema primitive type instead of the XML Schema built-in type. - Means that the value and the type would be xs:decimal which is too general 3) Change [dataValue] to say "The value in the value space of the underlying XML Schema primitive type forthe [datatype] member or special value nil" - Allows the infoset to carry integer data that is invalid due to range regardless of value. - Means that the value would be a decimal even though the data type was (say) xs:unsignedLong, ie, the datatype and datavalue are no longer in step unless validated 4) Option 2) with the modification that the primitive type for all integer types was xs:integer and not xs:decimal. 5) Option 3) with the modification that the primitive type for all integer types was xs:integer and not xs:decimal. We agreed not to close on this until you had reported back on your action 032. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 29/04/2009 15:32 ----- Steve Hanson/UK/IBM 27/04/2009 13:42 To Alan Powell/UK/IBM cc dglick(a)dracorp.com, mbeckerle(a)oco-inc.com Subject Re: Action 020 completion Thanks Alan I've added correct property names, see below. But I've omitted floats deliberately for clarity, the logical type is always signed and physical type is always signed, so there's no issue. However, there is a problem with what I have stated, as you pointed out on Friday. On parsing I am effectively validating the input data, but on unparsing I am not assuming the data has been validated. This is not consistent and needs correcting. But as I looked into this, I realised we have a problem with how we have described the DFDL infoset. The spec says "There is no requirement for DFDL-described data to be valid in order to have a DFDL information set.", which is in accordance with our agreed position on validation being optional. But further on it also says: [datatype] String. The name of the XML Schema 1.0 built-in simple type to which the value corresponds. DFDL supports a subset of these types listed in the specification at section 4.1. [dataValue] The value in the value space of the [datatype] member or special value nil. This says to me that the DFDL parser must have done enough validation to ascertain that the value matched the underlying built-in type. For example, I have a user-defined simple type that adds a max/min range of +100-+200 to an xs:unsignedInt. If the input data has value 99, the value will be accepted into the infoset, but will not validate if validation is switched on. If the input data is a packed decimal with value -1, the value will not be accepted into the infoset. Given that xs:unsignedInt is itself just a range restriction of xs:integer (via xs:nonNegativeInteger), this seems a bit arbitrary. Dave - given your action item looking at DFDL Infoset versus XDM, I'd be interested in your opinion here. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 Alan Powell/UK/IBM 24/04/2009 15:13 To Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB cc dglick(a)dracorp.com, mbeckerle(a)oco-inc.com Subject Re: Action 020 completion Steve Looks OK But can you use the correct property name eg binaryNumberRepresentation and for completeness add binaryFloatRepresentation (even though it may be obvious) 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 From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM To: mbeckerle(a)oco-inc.com, Alan Powell/UK/IBM, dglick(a)dracorp.com Date: 23/04/2009 12:50 Subject: Action 020 completion Here's my proposal for the behaviour when a logical type is signed and the physical data has no sign (either because it is not capable of carrying a sign, or it carries an unsigned indicator), and when the logical type is unsigned and the physical data has a sign. The principle is to be flexible and only to give errors when things are clearly mis-matched Logical type textNumberRepresentation= text (4) textNumberRepresentation= zoned (2) (6) binaryNumberRepresentation= packed (5) binaryNumberRepresentation= bcd (1) binaryNumberRepresentation= binary Signed (decimal, integer) Parse: OK Unparse: OK Parse: Unsigned data => +ve Unparse: Data always punched with sign Parse: Unsigned data => +ve Unparse: Data signed as per +ve/-ve nibble specifiers, unsigned nibble specifier never used Parse: Data always +ve Unparse: -ve data is error N/A Signed (long, int, short, byte) Ditto Ditto Ditto Ditto Parse: Data assumed 2's complement binary Unparse: Data output as 2's complement binary Unsigned (unsigned long, unsigned int, unsigned short, unsigned byte) (3) Parse: -ve data is error Unparse: -ve data is error Parse: +ve data => OK, -ve data is error Unparse: Sign never punched, -ve data is error Parse: +ve data => OK, -ve data is error Unparse: Unsigned nibble specifier always used, -ve data is error Parse: OK Unparse: -ve data is error Parse: Data assumed unsigned binary Unparse: Data output as unsigned binary (1) Can not physically carry a sign (2) Some systems output unsigned for +ve, but accept +ve on input (eg, IBM iSeries) (3) Assumes that on unparsing, the infoset could still present a -ve value (4) The -ve sign is indicated by numberPattern property (5) The exact sign nibbles are given by the packedDecimalSignCodes property (6) The punching style to use is given by the numberZonedSignStyle property Mail back any comments before next week's call. