- dfdl-wg - lists.ogf.org

US Gov Open-Data Initiative
by Mike Beckerle 18 Apr '16

18 Apr '16

See https://fcw.com/articles/2016/04/14/open-data-bill.aspx?s=fcwdaily_150416 Seems like an opportunity for DFDL as a standard to provide "open" access to data without having to endure the costs and headaches of repeated conversion. ...mike Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy <http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php>

2 1

OGF DFDL WG Call 2016-03-15 - cancelled
by Steve Hanson 12 Apr '16

12 Apr '16

Mike not available short notice so cancelling. Next meeting is April 26th. Hopefully ESA can attend to discuss action 282 proposal. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848

1 0

Cancelled: OGF DFDL Working Group call
by Steve Hanson 12 Apr '16

12 Apr '16

cancelled as Mike unavailable

1 0

Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 282
by Steve Hanson 11 Apr '16

11 Apr '16

282 Does XPath have operators for checking a value is in a range? (Steve) 12/5: Investigate whether equivalent to DFDL4S 'in' operator exists. 23/6: Mike has found an XPath 'intersect' operator. Handles the enumeration case well, but not as convenient for ranges as DFDL4S's 'in' operator. 11/8: Looked back at the motivating example from DFDL4S. Agreed that DFDL functions to do the equivalent of 'in' and 'inrange' would be useful if nothing can be re-used from XPath. Steve to write up a proposal taking into account different data types. ... 22/9: Proposal sent by Steve for new functions dfdl:checkValues(), dfdl:checkRangeInclusive(), dfdl:checkRangeExclusive(). Discussed whether both range functions needed, and whether they should be allowed for float and double. Mike noted that dfdl:checkConstraints() and simple types could be used instead of all three functions if values were static. Follow-up with DFDL4S team to see if they had thought of that. 3/11: DFDL4S not happy with usability of dfdl:checkConstraints type, but ok with the intersection operator. Next step is to see what the DFDL4S schema would look like if rewritten to use dfdl:checkConstraints and intersection. 5/1/16: Agreed that dfdl:checkConstraints() is not ideal as it requires creation of union simple types. Steve to go back to his proposal from 22/9/15 and rework to include use of the intersect operator. 16/2: No progress 1/3: Discussed with ESA team. Steve to rework his proposal from 22/9/15. Reworked proposal: a) Add XPath 2.0 'intersect' and "except" operators to the list of supported operators. Updated Table 57 as follows: DFDL Expression ::= "{" Expr "}" Expr ::= ExprSingle ExprSingle ::= IfExpr | OrExpr IfExpr ::= "if" "(" Expr ")" "then" ExprSingle "else" ExprSingle OrExpr ::= AndExpr ( "or" AndExpr )* AndExpr ::= ComparisonExpr ( "and" ComparisonExpr )* ComparisonExpr ::= AdditiveExpr ( (ValueComp) AdditiveExpr)? AdditiveExpr ::= MultiplicativeExpr ( ("+" | "-") MultiplicativeExpr )* MultiplicativeExpr ::= IntersectExceptExpr ( ("*" | "div" | "idiv" | "mod") IntersectExceptExpr )* IntersectExceptExpr ::= UnaryExpr ( ("intersect" | "except") UnaryExpr )* UnaryExpr ::= ("-" | "+")* ValueExpr ValueExpr ::= PathExpr ValueComp ::= "eq" | "ne" | "lt" | "le" | "gt" | "ge" PathExpr ::= ("/" RelativePathExpr?) | RelativePathExpr | FilterExpr RelativePathExpr ::= StepExpr (("/") StepExpr)* StepExpr ::= AxisStep AxisStep ::= (ReverseStep | ForwardStep) Predicate? ForwardStep ::= (ForwardAxis NodeTest) | AbbrevForwardStep ForwardAxis ::= ("child" "::") | ("self" "::") AbbrevForwardStep ::= NodeTest | ContextItemExpr ReverseStep ::= (ReverseAxis NodeTest) | AbbrevReverseStep ReverseAxis ::= ("parent" "::") AbbrevReverseStep ::= ".." NodeTest ::= NameTest NameTest ::= QName FilterExpr ::= PrimaryExpr Predicate? Predicate ::= "[" Expr "]" PrimaryExpr ::= Literal | VarRef | ParenthesizedExpr | ContextItemExpr | FunctionCall Literal ::= NumericLiteral | StringLiteral NumericLiteral ::= IntegerLiteral | DecimalLiteral | DoubleLiteral VarRef ::= "$" VarName VarName ::= QName ParenthesizedExpr ::= "(" Expr ")" ContextItemExpr ::= "." FunctionCall ::= QName "(" (ExprSingle ("," ExprSingle)*)? ")" b) New DFDL functions dfdl:checkRangeInclusive($node, $val1, $val2) Returns boolean true if the specified node value is in the range given by $val1 and $val2, inclusive. The type of $val1 and $val2 must be compatible with the type of $node, and must be a derivative of xs:decimal, xs:float or xs:double. It is a schema definition error if the $node argument is a complex element. dfdl:checkRangeExclusive($node, $val1, $val2) Returns boolean true if the specified node value is in the range given by $val1 and $val2, exclusive. The type of $val1 and $val2 must be compatible with the type of $node, and must be a derivative of xs:decimal, xs:float or xs:double. It is a schema definition error if the $node argument is a complex element. Regards Steve