Here's the revised decimal supplement again for final approval. Please can
we discuss on the call today for inclusion in draft 33.
This has been updated to reflect the debate below around properties
dfdl:decimalFormat and dfdl:integerFormat (because either could be used
with xs:int and xs:decimal, and at runtime the parser does not know which
one to apply). So dfdl:decimalFormat has been removed, and replaced by
dfdl:numberFormat - defined below.
Property Name
Description
numberFormat
String
Valid values are ?text?, ?zoned?, ?packed?, ?BCD?, 'twosComplement'
When the representation is ?text? then the allowable values are ?text? and
?zoned?.
When the representation is ?binary? then the allowable values are
?packed?, ?BCD? and 'twosComplement'.
I'd also like to propose that we rename dfdl:defineNumberFormat to
dfdl:defineTextNumberFormat, to prevent confusion.
The other change is around the packed decimal convention, sometimes used,
that zero is indicated by all bytes being hex zero, even though this is
not technically a valid packed decimal number. I had said that on parsing,
whether to tolerate this is governed by the numberCheckPolicy property,
and on unparsing, this convention is not used. That won't work because we
are talking about (binary) packed decimals and numberCheckPolicy is a
property within (text) dfdl:defineNumberFormat. One solution is to move
numberCheckPolicy outside of dfdl:defineNumberFormat and have it apply to
both text and binary numbers.
However it can be observed that numberCheckPolicy is getting rather
bloated and is covering several behaviours. There's yet another behaviour
that could be added - the TX team review want a dfdl:defineNumberFormat
property called numberZeroRep to handle special zero representations.
That's fine - but on parsing whether to allow just the zero rep or both
the rep and '0' is a requirement from TX - which we could accomodate by
extensing numberCheckPolicy. Question is, are we overloading
numberCheckPolicy, or is it time to make it more granular?
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 16/07/2008 12:15 -----
Steve Hanson/UK/IBM
09/04/2008 15:44
To
<mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com>
cc
dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org
Subject
RE: Fw: DFDL Decimal - proposal - correcting wrong attachment
Hi Mike - answers in-line below.
Regards, Steve
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>
09/04/2008 15:05
Please respond to
<mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com>
To
Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB
cc
<dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>
Subject
RE: Fw: DFDL Decimal - proposal - correcting wrong attachment
Thanks for these clarifications.
Do we have a way to represent ?unpacked? decimal numbers. This is like
zoned, except the ?zones? are zero instead of ?F? (in ebcdic encodings).
<smh>No we don't. Neither MRM nor TX support that. Have you seen such an
example? Is it encoding sensitive?
Also, can a BCD number have a sign?
<smh>What we are calling a BCD can not have a sign, as far as I know.
That's where packed decimal comes in.
?mikeb
From: Steve Hanson [mailto:smh@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:00 AM
To: mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com
Cc: 'Mike Beckerle'; Alan Powell; Ian W Parkinson
Subject: RE: Fw: DFDL Decimal - proposal - correcting wrong attachment
Hi Mike - answers in-line below.
Regards, Steve
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>
09/04/2008 01:43
Please respond to
<mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com>
To
Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Alan Powell/UK/IBM@IBMGB
cc
Ian W Parkinson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, 'Mike Beckerle'
Subject
RE: Fw: DFDL Decimal - proposal - correcting wrong attachment
I prefer one property dfdl:numberFormat, the valid values of which depend
on dfdl:representation
<smh>The advantage of two properties is that you can set scoping for text
and binary numbers separately.
I like the analysis that text formats are ones which depend on encoding,
and not byteOrder, and binary depend on byte order, and NOT encoding.
<smh>Me too.
There?s also format specifiers for floating point. Should those also go on
here, be allowed only for representation=?binary??
<smh>I did think about this, but I think we are better off keeping floats
separate. Otherwise people might think you can declare a logical float to
be rep'd by physical integer. MRM allows this, and I wish it didn't. It
also exacerbates the problem noted above - I couldn't set a default float
format, which is something that would almost certainly never vary within a
data stream.
The rest of the proposal looks fine. I found decimalVirtualPoint an odd
name, but it is clear and obeys the conventions.
<smh>I agree it's a bit odd. An alternative is 'decimalimpliedPlaces'
which uses TX terminology - but that doesn't match the 'V' pattern
character we are proposing in the ICU pattern (which matches COBOL)
I was a bit unclear on how do you represent an unsigned packed decimal.
This is common. There is no sign nibble at all. It lets you do an even
number of digits. MMDDYY is commonly this, 3 unsigned packed numbers.
