- dfdl-wg - lists.ogf.org

DFDL Telcon notes 2006-08-23
by Westhead, Martin (Martin) 24 Aug '06

24 Aug '06

Present Geoff Judd Tom Sugden Martin Westhead Agenda Document editing progress: * Geoff edited his sections and produced a new version of the document with excess material trimmed into a suppliement * Tom read the Scoping section and will send out comments * Martin is overrun and has not done his edits. He looked at the document and has a lot of concern about the amount of work required to turn it into a single consistent specification.

2 1

Telcon tomorrow
by Westhead, Martin (Martin) 23 Aug '06

23 Aug '06

Agenda Discuss ongoing document edits. Call Details Time: 9am PDT Number: 1-800-664-0771 At the automated answering system, press 0 for the operator. Ask for the "Daffodil working group" call.

1 0

DFDL Telcon tomorrow
by Westhead, Martin (Martin) 16 Aug '06

16 Aug '06

(Unfortunately, it turns out that I cannot make the call tomorrow.) Agenda Discuss ongoing document edits. Call Details Time: 9am PDT Number: 1-800-664-0771 At the automated answering system, press 0 for the operator. Ask for the "Daffodil working group" call.

3 2

Latest Working Docs Posted
by Mike Beckerle 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

There are 6 documents in this zip. Core Specification Parking Lot Advanced Decimal Supplement Advanced Delimited Formats Supplement Bidirectional Text Supplement Date and Time Supplement https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/docman/do/viewDocument/projects.dfdl-wg/docm… Mike Beckerle STSM, Architect, Scalable Computing IBM Software Group Information Integration Solutions Westborough, MA 01581 voice and FAX 508-599-7148 home/mobile office 508-915-4795

1 2

Notes from telcon 2006-08-09
by Westhead, Martin (Martin) 09 Aug '06

09 Aug '06

Present Mike Beckerle Bob McGrath Martin Westhead Tom Sugden Geoff Judd Steve Hanson Suman Kali Discussion Update on core document: now at 112 pages, 4 advanced property documents broken out. * Basic editing needs to be done. * Context needs updating * Editing of extensibility to prune it to "include files" * Uncertainty section pruning GGF update * Mike will fly in for a day to give a presentation/update and announce the availability of the document Missing pieces * Description of how DFDL figures out how long things are and where they stop. Actions * Mike - post current document to gridforge * Martin - extensibility and context, document custodian * Tom - scoping * Geoff - uncertainty What we need from the edits is consistency and opportunities to simplify the core by pushing material into supplements.

1 0

DFDL Telcon in 1 hour
by Westhead, Martin (Martin) 09 Aug '06

09 Aug '06

Time: 9am PDT Number: 1-800-664-0771 At the automated answering system, press 0 for the operator. Ask for the "Daffodil working group" call.

1 0

RE: [dfdl-wg] DFDL Lite
by Westhead, Martin (Martin) 02 Aug '06

02 Aug '06

One more comment on this Steve suggested that if we were to take this approach we should drive the definition of the subset from a use-case analysis based on some specific formats that we'd take a decision to support. Thanks, Martin _____ From: owner-dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-dfdl-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Westhead, Martin (Martin) Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 1:55 PM To: dfdl-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: [dfdl-wg] DFDL Lite Hi Folks, Today's discussion really had me wondering about the size of the thing that we are creating. We are probably looking at a complete spec that is over 200 pages. I feel reasonably strongly that this is too unwieldy. I don't think that we have the editorial resource to effectively bug-check the document and aside from IBM it is difficult to imagine that there are many groups with the resource to implement it. At the end of today's call we started discussing features of XML Schema that we might drop from the first release and my attitude to the discussion was one of resistance. Do we really need to drop attributes? Doesn't the choices document we have pretty much handle wildcards. We are agreed that the property set should be defined with optional libraries around a small, but extensible core. I suggested today that we take the same approach to the whole language. What if were to focus on defining for our initial release a DFDL Lite and look for a minimal set of properties and XML Schema mechanisms that would be useful. Make it as simple and implementable as possible with a minimal of XML Schema and a minimal set of properties. And define it in such a way that we can add the rest of the material as modular supplements (ideally without having to go back and change the existing semantics). There was reasonable support for this approach from those that remained on the call today. I wanted to float it to the group...thoughts anyone? Thanks, Martin

2 2

Notes from telcon 2006-07-26
by Westhead, Martin (Martin) 26 Jul '06

26 Jul '06

Present Mike Beckerle Tom Sugden Bob McGrath Geoff Judd Martin Westhead Steve Hanson Discussion DFDL Lite Various ways of trying to cut down the complexity of the current document were considered. The subset of functionality that IBM considered useful (by considering use-cases) did not succeed in reducing the size of the document very significantly. We talked about the possibility of trying to produce a tighter spec for September just on the basis of limited resources and trying to produce something clear and implementable. How to proceed to refine the current document Mike has an action to review the document and make a list of candidate areas for relegation in this version of the document (note not necessarily the first submitted release) Update on OGF planning We missed the deadline for submissions (because due to the reorg we were dumped off the admin mailing list). We are waiting to see if we can get a scheduled slot.

1 0

DFDL telcon tomorrow
by Westhead, Martin (Martin) 26 Jul '06

26 Jul '06

Time: 9am PDT Number: 1-800-664-0771 At the automated answering system, press 0 for the operator. Ask for the "Daffodil working group" call.

1 0

DFDL Lite
by Westhead, Martin (Martin) 19 Jul '06

19 Jul '06

Hi Folks, Today's discussion really had me wondering about the size of the thing that we are creating. We are probably looking at a complete spec that is over 200 pages. I feel reasonably strongly that this is too unwieldy. I don't think that we have the editorial resource to effectively bug-check the document and aside from IBM it is difficult to imagine that there are many groups with the resource to implement it. At the end of today's call we started discussing features of XML Schema that we might drop from the first release and my attitude to the discussion was one of resistance. Do we really need to drop attributes? Doesn't the choices document we have pretty much handle wildcards. We are agreed that the property set should be defined with optional libraries around a small, but extensible core. I suggested today that we take the same approach to the whole language. What if were to focus on defining for our initial release a DFDL Lite and look for a minimal set of properties and XML Schema mechanisms that would be useful. Make it as simple and implementable as possible with a minimal of XML Schema and a minimal set of properties. And define it in such a way that we can add the rest of the material as modular supplements (ideally without having to go back and change the existing semantics). There was reasonable support for this approach from those that remained on the call today. I wanted to float it to the group...thoughts anyone? Thanks, Martin

2 1