Hanson IBM Integration Bus, Hursley, UK Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 mob:+44-7717-378890 From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM To: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo(a)esa.int> Cc: "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>, Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com>, Maurizio De Bartolomei <mdebartolomei(a)eopp.esa.int>, Montserrat Piñol <mpinol(a)eopp.esa.int>, Rui Mestre <rui.mestre(a)deimos.com.pt> Date: 02/11/2015 19:51 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 282 (was Re: Fw: [DFDL]: First Release of DFDL4S Parser Library) <xs:simpleType name="redAndYellowAlertType"> <xs:union memberTypes="redAlertType yellowAlertType"/> </xs:simpleType> The above is a type that allows ranges 0-200 and 201-500. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM Integration Bus, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 mob:+44-7717-378890 From: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo(a)esa.int> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB Cc: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com>, "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>, Maurizio De Bartolomei <mdebartolomei(a)eopp.esa.int>, Montserrat Piñol <mpinol(a)eopp.esa.int>, Rui Mestre <rui.mestre(a)deimos.com.pt> Date: 02/11/2015 16:08 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 282 (was Re: Fw: [DFDL]: First Release of DFDL4S Parser Library) Steve, I believe I do not understand this. can you make an example ? Michele On 02 Nov 2015, at 16:33 , Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: I was also going to add that DFDL supports xs:union on simple types, enabling dfdl:checkConstraints to be used when there are multiple ranges. · Unions; the memberTypes must be derived from the same simple type. DFDL annotations are not permitted on union members. The purpose of unions is to allow multiple constraints via facets such as multiple independent range restrictions on numbers. This enhances the ability to do rich validation of data. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM Integration Bus, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 mob:+44-7717-378890 From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> To: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo(a)esa.int> Cc: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Rui Mestre <rui.mestre(a)deimos.com.pt >, "dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org" <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org>, Montserrat Piñol < mpinol(a)eopp.esa.int>, Maurizio De Bartolomei <mdebartolomei(a)eopp.esa.int> Date: 02/11/2015 14:33 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 282 (was Re: Fw: [DFDL]: First Release of DFDL4S Parser Library) Michele, I think the first thing I'd propose for the set membership test is for us to add the XPath 2.0 intersect operator to DFDL. So your discriminator becomes: <dfdl:discriminatortest= "{fn:exists(/Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID intersect (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268, 272,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282,283,284, 288,289,290,291,292,293,294,295,296,297,298,299,300, 304,305,306,307,308,309,310,311,312,313,314,315,316, 320,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,330,331,332, 336,337,338,339,340,341,342,343,344,345,346,347,348))}"/> This is a small addition to DFDL, but completely in the spirit of sticking with XPath 2.0 wherever possible. ...mike beckerle Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Michele Zundo <michele.zundo(a)esa.int> wrote: Hi Steve, your example below addresses the belonging to a range, how would then the belonging to a set be checked ? Currently our usage looks like here: <xs:complexTypename="TypePacketData"> <xs:sequence> <xs:choice> <xs:sequence>  <xs:annotation> <xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/"> <dfdl:discriminatortest= "{/Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID in [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268, 272,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282,283,284, 288,289,290,291,292,293,294,295,296,297,298,299,300, 304,305,306,307,308,309,310,311,312,313,314,315,316, 320,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,330,331,332, 336,337,338,339,340,341,342,343,344,345,346,347,348]}"/> </xs:appinfo> </xs:annotation> <xs:element name="MSI_Packet_Secondary_Header"type="TypePacketData_MSI"/> <xs:element name="MSI_User_Data_Field"type="TypeUserData"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:sequence>  <xs:annotation> <xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/"> <dfdl:discriminatortest= "{/Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID in [769,771,772,774,775,777,779,780,781,785,787,788,790,791,793,795,796,797]}" /> </xs:appinfo> </xs:annotation> <xs:element