|
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 |
|
020
| SH: Resolve packedDecimalSignCodes
behaviour depends on NumberCheckPolicy 22/10: No progress 10/12: added how to decide to overpunch and sign position 11/02: proposal largely agreed. SH to make minor changes 18/02: AP to document unsigned type behaviour 25/02: no progress 08/04: Not discussed 22/04: SH to complete last remaining issue, which is the behaviour when logical type is signed/unsigned and the physical type is unsigned/signed. 29/04: SH had identified a problem with definition values and types in the infoset and will email proposal. DG to be asked to accelerate action 032 to see if helps 06/05: No progress |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
032
| DG: Investigate compatibility between DFDL
infoset and XDM 08/04: No update 22/04: No update 29/04: No update 06/05: DG indicates will have update next week |
|
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. |
|
036
| SH: Provide use case for floating component
in a sequence 08/04: Raised 15/04: Use case sent and discussed. SH to do further investigation 22/04: IBM feedback from WTX team is that alternate suggested ways of modelling the EDI floating NTE segment have significant usability issues. The DFDL principle is that for a problem that can be expressed as two-layered, then two DFDL models are needed. The EDI NTE segment does not fall into this though, as its use is on a per sequence basis. Ongoing. 29/04: Agreed that need to be in V1. SH to make a proposal 06/05: No progress |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
039
| SKK: Approach for creating Schema-For-DFDL
xsds. 22/04: Resolve issue around multiple declarations needed for DFDL properties, perhaps using MB's meta approach 29/04: Don't like qualified attributes in long form. SKK to check there are no code gen implications, eg EMF. 06/05: SKK will send update by Friday |
|
040
| SH: LengthKind on complex objects.
29/04: All send comment before next call 06/05: See minutes. Agreed to remove lengthKind from sequence and choice. |
|
041
| AP: UnorderedInitiated
29/04: All: Review for next call 06/05: See minutes: Agreed to generalize to all sequences |
|
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 |
Work items:
|
No
| Item | target version | status |
|
001
| String XML type (Ian P) - Apr 30, 2008 | ||
|
002
| Escape schemes (Ian P) - Apr 30, 2008 | 034 | |
|
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 (A033) | 034 | 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) | 034 | added but needs work |
| 026 | Remove duration | 034 | |
| 027 | Calendar schemes | 034 | |
| 028 | Validation ranges (A035) | 034 | |
| 029 | Decimals (A020) - document unsigned type behaviour - packedDecimalSignCodes behaviour depends on NumberCheckPolicy | 034 | |
| 030 | Remove redundant properties, fix examples. (A036) | 034 | |
| 031 | Specialized annotations | 034 | |
| 032 | Floating components | ||
| 033 | Specialized annotations | 034 |
Alan Powell
MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley, Winchester, SO21 2JN, England
Notes Id: Alan Powell/UK/IBM email: alan_powell@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@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