Hi Steve, That is a good suggestion. An important point that I can try to make, in the abstract is that both cases you outline would have very similar annotations on the logical model. That part of it would not need to change. The explicit declarations are additional material that would (typically) be presented to the compiler in advance. I don't think its particularly important for us to get hung up on the declaration of new conversions at this stage. After discussing this with Mike, I think it makes sense to separate that section off into a new document, that we could discuss separately. At the heart of what I think is important in this conversions document is the semantics for describing the conversions and how they are chosen. In order for the standard to be comprehensible and comprehensive in its description of DFDL I think we need to nail down these details. It is, if you like a useful side effect, that doing so provides the hooks to allow extensibility, but I think it is important in of itself to have a clear description of how that all works. In principle we should be able to hand this standards doc to two developers, lock them in separate rooms and have them build two DFDL parsers that do the same thing for all the many complex corner cases and I think we need a framework like the one I have outlined to get that to work. That said I think there are a lot of issues with what I laid out, Mike identified many of them, which need attention and group discussion. Talk to you tomorrow, Martin
-----Original Message----- From: owner-dfdl-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-dfdl-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Steve Hanson Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:41 AM To: dfdl-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [dfdl-wg] More documents
I've read the Conversions document and to be honest I had a great deal of trouble trying to work out what was going on. I'd like to see an example of a DFDL schema that models a text stream that contains (say) a complex type with string, integer and decimal children, with DFDL properties used to handle the implicit conversions from text to logical data type. Then I'd like to see the same DFDL schema but with equivalent conversions explicitly declared and used instead of the DFDL properties.
Regards, Steve
Steve Hanson WebSphere Message Brokers, IBM Hursley, England Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848
Mike Beckerle <beckerle@us.ibm. com> To Sent by: Mike Beckerle <beckerle@us.ibm.com> owner-dfdl-wg@ggf cc .org dfdl-wg@ggf.org, owner-dfdl-wg@ggf.org, "Westhead, Martin (Martin)" 28/01/2006 04:17 <westhead@avaya.com>
Subject
Re: [dfdl-wg] More documents
Oh yeah, forgot the attachment. Mike Beckerle STSM, Architect, Scalable Computing IBM Software Group Information Integration Solutions Westborough, MA 01581 voice and FAX 508-599-7148 home/mobile office 508-915-4767
Mike Beckerle/Worcester/IBM@IBMUS Sent by: owner-dfdl-wg@ggf.org
To
"Westhead, Martin
(Martin)"
01/27/2006 07:50 PM <westhead@avaya.com>
cc
dfdl-wg@ggf.org, owner-dfdl-wg@ggf.org
Subject
Re: [dfdl-wg] More
documents
Sorry I missed the call this past week. Here are my comments and some in-line editing on the
I actually think the primary reason to push this document forward is
NOT
extensibility, but because it is needed to clarify the basic semantics of DFDL. That is, it allows us to make very clear exactly what properties in the annotations are guiding the selection of which conversion functions.
...mikeb
Mike Beckerle STSM, Architect, Scalable Computing IBM Software Group Information Integration Solutions Westborough, MA 01581 voice and FAX 508-599-7148 home/mobile office 508-915-4767
"Westhead, Martin (Martin)" <westhead@avaya.com> Sent by: owner-dfdl-wg@ggf.org
To
<dfdl-wg@ggf
01/23/2006 04:58 PM .org>
cc
Subject
[dfdl-wg] More documents
These are documents 3 and 4 of a set of 3 :).
The documents are: - bundles - a reusable block of DFDL statements - Conversions - a proposal for the semantic details as to how conversions are chosen during the operation of a DFDL parser. These semantics include a description as to how the conversions can be
extended.
These documents round off the current set of proposals from the extensibility design team. The team has reasonable consensus on these documents, with the (relatively trivial) exception of bundles where
there
may be some outstanding issues. We believe that with these two documents there is enough material to support the necessary extensibility. However, we have not yet worked through enough examples of round tripping to understand whether that is sufficiently well covered and we are expecting that all the ideas in these documents will require refining by the group as a whole.
I would like to discuss these two documents on Wednesday (if possible).
Thanks,
Martin[attachment "DFDL_Conversions_4.doc" deleted by Mike Beckerle/Worcester/IBM] [attachment "DFDL_Bundles_2.doc" deleted by Mike Beckerle/Worcester/IBM]
(See attached file: DFDL_Conversions_4.doc)