name="TM_GPSR_Packet_Secondary_Header"type= "TypePacketData_TMGPSR"/> <xs:element name="TM_GPSR_User_Data_Field"type="TypeUserData"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:sequence>  <xs:annotation> <xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/"> <dfdl:discriminator test="{/Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID in [99999]}" /> </xs:appinfo> </xs:annotation> <xs:element name="TM_Time_Packet_Secondary_Header"type= "TypePacketData_TMT92"/> <xs:element name="TM_Time_Packet_User_Data_Field"type="TypeUserData_TMT92" /> </xs:sequence> <xs:sequence>  <xs:annotation> <xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/"> <dfdl:discriminatortest= "{/Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID in [596,598,612,614,628,630,660,662]}"/> </xs:appinfo> </xs:annotation> <xs:element name="TM_STR_Packet_Secondary_Header"type= "TypePacketData_TMSTR"/> <xs:element name="TM_STR_User_Data_Field"type="TypeUserData"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:sequence>  <xs:annotation> <xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/"> <dfdl:discriminatortest= "{/Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID in [150,182]}" /> </xs:appinfo> </xs:annotation> <xs:element name="TM_CSW_AOCS_Packet_Secondary_Header"type= "TypePacketData_TMCSWAOCS"/> <xs:element name="TM_CSW_AOCS_User_Data_Field"type="TypeUserData"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:sequence>  <xs:annotation> <xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/"> <dfdl:discriminator test="{/Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [144,149] or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [151,181] or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [183,239] or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [516,575] or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID in [592,593,594,595,597,613,629,656,657,658,659,661] or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [599,611] or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [615,627] or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [631,639] or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [663,671] or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID in [768,770,776,778,782,783,784,792,794,798,799] or /Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID inrange [1280,1295]}" /> </xs:appinfo> </xs:annotation> <xs:element name="TM_HKTM_Packet_Secondary_Header"type= "TypePacketData_HKTM"/> <xs:element name="TM_HKTM_User_Data_Field"type="TypeUserData_HKTM"/> </xs:sequence> <xs:sequence>  <xs:annotation> <xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/"> <dfdl:discriminator test="{/Packet_Primary_Header/Packet_Identification/APID in [2047]}" /> </xs:appinfo> </xs:annotation> <xs:element name="TM_IDLE_Packet_Secondary_Header"type= "TypePacketData_TMIDLE" /> </xs:sequence> <xs:sequence>  <xs:annotation> <xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/"> <dfdl:discriminatortest="{true}"/> </xs:appinfo> </xs:annotation> <xs:element name="UNKNOWN_User_Data_Field"type="TypePacketData_UNKNOWN"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:choice> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> On 27 Oct 2015, at 18:01 , Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: Just to clarify, dfdl:assert and dfdl:discriminator are identical when the expression returns false, the difference between the two is when the expression returns true and the parser is in a 'point of uncertainty' (eg choice) - a discriminator returning true has a positive discrimination on the point of uncertainty, an assert does not. I suspect that most of the time you can achieve what you want with just dfdl:checkConstraints() and simple type inheritance. Example below (syntax simplified for clarity). But I am happy to be proved wrong, so if you have an example ... ? <xs:simpleType name="alertType"> <xs:restriction base="xs:unsignedInt> <xs:minInclusive value="0"/> <xs:maxInclusive value="999"/> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> <xs:simpleType name="redAlertType"> <xs:restriction base="alertType"> <xs:minInclusive value="0"/> <xs:maxInclusive value="200"/> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> <xs:simpleType name="yellowAlertType"> <xs:restriction base="alertType"> <xs:minInclusive value="201"/> <xs:maxInclusive value="500"/> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> ... <xs:choice> <xs:element name="red"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="alert" type="redAlertType"> <dfdl:discriminator test="{dfdl:checkConstraints()}"> </xs:element> ... </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="yellow"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="alert" type="yellowAlertType"> <dfdl:discriminator test="{dfdl:checkConstraints()}"> </xs:element> ... </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> <xs:element