Michele & team

Please join the DFDL WG call on 24th May so we can review the proposal and hopefully close this action.
Thanks
 
Steve Hanson
IBM Integration Bus, Hursley, UK
Architect, IBM DFDL
Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
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" <dfdl-wg@ogf.org>, Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com>, Maurizio De Bartolomei <mdebartolomei@eopp.esa.int>, Montserrat Piñol <mpinol@eopp.esa.int>, Rui Mestre <rui.mestre@deimos.com.pt>
Date:        12/04/2016 16:43
Subject:        Re: [DFDL-WG] Action 282



Steve, I see this only now,

we will not have time this nor the coming week, as I want to discuss the proposal internally.

We will review the proposal below and come back to you.

Michele





On 11 Apr 2016, at 10:47 , Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
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@uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
mob:+44-7717-378890



From:        Steve Hanson/UK/IBM
To:        Michele Zundo <michele.zundo@esa.int>
Cc:        "dfdl-wg@ogf.org" <dfdl-wg@ogf.org>, Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com>, Maurizio De Bartolomei <mdebartolomei@eopp.esa.int>, Montserrat Piñol <mpinol@eopp.esa.int>, Rui Mestre <rui.mestre@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@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:        Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com>, "dfdl-wg@ogf.org" <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:        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@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@uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
mob:+44-7717-378890



From:        Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com>
To:        Michele Zundo <michele.zundo@esa.int>
Cc:        Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Rui Mestre <rui.mestre@deimos.com.pt>, "dfdl-wg@ogf.org" <dfdl-wg@ogf.org>, Montserrat Piñol <mpinol@eopp.esa.int>, Maurizio De Bartolomei <mdebartolomei@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@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> <!-- Choice for MSI -->
<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> <!-- Choice for TM_GPSR -->
<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>
<!-- Choice for TM_Time_packet(9,2), Overlaps with MSI APID 0x0  Removed here (moved to 99999) as it is SCIENCE config-->
<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> <!-- Choice for TM_STR -->
<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> <!-- Choice for TM_CSW_AOCS -->
<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>
<!-- Choice for HKTM -->
<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>
<!-- Choice for TM_IDLE -->
<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> <!-- Choice for UNKNOWN -->
<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@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@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 16:27
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@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@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: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@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.



-----------------------------------------
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.



-----------------------------------------
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.


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