<smh>What you have described is dfdl:numberFormat="BCD". An unsigned
packed decimal is dfdl:numberFormat="packed" with the sign nibble always
unsigned, so dfdl:packedDecimalSignCodes="F F F".
?mikeb
From: Steve Hanson [mailto:smh@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:54 AM
To: Alan Powell
Cc: Ian W Parkinson; Mike Beckerle
Subject: Re: Fw: DFDL Decimal - proposal - correcting wrong attachment
Alan, Ian and myself reviewed this today.
The main issue was that the loss of dfdl:representation="decimal" means
that it is no longer clear when to use dfdl:integerFormat and
dfdl:decimalFormat, because an xs:decimal can have a binary integer rep
and an xs:int can have a binary decimal rep. It was noted that both IBM
models (MRM and TX type tree) handle this by having a single property. I
don't want to re-introduce rep=decimal, I think we shoiuld stick with text
(implying encoding sensitive) and binary (potentially byte order
sensitive). Options:
a) One property dfdl:numberFormat with values "text", "zoned", "packed",
"BCD", "twosComplement", "onesComplement", "signMagnitude".
- "text" and "zoned" when dfdl:representation="text"
- "packed", "BCD", "twosComplement", "onesComplement", "signMagnitude"
when dfdl:representation="binary"
Number xs:int, xs:decimal text => numberFormat
xs:float, xs:double text =>
xs:int, xs:decimal binary => numberFormat
xs:float binary =>
floatFormat
b) Two properties dfdl:textNumberFormat and dfdl:binaryNumberFormat,
allowable enums split as above.
- this means the existing dfdl:textNumberFormat property gets renamed to
dfdl:textNumberPattern or dfdl:textNumberScheme
Number xs:int, xs:decimal text => textNumberFormat
xs:float, xs:double text =>
xs:int, xs:decimal binary =>
binaryNumberFormat
xs:float binary =>
floatFormat
Other suggestions?
Regards, Steve
Steve Hanson
WebSphere Message Brokers
Hursley, UK
Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com
Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848
Alan Powell/UK/IBM
28/03/2008 16:45
To
Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB
cc
Ian W Parkinson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, mbeckerle(a)oco-inc.com
Subject
Re: Fw: DFDL Decimal - proposal - correcting wrong attachmentLink
Steve
Technically seems OK.
Need quite a bit of editorial work before it can be included in the spec
which I have started.
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
Cc:
Alan Powell/UK/IBM, Ian W Parkinson/UK/IBM
Date:
28/03/2008 13:59
Subject:
Fw: DFDL Decimal - proposal - correcting wrong attachment
Here's an attempt at a revised decimal supplement, that takes into account
the stuff in my mail below.
[attachment "ggf-dfdl-supplement-advanced-decimal-properties-v1.0-003.doc"
deleted by Alan Powell/UK/IBM]
Some discussion points:
1) I've removed the representation 'Decimal' - a decimal is either 'Text'
or 'Binary'. Property decimalFormat says whether it is text or zoned (for
text) or packed or BCD (for binary).
2) There's no need for a decimalSigned property, as zoned uses
numberPattern for this, BCD is always unsigned, and packed indicates this
via sign code
3) I've added VDP property for BCD and packed - zoned uses numberPattern
for this. However, VDP property is also needed for binary integers - this
is missing from spec. COBOL PIC 99V99 COMP will create an xs:decimal with
binary integer rep, so we need to support this. I suggest we have a single
VDP property that applies to all binary reps that can be used to represent
xs:decimal. So my VDP property gets removed to main spec.
4) The resultant properties are less than before. I'm not sure that a
separate supplement is justified.
5) I would like to remove numberCheckPolicy from dfdl:DefineNumberFormat,
and make it a separate property. Two reasons:
- I think the decision to use strict/lax checking is not an attribute of
the number format but more an attribute of the schema as a whole.
- It means we can control packed decimal sign nibble oddities with the
same property as other strict/lax number checking,
Let's review on next OGF WG call.
Regards, Steve
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 28/03/2008 12:33 -----
Steve Hanson/UK/IBM
27/03/2008 15:29
To
Mike Beckerle (Work)
cc
Subject
DFDL Decimal - proposal
Hi Mike
I've finally got round to looking at the decimal supplement, and I'd like
to get your opinion on something. The WTX team have been reviewing draft
031 and had the following observation (actually they had quite a few good
ones, and when they've finished we need to discuss them all on a OGF WG
call).
"13.3. Is a zoned decimal textual or non-textual? If all overpunched
variants result in well-known characters then the data is scannable and
therefore more like a textual field."
It turns out that the type hierarchy in TX for decimal looks like below.