name="other"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="alert" type="alertType"> <dfdl:assert test="{dfdl:checkConstraints()}"> </xs:element> ... </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM Integration Bus, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 mob:+44-7717-378890 From: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo(a)esa.int> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB Cc: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org, Maurizio De Bartolomei < mdebartolomei(a)eopp.esa.int>, Montserrat Piñol <mpinol(a)eopp.esa.int>, Rui Mestre <rui.mestre(a)deimos.com.pt> Date: 27/10/2015 16:27 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 282 (was Re: Fw: [DFDL]: First Release of DFDL4S Parser Library) Yes, exactly. This is one of the current use case, in addition we could also use the value to implement different type of checks e.g. some of the parameters we look at have a type, a range outside of which they are invalid and a set of other ranges that correspond to various other conditions (e.g. red alarm or yellow alarm). Michele On 27 Oct 2015, at 17:19 , Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: "Instead the checkvalue/checkrange (between 100 and 150 or 200 and 250) would be used to do conditional checks in derived schemas outside the scope of a dfdl:assert (to guide the parsing among several options, like we do for the our S2G TF schema version)." That sounds like you would use this in a dfdl:discriminator ? Yes, exactly. While this is one of the current use case, in addition we would also use the value to implement different type of checks e.g. some of the parameters we look at have a type, a range outside of which they are invalid and a set of other ranges that correspond to various other conditions (e.g. red alarm or yellow alarm). Michele Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM Integration Bus, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 mob:+44-7717-378890 From: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo(a)esa.int> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB Cc: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org, Maurizio De Bartolomei < mdebartolomei(a)eopp.esa.int>, Montserrat Piñol <mpinol(a)eopp.esa.int>, Rui Mestre <rui.mestre(a)deimos.com.pt> Date: 27/10/2015 16:09 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 282 (was Re: Fw: [DFDL]: First Release of DFDL4S Parser Library) Dear Steve, to progress on this action: 1) it is our intention to “evolve” from our own dmx:assert to the dfdl:assert in order to standardise as much as possible with the official spec provided we find a solution for what below. 2) we had an iteration with our developers and came to the conclusion that there is need for both syntaxes: the existing (in the standard) dfdl:checkConstraints()and the new one you proposed i.e. dfdl:checkRangeand dfdl:checkValue The main semantic difference between checkValue/checkRangeand checkConstraints is that in one case we we need to associate a range to a quantity in a sort of static way (i.e. the type “knowns” it has a range associated with it) while the checkvalue/checkrange is something that you can do also if a range is not defined (see below). For example you could have a definition for a specification sheet of an electrical device. The XSD type (Volts) intrinsically defined with a range 0-1000 but wanted to check in derived schemas if value is between 100 and 150 or 200 and 250 and this information would be used in different way. This could be used to check 0-1000 hard constraints to see if the the network will support it while range 100-150 and 200-250 would check compatibility with US or European Voltages for commercial appliances. Note that dfdl:assert applies a condition to the parsing so that if the check fails the parsing is aborted with a severe error. In the example above we would want to apply checkConstraint defined with a range 0-1000 in a dfdl:assert (to stop the parsing due to incorrect values) but not a checkvalue/checkrange. Instead the checkvalue/checkrange (between 100 and 150 or 200 and 250) would be used to do conditional checks in derived schemas outside the scope of a dfdl:assert (to guide the parsing among several options, like we do for the our S2G TF schema version). Michele On 05 Oct 2015, at 16:23 , Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: Hi Michele Any update from your discussion? Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 From: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo(a)esa.int> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB Cc: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org, Rui Mestre <rui.mestre(a)deimos.com.pt>, Montserrat Piñol <mpinol(a)eopp.esa.int>, Maurizio De Bartolomei < mdebartolomei(a)eopp.esa.int> Date: 23/09/2015 16:44 Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 282 (was Re: Fw: [DFDL]: First Release of DFDL4S Parser Library) Dear Steve, thanks for the suggestion (same from Mike) we need to discuss this internally with the developers and look at few use cases to see what would be the consequences/advantages/disadvantages. Give us a little bit of time.. Michele On 22 Sep 2015, at 19:12 , Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: Hi Michele Thanks for your quick response. The WG discussed this on the call today. In fact, we wondered if the same result could already be achieved using dfdl:checkConstraints() and declaring the enums or range using XSD facets on xs:simpleType restrictions. Have you considered whether dfdl:checkConstraints() achieves what you want? Example: <xs:simpleType name="myRange"> <xs:restriction base="xs:int> <xs:minInclusive value="100"/> <xs:maxInclusive value="200"/> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> <xs:element name="myValue" type="myRange"> <xs:annotation><xs:appinfo ...> <dfdl:assert>dfdl:checkConstraints(.)</dfdl:assert> </xs:appinfo></xs:annotation> </xs:element> Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 From: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo(a)esa.int> To: dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org Cc: Rui Mestre <rui.mestre(a)deimos.com.pt>, Montserrat Piñol < mpinol(a)eopp.esa.int>, Maurizio De Bartolomei <mdebartolomei(a)eopp.esa.int> Date: 22/09/2015 17:21 Subject: [DFDL-WG] Action 282 (was Re: Fw: [DFDL]: First Release of DFDL4S Parser Library) Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org Dear Steve, nice to hear things are moving. The syntax below seems both reasonable and readable to me which is a good thing. It addresses the belonging to decimal groups (integer only ??) I understand. (xs:decimal) 1) It might be also useful (not in our application but in general) to see if it makes sense also to define for dfdl:checkValues belongings to set of “enum” like value e.g. if we have a type for $val defined as (ON, OFF or STANDBY) or (MARRIED, SINGLE, WIDOWER) can we also define a syntax that the $node belongs to it ? 2) for dfdl:checkRange it might make sense also to allow float numbers e.g. X between 3.1 to 9.5 Michele PS I will forward this proposal to our DFDL4S developers (in copy) to get their thinking. From: "Steve Hanson" <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> Subject: [DFDL-WG] Action 282 (was Re: Fw: [DFDL]: First Release of DFDL4S Parser Library) Date: 22 Sep 2015 16:50:13 CEST To: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> To kick start this action, here is a proposal ... builds on the precedent provided by dfdl:checkConstraints($node). dfdl:checkValues($node, $val1, $val2, ...) Returns boolean true if the specified node value matches any of the values provided by $val1 etc. The type of $val1 etc must be compatible with the type of $node. It is a schema definition error if the $node argument is a complex element. The number of value arguments is implementation-defined. dfdl:checkRangeInclusive($node, $val1, $val2) Returns boolean true if the specified node value is in the range given by $val1 and $val2, inclusive. The type of $val1 and $val2 must be compatible with the type of $node, and must be a derivative of xs:decimal. It is a schema definition error if the $node argument is a complex element. dfdl:checkRangeExclusive($node, $val1, $val2) Returns boolean true if the specified node value is in the range given by $val1 and $val2, exclusive. The type of $val1 and $val2 must be compatible with the type of $node, and must be a derivative of xs:decimal. It is a schema definition error if the $node argument is a complex element. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM To: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> Date: 11/08/2015 16:28 Subject: Fw: [DFDL]: First Release of DFDL4S Parser Library Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 11/08/2015 16:27 ----- From: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo(a)esa.int> To: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> Cc: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Maurizio De Bartolomei < Maurizio.De.Bartolomei(a)esa.int>, Montserrat Piñol <mpinol(a)eopp.esa.int>, "Rui Mestre (DME)" <rui.mestre(a)deimos.com.pt> Date: 18/05/2015 08:47 Subject: Re: [DFDL]: First Release of DFDL4S Parser Library Thanks Mike, we will add this to our list to be considered/noted. However reading your explanation (NB I’m NOT at all an XPath expert) it seemed you had some good reason for avoiding longer than 1 path, so I would like to avoid our DFDL4S project results in an over-complication of the DFDL implementation/use of Xpath unless there are other reasons/users/rationale requiring this feature. (btw the syntax is still weird-ish: “intersect” reminds me of Venn Diagrams…) As a