"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 ? Regards Steve Hanson Architect, IBM DFDL Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group IBM Integration Bus, Hursley, UK smh@uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 mob:+44-7717-378890 From: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo@esa.int> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org, Maurizio De Bartolomei <mdebartolomei@eopp.esa.int>, Montserrat Piñol <mpinol@eopp.esa.int>, Rui Mestre <rui.mestre@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:checkRange and dfdl:checkValue The main semantic difference between checkValue/checkRange and 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@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@uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 From: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo@esa.int> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org, Rui Mestre <rui.mestre@deimos.com.pt>, Montserrat Piñol <mpinol@eopp.esa.int>, Maurizio De Bartolomei < mdebartolomei@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@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@uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 From: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo@esa.int> To: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Cc: Rui Mestre <rui.mestre@deimos.com.pt>, Montserrat Piñol < mpinol@eopp.esa.int>, Maurizio De Bartolomei <mdebartolomei@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@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 $node belongs to it ? 2) for dfdl:checkRange it might make sense also to allow float numbers e.g. X between 3.1 to 9.5 Michele PS I will forward this proposal to our DFDL4S developers (in copy) to get their thinking. From: "Steve Hanson" <smh@uk.ibm.com> Subject: [DFDL-WG] Action 282 (was Re: Fw: [DFDL]: First Release of DFDL4S Parser Library) Date: 22 Sep 2015 16:50:13 CEST To: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg@ogf.org> To kick start this action, here is a proposal ... builds on the precedent provided by dfdl:checkConstraints($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@uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM To: DFDL-WG <dfdl-wg@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@uk.ibm.com tel:+44-1962-815848 ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 11/08/2015 16:27 ----- From: Michele Zundo <michele.zundo@esa.int> To: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> Cc: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Maurizio De Bartolomei < Maurizio.De.Bartolomei@esa.int>, Montserrat Piñol <mpinol@eopp.esa.int>, "Rui Mestre (DME)" <rui.mestre@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@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@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@esa.int ----------------------------------------- Michele Zundo Head of Ground System Definition and Verification Office EOP-PEP European Space Agency, ESTEC e-mail: 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 #### Sentinel2X-bandTMISPTypes.xsd moved to MyAttachments Repository V3.8 (Link) on 24 August 2015 by Steve Hanson. -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg@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@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@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@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@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.