Hi Mike
I think we are in sync on this, but please can I reinforce the point that
the primary aim of the F2F should be to come to an agreement between all
parties on the high-level design issues?
Regards, Steve
Steve Hanson
WebSphere Business Integration Brokers,
IBM Hursley, England
Internet: smh(a)uk.ibm.com
Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848
mike.beckerle@asc
entialsoftware.co
m To
Sent by: dfdl-wg(a)gridforum.org
owner-dfdl-wg@gri cc
dforum.org
Subject
[dfdl-wg] Agenda topics for F2F
17/11/2004 21:13 meeting
Summarized from our call today.
Agenda for F2F meeting:
* High-level design issues
- clarify what we already agree on
- issue: complexity of what rep-property applies when they can be on
type, scope, local, default, etc.
- note: IBM suggestion: no rep annotations on simple type
definitions
* Transforms - how to specify them, and what their properties/parameters
are.
- (we need a new name different from 'transforms' I think - mikeb)
- black-box external transforms
- internally specified "in DFDL" transforms
- everyone's dissatisfied with these examples in Jim's latest set, so
far.
* OMG Type Descriptor Model - review its capabilities
- consider relative to prior rep-properties proposals?
* Complexity Limits - review some "hard" examples where we don't have
constructs yet to handle them.
- do we want/need to cover these examples.
That's enough agenda to fill the 2 days. We'll also allow ourselves some
flexibility to re-prioritize.