project manager I always evaluate solutions and their cost vs the benefit they bring, and I believe the DFDL community should keep this is mind. Michele PS The syntax above anser to the question “belongs to” , would there be any way to express ranges of values then ? On 15 May 2015, at 16:24 , Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl(a)gmail.com> wrote: Just a few comments on DFDL4S, and also thank you to Michele and team for the presentation on Tuesday. I think all the issues in the spreadsheet are fairly easily fixed in that they are not major changes to DFDL4S, and would bring it into much closer compliance with the DFDL spec. The exception is the XPath limitations where DFDL4S has gone beyond what XPath 2.0 allows and invented new syntax for expressing set membership requirements. So I took a look, and XPath 2.0 has a set intersect operator: ns1 intersect ns2 => ns3 This isn't in DFDL today, but might be usable to achieve the set membership test; however, it requires use of XPath node sequences of length greater than 1, which DFDL has avoided mostly. I say mostly as there are XPath expressions that return node sequences of length greater than 1 and those can be arguments to fn:count(...) for example. So far in DFDL such node sequences cannot "leak out" of the XPath expression into DFDL elements, and I think the usage in DFDL4S is similar in that these node sequences would be needed only to check for set membership, so the result is just a boolean as part of an assert/discriminator. We should examine whether XPath 2.0 set intersection is enough to meet the need. I believe the expressions would be something like: fn:exists( . intersect (123, 456, 789, .... many more items....) ) - mike beckerle Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Tresys Technology | www.tresys.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Michele Zundo <michele.zundo(a)esa.int> wrote: for reference, here a summary of the reported problem in an excel sheet. This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender. Please consider the environment before printing this email. ----------------------------------------- Michele Zundo Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office EOP-PEP European Space Agency, ESTEC e-mail: michele.zundo(a)esa.int ----------------------------------------- Michele Zundo Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office EOP-PEP European Space Agency, ESTEC e-mail: michele.zundo(a)esa.int This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender. Please consider the environment before printing this email. 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 #### Sentinel2X-bandTMISPTypes.xsd moved to MyAttachments Repository V3.8 (Link) on 24 August 2015 by Steve Hanson. -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg ----------------------------------------- Michele Zundo Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office EOP-PEP European Space Agency, ESTEC e-mail: michele.zundo(a)esa.int This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender. Please consider the environment before printing this email. -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg ----------------------------------------- Michele Zundo Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office EOP-PEP European Space Agency, ESTEC e-mail: michele.zundo(a)esa.int This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender. Please consider the environment before printing this email. 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 ----------------------------------------- Michele Zundo Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office EOP-PEP European Space Agency, ESTEC e-mail: michele.zundo(a)esa.int This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender. Please consider the environment before printing this email. ----------------------------------------- Michele Zundo Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office EOP-PEP European Space Agency, ESTEC e-mail: michele.zundo(a)esa.int This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender. Please consider the environment before printing this email. ----------------------------------------- Michele Zundo Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office EOP-PEP European Space Agency, ESTEC e-mail: michele.zundo(a)esa.int This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender. Please consider the environment before printing this email. -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg ----------------------------------------- Michele Zundo Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office EOP-PEP European Space Agency, ESTEC e-mail: michele.zundo(a)esa.int This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender. Please consider the environment before printing this email. Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