They consider Zoned as text as it always consists of reasonable characters
and is subject to encoding conversion, padding, justification, etc.
There's a lot of appeal in that. It's always bothered me a bit that MRM
viewed it as a binary type.
Number -> Character -> Decimal (meaning text decimal)
Integer (meaning text integer)
Zoned
-> Binary -> Integer (meaning binary integer)
Float
Packed
BCD
Also, their Zoned does not have separate sign option. They point out that
a separate signed Zoned is just a Text decimal. And they are correct. We
got the separate sign thing from MRM, which after some digging turns out
to have got it from the CAM Type Descriptor model, which had no other way
of representing a text decimal number with a separate sign.
As part of my rework of the decimal supplement, I'd like to take both
these into account. The implications are:
- Zoned => overpunched only
- Zoned decimal can pick up on the textNumberxxx properties, including
textNumberFormat
=> use the numberPattern (ie, ICU pattern) property to say which end
the (overpunched) sign goes
=> can get away without a separate pattern language for binary
decimals, which as you point out has endian-ness issues
- Binary decimals are packed and BCD
- There are a lot fewer properties for decimals
- dfdl:representation = "text" can have subdivisions - that's not occurred
until now (we could think about making dfdl:representation = "xml" a
subdivision of "text"?)
If you think there is merit in this approach then let me know by return
and I'll see if I can write something up tomorrow.
I'm WAH on +44-1794-340899 if you want to discuss.
Your "crazy idea" below is interesting - but I think is a tooling thought
rather than a core spec thing.
(Sorry about call yesterday - I thought I mailed something out a couple of
calls ago about DST mismatch, but perhaps I didn't).
Regards, Steve
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 27/03/2008 15:04 -----
Mike Beckerle/Worcester/IBM@IBMUS
21/11/2007 15:26
To
Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB
cc
DFDL-Technical-Core, Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Subject
DFDL Decimal - was Re: DFDL & length prefixes - proposalLink
I think decimal has signed and unsigned variants based on
dfdl:decimalSigned boolean. If this is false then it's unsigned and
packedUnsignedRep specifies the sign nibble used for unsigned. The doc
doesn't specify that one can say "" for this indicating no sign nibble at
all.
I've been rereading the decimal properties supplement and starting v002 of
it based on changes to dfdl:representation in the core spec. This needs a
general clean up. There's errors here in that there is a
decimalType="zoned", or "packed" or "BCD" and also a bcdIsPacked, and
bcdUnpackedRep="ebcdic", which is the same as zoned I think.
We need there to be one way to express these things. Right now the bias is
a set of orthogonal flags: signed or unsigned, what's the sign nibble for
unsigned, what sign nibbles for signed, packed or unpacked, what's in the
zones - the unused nibbles - (ebcdic, i.e., "F", ascii, i.e., "3", or
zero - but that's not enough as I've seen data with "2" in the zones -
some non IBM cobol compiler does this.).
A better choice may be to specify decimalType as a larger enum which
includes most of these properties, so that we don't end up with too much
ability to express variants that have simply never existed.
A list of the use cases needs to be added to the doc also.
Here's a few:
-1234 as expressed as bytes in hex in increasing position order, i.e., LSB
first.
packed ibm, signed, D01234
zoned ibm, overpunched leading sign D1F2F3F4 (are signs usually leading or
trailing.... I think trailing actually.)
big endian zoned ascii, ascii-translated overpunched leading sign 4A323334
(yuck - so much for treating decimal as "binary" data).
Here's a crazy idea: I believe there is a set of magic numbers which if
you give me their translations in bytes, I can determine exactly what the
encoding properties are.
E.g., if you give me the bytes for +0000, -1234, +789 I believe I can
determine all of the properties.
This might be a better way to specify decimal formats. I.e., give me those
byte patterns expressed as hex, and I reverse engineer all the property
settings.
e.g., decimalFormat="+0000=C00000-1234=D01234 +789=C789" (signed, packed,
leading sign, padded to even number of nibbles, big endian, zero carries a
sign, "C" is plus, "D" is minus)
or decimalFormat="+0000=00000000 -1234=D1F2F3F4 +789=C7F8F9" (ebcdic
zoned, leading overpunched sign, big endian, zero is allowed to have zero
as sign and all zero bytes, "C" is plus, "D" is minus)
This may make more sense for the tooling than the DFDL language though.
I.e., point it at some data and it tries to guess these properties.
Mike Beckerle
STSM, Architect, Scalable Computing
IBM Software Group
Information Platform and Solutions
Westborough, MA 01581
direct: voice and FAX 508-599-7148
assistant: Pam Riordan
priordan(a)us.ibm.com
508-599-7046
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