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 23/04/2009 12:04 ----- Steve Hanson/UK/IBM 18/02/2009 16:55 To Mike Beckerle (Work) cc Alan Powell/UK/IBM, dglick(a)dracorp.com Subject DFDL: Packed & zoned decimals - more thoughts (was Action 020) Hi Mike While we are on the subject of how to handle signs, the spec does not fully define what happens for a number if the logical type is unsigned. We need to say what is expected in the physical data and what happens if the data contains a sign. For example, we say that for an unsigned integer, if the rep is binary then we treat the data as 'unsigned binary' and not twos complement. And we say that BCD is only allowed for unsigned logical types. That is good. But we don't do the same for packed, text, zoned. I think we need to say that no explicit sign is expected in the data (eg, packed should have only F or 0, no A,B,C,D) and if it does: Alternatives: i) Error ii) Positive sign discarded, negative sign gives error iii) Sign discarded iv) As per i) if 'strict' set, as per ii) if 'lax' set v) As per i) if 'strict' set, as per iii) if 'lax' set Personally I vote for i) Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 18/02/2009 16:41 ----- Steve Hanson/UK/IBM 12/02/2009 13:18 To <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> cc dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org Subject RE: [DFDL-WG] Fw: DFDL OGF WG call - Action 020 Hi Mike I think it's a simplification too far. Many people especially those with a mainframe or COBOL background know what a zoned decimal is. The wikipedia entry for binary coded decimal explicitly covers the BCD, packed & zoned 'variants'. MRM and WTX both explicitly support zoned too. And it's easier to say that the 'decimalSignStyle' property applies to zoned decimals than to say it applies to any patterns that happen to have a P in them. On balance I would keep zoned as a representation. So we need to decide whether zoned is only allowed for a signed decimal. There's no harm in allowing it for unsigned, just some redundancy, and it makes validation of the pattern against the rep easier (if something is zoned it can only have a subset of pattern chars). Btw we don't need leading overpunched sign, only trailing - see my case for this below. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 "Mike Beckerle" <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> 12/02/2009 12:51 Please respond to <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> cc Subject RE: [DFDL-WG] Fw: DFDL OGF WG call - Action 020 This does suggest another simplification. Zoned is so close to text....Suppose we scrap the concept of "zoned" altogether, and just add a character to our number pattern language to allow one to specify a overpunched sign digit. E.g., "+00000" is text "P0000" same with overpunched leading sign. "00000+" text "0000P" same with overpunched trailing sign The decimal point would normally be implied in these, (I still like having a cobol-style "V" to position this instead of separate properties stating the position - one of the few good features about cobol is the number patterns. I still think we could quite easily pre-process the "V" out of these strings and then hand the rest through to an ICU library as an implementation - however the "P" probably does need to be a change in that library.) Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair | CTO | Oco, Inc. Tel: 781-810-2100 | 504 Totten Pond Road, Waltham MA 02451 | mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com From: dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Steve Hanson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:34 PM To: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org Subject: [DFDL-WG] Fw: DFDL OGF WG call - Action 020 It was noted on the call this week that there is an alternative to my zoned decimal overpunching proposal i) below. I said: - If it is an unsigned type then DFDL expects the rightmost byte to have a zone nibble when parsing, and outputs a zone nibble when unparsing. - If it is a signed type then DFDL expects it to have a sign nibble when parsing, and outputs a sign nibble when unparsing. But my unsigned type behaviour could be achieved by specifying a rep of text instead of zoned. If that is the case, the alternative is to only allow zoned rep for signed decimal logical types. Thoughts? Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 05/02/2009 10:17 ----- Steve Hanson/UK/IBM 28/01/2009 13:54 To DFDL Working Group cc Subject DFDL OGF WG call - Action 020Link Action 020: 020 SH: Resolve packedDecimalSignCodes behaviour depends on NumberCheckPolicy 22/10: No progress 10/12: added how to decide to overpunch and sign position a) Resolve packedDecimalSignCodes behaviour depends on NumberCheckPolicy Add new property to section 15.4 Properties Specific to Number with Binary representation. binaryNumberCheckPolicy Enum Values are “strict” and “lax”. Indicates how lenient to be when parsing binary numbers. If ‘lax” then the parser tolerates all valid alternatives where such alternatives exist. Specifically, for binaryNumberRepresentation = 'packed' the sign nibble for positive, negative, unsigned and zero is allowed to be any of the valid respective values. On unparsing, the specified value is always used. Also suggest changing some of the other property names in 15.4: "decimalVirtualPoint" -> "binaryDecimalVirtualPoint" "packedDecimalSignCodes" -> "binaryPackedSignCodes" And changing binaryNumberRepresentation enumeration: "BCD" -> "bcd" b) Zoned decimals: How to decide to overpunch and sign position Spec assumes that overpunching of the rightmost character always takes place. IBM architecture allows no overpunching (ie, Fx instead of Cx/Dx) - this is supported by IBM MRM & WTX parsers. Additionally IBM MRM parser allows separate sign byte, and sign byte on left. Let's deal with these separately: i) No overpunching. The IBM architecture allows the rightmost byte to have a zone (Fx) or a sign (Cx/Dx) as the left nibble. I don't see why we can't base what to expect when parsing, and output when unparsing, on the logical xsd type. - If it is an unsigned type then DFDL expects the rightmost byte to have a zone nibble when parsing, and outputs a zone nibble when unparsing. - If it is a signed type then DFDL expects it to have a sign nibble when parsing, and outputs a sign nibble when unparsing. For analogy with DFDL packed decimals, it seems at first glance that we should also extend the numberCheckPolicy 'lax' setting to treat a zone nibble as a +ve sign nibble for a signed type. However, IBM iSeries always outputs Fx to mean +ve but accepts both Fx & Cx on input. It is perhaps better therefore that DFDL always tolerates Fx when parsing a signed zoned decimal, otherwise iSeries users would always have to set numberCheckPolicy to 'lax', which might have other implications in the future. ii) Separate sign byte. I don't believe the IBM architecture allows this. I don't think DFDL needs to support it. MRM has this, but I think it's because early on MRM did not explicitly support text decimals as such, just COBOL variations, and it was easier just to call them all zoned. iii) Sign byte on left. I don't believe the IBM architecture allows this. I don't think DFDL needs to support it. MRM has this, but for the same reason as ii) Conclusion: No new DFDL properties needed, but words need adding to explain zoned parse/unparse behaviour better. Also suggest changing property names: "zonedDecimalSignStyle" -> "numberZonedSignStyle" "zeroNumberRep" -> "numberZeroRep" Should also make clear that any explicit negative pattern in numberPattern will be ignored if the xsd type is unsigned. (We could make this an error but it precludes creation of a textNumberFormat that works with both signed and unsigned types, plus pattern "##0.0" implictly is equivalent to "##0.0;(##0.0)" ). Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 Alan Powell/UK/IBM@IBMGB Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org 23/01/2009 13:36 To dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org cc Subject [DFDL-WG] DFDL: Minutes from OGF WG call, 21 January 2009 Open Grid Forum: Data Format Description Language Working Group Weekly Working Group Conference Call 14:00 GMT, 21 January 2009 Attendees Alan Powell (IBM) Mike Beckerle(Oco) Apologies Steve Hanson (IBM) 1. XSD 1.1 Deferred to next call 2. Calendar formats Discussed updated (v4) supplement emailed by AP Agreed millisec/secSinceEpoc cannot be implied by length of logical data so need seperate enumerations. Observed that these options were really combination of 3 properties binary, length and sec/millisec. Suggested renaming to binarySeconds and binaryMilliseconds Packed calendars: decided that need to be able to specify at least the packedDecimalSignCodes property rather than assuming a default so reference will be added to calendar description Locale needs to be specified for numberformats and calendarFormats (didn't identify any other areas) as it modifies the behaviour of ICU. Decided to add locale to numberFormat and CalendarFormat 3. Escape Schemes Agreed need for multiple escape delimiter pairs but not nested. Need an escape for escape character even though in most cases this will be the same character, eg /n //, There are some formats that have a different escape, eg /n &/. Only need single escape characters and one level of escape characters. Discussed how to deal with comments of the form /* comment */ where the escape delimiters are also the initiator and terminator of the field. Semantic needed is 'only look for field terminator not any parent terminator or any other syntax elements'. May fall out naturally from the speculative parsing rules. Need further discussion. 