1 0

OGF DFDL WG Call Agenda 2016-04-12
by Steve Hanson 11 Apr '16

11 Apr '16

Please find agenda for call on Redmine at https://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13526?download= Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848

1 0

Cancelled: OGF DFDL Working Group call
by Steve Hanson 17 Mar '16

17 Mar '16

Easter vacation

1 0

Re: [DFDL-WG] [DFDL4S]: Results of OGF DFDL WG Call Agenda 2016-02-16
by Michele Zundo 16 Mar '16

16 Mar '16

Thanks Steve, your input is very appreciated. We will check internally how to proceed. > On 03 Mar 2016, at 18:05 , Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com> wrote: > > Michele, Rui > > 1) This is a deviation from the DFDL 1.0 specification and should be corrected. The context for the evaluation of a DFDL discriminator (or assert or indeed any DFDL expression) is the object on which the annotation occurs (if expression is on an element) or the nearest parent element (if expression is on a sequence or choice). > > 2) Looking at the kinds of tests you are doing with dmx:assertExpression, I think you could use dfdl:assert with a recoverableException. > > Regards > > Steve Hanson > IBM Integration Bus <http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/ibm-integration-bus>, Hursley, UK > Architect, IBM DFDL <http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/se-dfdl/index.html> > Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/> > smh(a)uk.ibm.com <mailto:smh@uk.ibm.com> > tel:+44-1962-815848 > mob:+44-7717-378890 > > > > From: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo(a)esa.int> > To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle(a)tresys.com>, Montserrat Piñol <mpinol(a)eopp.esa.int>, Maurizio De Bartolomei <mdebartolomei(a)eopp.esa.int>, Rui Mestre <rui.mestre(a)deimos.com.pt>, DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org> > Date: 03/03/2016 16:05 > Subject: [DFDL4S]: Results of OGF DFDL WG Call Agenda 2016-02-16 > > > > Dear Steve/Mike, > > here few considerations regarding the 2 points in the MoM: > > > > 1) Regarding the evaluation of the XPath expressions in the dfdl:discriminator tests: > > > From: "Rui Mestre (DME)" <rui.mestre(a)deimos.com.pt <mailto:rui.mestre@deimos.com.pt>> > > Our implementation of the DFDL parser is based on a slightly different interpretation of the way the paths are applied. > Our approach is based on the fact that the discriminator expression is not being evaluated at the level of the element > containing the discriminator but instead at the level of the type containing such element. > > In the example at hand the type TypeMasterChId is defined with an element "Transfer_Frame_Version" followed by a "choice" among several alternative elements Spacecraft_Id_V*. So the decision of which "choice" branch to choose is done while "located" at the root level of TypeMasterChId. While parsing the sub-components of TypeMasterChId the several branches of the "choice" construct are evaluated (in order) and the first one evaluating to "true" is the one selected. Hence the relative path is written in reference to the top level of the type. Therefore in such cases the paths start with "./" instead of "../". > > > 2) dfdl:assert vs dmx:assertExpression > > The question from Steve: > “Also you said that you saw no need to implement DFDL assert - so what are the dmx:assertExpression attributes doing? “ > > (Maurizio De Bartolomei) : as far as I understood, the DFDL assert shall be used to check that data is well formed (i.e. the data is compliant to a given structure and can be parsed) and not for data validation (i.e. inspecting the content of a given element and comparing against an expected value). > The dmx:assertExpression does not check that the data is well formed but only checks the value of a given item against an expected value, if the value is different a message is returned. > This can be improved by either changing the expression name (i.e. dmx:checkExpression) or investigate if DFDL provides already suitable expressions for content validation without loosing the compactness and clarity of dmx:assertExpression). > > From: "Rui Mestre (DME)" <rui.mestre(a)deimos.com.pt <mailto:rui.mestre@deimos.com.pt>> > > Regarding the use of dmx:assertExpression (as opposed to dfdl:assert) we fully agree with Maurizio's answer above > About his statement "(...)or investigate if DFDL provides already suitable expressions for content validation without loosing the compactness and clarity of dmx:assertExpression" we had in fact identified an alternative: a possibility is to use XML Schema facets to capture the assert expression by a restriction to the data type. > However