Alan

I've re-read the spec and you are quite right.  

That just leaves b), a use case for which personally I have no need.

I therefore have no objection to the removal of multiple non-selector annotations.

Regards

Steve Hanson
Programming Model Architect, WebSphere Message  Brokers,
OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair,
Hursley, UK,
Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com,
Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848


From: Alan Powell/UK/IBM
To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org, dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org
Date: 23/10/2009 08:59
Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Fw:  DFDL Scoping v6



Steve

The semantics of selectors are the you select the dfd:format block with the matching selector OR the dfdl:format block with no selector at an annotation point. I don't think that case 1a was supported anyway.

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



From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB
To: dfdl-wg@ogf.org
Date: 22/10/2009 18:41
Subject: [DFDL-WG] Fw:  DFDL Scoping v6





A couple of things about the new scoping rules:

1) As Alan said in the minutes, there was one thing we didn't discuss on the call, namely a proposal that multiple DFDL format annotations on the same XSDL component be disallowed. This simplifies things, as we currently have rules that govern how properties on multiple annotations combine.

Whilst agreeing that this a simplification is desirable, if I recall correctly, there were a couple of motivating use cases, which we should bear in mind when deciding this:

a) I am using selectors to model two different format variations, and some properties are common to both. I code the common properties in one dfdl:selector-free annotation, and the ones that differ in two annotations that have a dfdl:selector.

b) I am simulating multiple inheritance by using two annotations each with a different dfdl:ref.

2) One other thing was discussed on the call. Relates to rule 3 below. When a component's set of 'explicit' properties are combined with the working set of 'explicit' properties, it is a schema definition error if same property appears in each set.  It was questioned whether it should be an error if the properties have the same value.  We agreed to leave the rule as-is, but revisit it if it proved to be a restriction when creating DFDL xsds.

Regards

Steve Hanson
Programming Model Architect, WebSphere Message  Brokers,
OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair,
Hursley, UK,
Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com,
Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848
----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 22/10/2009 18:12 -----
From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM
To: Alan Powell/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org
Date: 21/10/2009 10:39
Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] DFDL Scoping v6


Alan

1)  There's a rule that got absorbed into the end of rule 2 of the combining rules. The rules are also specific to element ref -> global element -> simple type. They need to be generalised to handle the four combination cases you cite. Here's an amended set:

Rules

1.        Create an empty working set of "explicit" properties. Create an empty working set of "default" properties.

2.        Move to the innermost  schema component in the chain of references.

3.    Assemble its directly relevant "explicit" properties from its local dfdl:ref (if present) and its local properties (if present), the latter overriding the former (that is, local wins). Combine these with the current working set of "explicit" properties. It is a schema definition error if there is the same property appears twice. Result is a new working set of "explicit" properties. Obtain directly relevant "default" properties from in-scope unnamed dfdl:format block (if present).  Combine these with the current working set of "default" properties, the latter overriding the former (ie, inner wins). Result is a new working set of "default" properties.

4.   Move to the schema component that references the current component, and repeat step 3. If there is no referencing component, move to step 5.

5.        Validate the resultant set of properties. The "explicit" properties take priority, "defaults" only used when no "explicit" is present. It is a schema definition error if a required property is in neither the "explicit" nor the "default" working sets.

2) I think we should also define the property term "required". I think "directly relevant" could be replaced by "applicable" (I know "directly relevant" was my term :)

3) In Fig 5 you have dfdl:lengthKind on a xs:sequence - that is no longer allowed.

4) In Fig 5 I think you should add an extra applicable property to the dfdl:format in schema 1, to show how it gets picked up. Otherwise you are not showing how all the rules are being applied, and the statement "Nothing from the default dfdl:format block in SCHEMA1" will be mis-interpreted.

Regards

Steve Hanson
Programming Model Architect, WebSphere Message  Brokers,
OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair,
Hursley, UK,
Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com,
Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848

From: Suman Kalia <kalia@ca.ibm.com>
To: Alan Powell/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org, dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org
Date: 21/10/2009 03:53
Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] DFDL Scoping v6
Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org





Some comments added in the document  

Suman Kalia
IBM Toronto Lab
WMB Toolkit Architect and Development Lead
WebSphere Business Integration Application Connectivity Tools

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/zones/businessintegration/wmb.html

Tel : 905-413-3923  T/L  969-3923
Fax : 905-413-4850 T/L  969-4850
Internet ID : kalia@ca.ibm.com
From: Alan Powell <alan_powell@uk.ibm.com>
To: dfdl-wg@ogf.org
Date: 10/20/2009 10:20 AM
Subject: [DFDL-WG] DFDL Scoping v6
Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org




I have updated the scoping proposal with the help of Steve and Stephanie.

The main changes are to clarify the wording, define new terms, add more examples and propose disallowing multiple annotation at the same point (other than for selectors)



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 [attachment "ogf-dfdl-new-scoping-rules-with-default-V6.doc" deleted by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM] [attachment "ogf-dfdl-new-scoping-rules-with-default-V6_SKK.doc" deleted by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM] --
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











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