4. AOB Next call 28 January 14:00 Meeting closed, 15:00 GMT Actions raised at this meeting No Action 031 Current Actions: No Action 012 AP/SH: Update decimalCalendarScheme 10/9: Not allocated yet 17/9: No update 24/9: Add calendar binary formats to actions 22/10: No progress 16/1: proposal distributed and discussed. Will be redistributed 21/1: add locale, 020 SH: Resolve packedDecimalSignCodes behaviour depends on NumberCheckPolicy 22/10: No progress 10/12: added how to decide to overpunch and sign position 023 MB: Review Schema 1.1 024 String XML type 025 Escape schemes 21/1: discussed requirements 026 SH: Envelopes and Payloads 027 Property precedence tables 028 Variable markup 029 valueCalc (output length calculation) 030 AP: confirm with WTX that can drop duration 21/6: WTX confirm that they do not have a duration type so do not need it in dfdl. Will drop from spec. Closed Closed actions: 030 AP: confirm with WTX that can drop duration 21/6: WTX confirm that they do not have a duration type so do not need it in dfdl. Will drop from spec. Closed 034 Work items: No Item 001 String XML type (Ian P) - Apr 30, 2008 002 Escape schemes (Ian P) - Apr 30, 2008 003 Variables - ??, 2008 (Mike) 005 Improvements on property descriptions - ??, 2008 (All - split TBD) 006 Envelopes and Payloads (Steve) - Apr 30, 2008 007 (from draft 32) valueCalc (Mike) - ??, 2008 mostly complete 008 (from draft 32) Property precedence for writing (Steve) - under review 009 (from draft 32) Variable markup (Steve) - Mar 31, 2008 proposal needs writing up 010 (from draft 32) Assertions, discriminators and choice, including discussion of timing option (Suman) - Mar 31, 2008 * in progress * 011 (from draft 32) How speculative parsing works (combining choice and variable-occurence - currently these are separate) ??, 2008 (IBM) in progress 012 (from draft 32) Reordering the properties discussion: move representation earlier, improve flow of topics ??, 2008 (Alan) * not started * 025 Augmented infoset and unparsing (Alan) added but needs work complete - specification updated 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 -- 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 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 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] Non-format annotation scoping rules.
by Alan Powell 05 Jun '09

05 Jun '09

Attached is updated proposal which incorporates Steve's comments.. The main issue to resolve is given that a variable can only be set once should a setVariable for the same variable on an element or element reference override the setVariable on a simpleType of element declaration or is it an error to have a setVariable for the same variable? Other points of interest Non-format annotations cannot be put in scope on a complex type. 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 From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM To: Alan Powell/UK/IBM@IBMGB Cc: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org Date: 03/06/2009 10:20 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Non-format annotation scoping rules. Alan - looks sensible - a couple of comments in the updated doc below: [attachment "ogf-dfdl-annotation-scoping-v1.doc" deleted by Alan Powell/UK/IBM] Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 Alan Powell/UK/IBM@IBMGB Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org 29/05/2009 15:57 To dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org cc Subject [DFDL-WG] Non-format annotation scoping rules. Attached are the proposed rules for non-format annotation scoping. As part of the exercise I had to clarify which annotations are permitted on each schema object so please review that table. Of particular interest are 1. Annotations put in scope on a xs:complexType 2. Assert/Discriminator on xs:sequence, xs:choice and xs:any 3. Hidden on an empty sequence only 4. DefineVariable on schema and sequence only to define the scope of the variable. 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 [attachment "ogf-dfdl-annotation-scoping-v1.doc" deleted by Steve Hanson/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

1 0