that approach does not cover the semantics currently available in our "custom" operators (in,inrange, et al.). So until the DFDL standard is updated to contain the corresponding semantics it would not be possible to completely replace the dmx:assertExpression with a standard DFDL (or in this case XML) construct. > > > ******* > > > > > > > From: Steve Hanson <smh(a)uk.ibm.com <mailto:smh@uk.ibm.com>> > Subject: Re: OGF DFDL WG Call Agenda 2016-02-16 > Date: 1 March 2016 at 19:12:13 GMT+1 > To: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo(a)esa.int <mailto:michele.zundo@esa.int>> > Cc: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg(a)ogf.org <mailto:dfdl-wg@ogf.org>>, Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle(a)tresys.com <mailto:mbeckerle@tresys.com>> > > Hi Michele > > Here is an example of where I do not think the relative path is correct. The discriminator expression should be {../Transfer_Frame_Version in [0]}. In infoset terms, Spacecraft_Id_V1 is a sibling of Transfer_Frame_Version. > > Also you said that you saw no need to implement DFDL assert - so what are the dmx:assertExpression attributes doing? > > > <xs:complexType name="TypeMasterChId"> > <xs:sequence> > <xs:element name="Transfer_Frame_Version" type="xs:int" dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" dfdl:lengthUnits="bits" dfdl:length="2" dmx:representation="Integer16" > dmx:assertExpression="../Transfer_Frame_Version eq 1" dmx:assertMessage="Invalid TF version detected." dmx:assertPropagate="true"/> > <xs:choice> > <xs:element name="Spacecraft_Id_V1" type="xs:int" dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" dfdl:lengthUnits="bits" dfdl:length="10" dmx:representation="Integer32" > > <xs:annotation> > <xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/ <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/>"> > <dfdl:discriminator test="{./Transfer_Frame_Version in [0]}" /> > </xs:appinfo> > </xs:annotation> > </xs:element> > <xs:element name="Spacecraft_Id_V2" type="xs:int" dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" dfdl:lengthUnits="bits" dfdl:length="8" dmx:representation="UInteger8" > dmx:assertExpression="../Spacecraft_Id_V2 in [82, 83, 84]" dmx:assertMessage="Invalid Spacecraft ID detected."> > <xs:annotation> > <xs:appinfo source="http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/ <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/dfdl-1.0/>"> > <dfdl:discriminator test="{true}" /> > </xs:appinfo> > </xs:annotation> > </xs:element> > </xs:choice> > </xs:sequence> > </xs:complexType> > > > > Regards > > Steve Hanson > IBM Integration Bus <http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/ibm-integration-bus>, Hursley, UK > Architect, IBM DFDL <http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/se-dfdl/index.html> > Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group <http://www.ogf.org/dfdl/> > smh(a)uk.ibm.com <mailto:smh@uk.ibm.com> > tel:+44-1962-815848 <tel:+44-1962-815848> > mob:+44-7717-378890 > > > -- > ----------------------------------------- > Michele Zundo > > Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office > EOP-PEP > European Space Agency, ESTEC > e-mail: michele.zundo(a)esa.int <mailto:michele.zundo@esa.int> > > > > > > > > > This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. > The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its > content is not permitted. > If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. > Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender. > > Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > > 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 ----------------------------------------- Michele Zundo Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office EOP-PEP European Space Agency, ESTEC e-mail: michele.zundo(a)esa.int This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

1 0

OGF DFDL WG Call 2016-03-15 - cancelled
by Steve Hanson 15 Mar '16

15 Mar '16

Mike not available short notice so cancelling. Next meeting due to Easter is April 12th. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848

1 0

Cancelled: OGF DFDL Working Group call
by Steve Hanson 15 Mar '16

15 Mar '16

Mike unable to make call

1 0

OGF DFDL WG Call Agenda 2016-03-15
by Steve Hanson 14 Mar '16

14 Mar '16

Please find agenda for call on Redmine at https://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13524?download= Note 1hr earlier start for European participants. Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL) Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM SWG, Hursley, UK smh(a)uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848

1 0