Per thread below, the DFDL spec was reviewed by the OGF Standards Council, and with two minor changes (which are done) they are moving to publish this as a full recommendation. Congratulations to all involved. Final links will be forthcoming. I expect there to be some press announcement about this from somewhere. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 10:44 AM Subject: Re: Final DFDL specification - Re: DFDL Public Comment Ended To: Greg Newby <gbnewby@petascale.org> Attached is PDF and docx of version 1.0.8. The only changes are the redraw of figure 2, and I sorted the items in 4.2.2. Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Owl Cyber Defense | www.owlcyberdefense.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy <http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 9:33 AM Greg Newby <gbnewby@petascale.org> wrote:
Thanks, Mike. Appreciate it! - Greg
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 7:02 AM Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll get these fixed and get you a new PDF and Docx today.
Thank you very much.
Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Owl Cyber Defense | www.owlcyberdefense.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy <http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php>
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:25 AM Greg Newby <gbnewby@petascale.org> wrote:
Hi, Mike.
The standards council reviewed this, and was able to discuss during today's meeting.
There are only two very minor inquiries:
Image 2 (p. 20) has some artifacts due to being a bitmap-type image. If you still have the source for this, we wondered whether a higher resolution version might be generated. In particular, there are some greyish background artifacts behind 0..1, the shaded boxes, and perhaps some other locations. It looks worse in the PDF, but this is also visible in the .docx. If the source is no longer easily available, it's ok to leave this as-is.
4.2.2 information items: It was noted that the items listed here are not in alphabetical order. Is that intentional? Much of it is in alpha order, but not the whole list.
These are very minor comments. Overall, the document is excellent. Well written and complete, and full due attention to the public comments.
Let me know about the two items above. No further review is needed, and once you confirm/provide any final document, I will get it published & announced, and the obsolescence handled, in fairly short order.
Best, Greg
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 10:34 AM Greg Newby <gbnewby@petascale.org> wrote:
Hi, Mike. In fact the first discussion happened just today. There will be a second discussion on Monday, February 22, because due to time constraints the discussion didn't conclude.
There is a very good chance that final approval will occur on Monday. It will then take a few days for me to get the document + obsoleted document into their final PDF form and online at www.orf.org
Best, Greg
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 10:32 AM Mike Beckerle < mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Any word on when the standards council will meet about this?
I only nag because there are some other things happening related to DFDL implementations where some press synergy is available depending on time frames.
Thanks for any info
-mikeb
Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Owl Cyber Defense | www.owlcyberdefense.com Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy <http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php>
On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 10:01 AM Greg Newby <gbnewby@petascale.org> wrote:
This is perfect, Mike, and very much appreciated. I've pinged the standards council again to set up our next meeting, and otherwise they'll discuss by email.
Hopefully we're just a couple of weeks away from putting this online as a new document, and obsoleting the old. I appreciate your stewardship for this document's journey!
Best, Greg
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 3:08 PM Mike Beckerle < mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> wrote:
> Greg, > > Attached is a changes-tracked version containing the changes made > based on the public review comment period, and final corrections found > since. > That one is v1.0.6. > > The attached version 1.0.7 has all changes accepted and is the clean > version for final publication. docx and pdf attached. > > The public review comments included several statements of support, > but these public comments were substantive (links): > > https://github.com/OpenGridForum/Editor/issues/16 - a large and > extensive review > https://github.com/OpenGridForum/Editor/issues/15 > https://github.com/OpenGridForum/Editor/issues/14 > https://github.com/OpenGridForum/Editor/issues/9 > https://github.com/OpenGridForum/Editor/issues/8 > > The first of these was based on an extensive review of the > specification by Don Brutzman of the US Naval Research Laboratory. > There are change paragraphs in the attached having to do with the > other 4 public comments. But with respect to this one extensive review, > there are many smaller changes, as he pointed out a number of > English-language issues (use of 1st person and 2nd person, future vs. > present tense, wrong mood of verbs, etc.) as well as just wording > improvements, all of which were corrected. Those make up the bulk of the > smaller changes. > > > Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Owl Cyber Defense | > www.owlcyberdefense.com > Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email discussions > are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy > <http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php> > > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 3:04 PM Greg Newby <gbnewby@petascale.org> > wrote: > >> Hi, Mike. Thanks for this. I had a calendar reminder for when >> public comment ended, but it was right at new years and I missed or >> neglected it. >> >> Indeed, your actions are exactly right: make a final version of the >> document, based on any input received during the public comment period. >> >> The next step is a final review by the standards council. For this, >> it is helpful if you can provide either a "track changes" version of the >> document that was reviewed, or a written summary of the nature of changes. >> Whichever is easier - the idea is to make it easier for the standards >> council to know what's changed, based on public comments received. >> >> Once the standards council approves publication, I will proceed to >> put that online, and update #207 as obsolete (I have the editable version >> of that, I believe). >> >> The standards council's next meeting isn't scheduled yet. We are >> trying to identify a new fortnightly meeting time, and hopefully will be >> meeting by the 2nd week of February. If you can provide some sort of record >> of changes, as described above, the final review can proceed. >> >> Thanks again, and best regards, >> Greg >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 3:30 PM Mike Beckerle < >> mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Greg et al., >>> >>> We have ended the public comment period on DFDL earlier this >>> month. >>> >>> We got some good support statements, and one person gave the spec >>> a quite thorough review even, which was great. >>> >>> I have edited in changes per the public comments that suggested >>> edits/improvements. >>> >>> I think we are ready to finalize DFDL v1.0 GFD.240 as an official >>> OGF Recommendation, and mark the prior GFD.207 as obsolete. >>> >>> What is next? Do I just send you the pdf and ms-word docx files? >>> We are just proofreading my final edits and this will be ready. >>> >>> Thank you >>> >>> Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL Workgroup Co-Chair | Owl Cyber Defense | >>> www.owlcyberdefense.com >>> Please note: Contributions to the DFDL Workgroup's email >>> discussions are subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy >>> <http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php> >>> >>>