1. Go though actions

2.Semantics and enumeration for new occursCountKind

There has been some discussion of the semantics and enumeration of the new occursCountKind.

Should maxOccurs be used to limit the number of occurrences looked for and a processing error raised if minOccurs are not found or should parsing just find as many as it can and then validate if requested.

Suggested enumerations = 'implicit' - use minOccurs and maxOccurs
'implicit' - use maxOccurs
'parsed' - look for as many as possible.

3. Allow dfdl:initiatedContent (now discriminating) on arrays.

Current Actions:

No
Action

012
AP/SH: Update decimalCalendarScheme
10/9: Not allocated yet
17/9: No update
24/9: Add calendar binary formats to actions
22/10: No progress
16/1: proposal distributed and discussed. Will be redistributed
21/1: add locale,
04/02: changed from locale to specific properties
18/2: Need more investigation of ICU strict/lax behaviour.
08/04: Not discussed
22/04: AP to complete asap once the ICU strict/lax behaviour is understood.
29/04: No progress
06/05: No progress
13/05: Calendar has been added to latest spec version v034 but still a few details to clarify.
20/05: No Progress
27/05: No Progress
03/06: No Progress (low priority)
09/06: No Progress (low priority)
17/06: SH to check ICU code for lax calendar behaviour
24/06: no progress
01/07: no progress
15/07: no progress
29/07: no progress
05/08: no progress
12/08: no progress

026
SH: Envelopes and Payloads
08/04: Not discussed explicity, but recursive use of DFDL is tied up with this
22/04: Two aspects. Firstly compositional - do sufficient mechanisms exist to model an envelope with a payload that varies. Secondly markup syntax - this might be defined in the envelope.
The second of these is very much tied up with the variable markup action 028, so will be considered there. SH to verify the composition aspect.
29/04: SH and AP working on proposal. related to Action 028
06/05: No progress
06/05: No progress
20/05: No Progress
27/05: Still a number of aspects to be decided.
- Compostion - Does the envelope and payload need to be defined in the same schema or should they be dynamically bound at runtime?
- Compostion- How is a variable payload specified. Choice or xs:any; New action raised to discuss xs:any
- extracting dymanic syntax from data. Covered by action 029 valuecalc.
03/06: Dynamic runtime binding will not be supported.
SH investigating use of variables to enable standalone and use in envelope of global element.
09/06: Payload should be specified using a choice rather than xs:any
17/06: SH still working on example using variables
24/06: SH to document how property list satisfies uses cases.
01/07: SH to document how property list satisfies uses cases. PL looking at variable also. MB suggested modelling first separator as data for use case 3.
15/07: Action 042 on variables now includes examples of enevlopes and payloads. SH will also circulate what he has agreed with WTX team.
29/07: no progress
05/08: see action 042
12/08: see action 042

033
AP/TK: Assert/Discriminator semantics. AP to document. TK to check uses of discriminator besides choice.
08/04: In progress within IBM
22/04: Waiting for TK to return from leave to complete.
29/04: TK has sent examples shown need for discriminators beyond choice. Agreed. MB to respond to TK
06/05: Discussed suggestion of adding type indicator to discriminator. MB to provide examples.
15/03: Semantic documented in v034. MB to provide examples of need for scope indicator on discriminator
20/05: MB to provide examples of need for scope indicator on discriminator (but lower priority than action 029)
27/05: No Progress (lower priority)
03/06: No Progress (lower priority)
09/06: No Progress (lower priority)
24/06: No Progress (lower priority)
01/07: No Progress (lower priority)
15/07: No Progress (lower priority)
29/07: no progress (lower priority)
05/08: No Progress (lower priority)
12/08: No Progress (lower priority)

037
All: Approach for XML Schema 1.0 UPA checks.
22/04: Several non-XML models, when expressed in their most obvious DFDL Schema form, would fail XML Schema 1.0 Unique Particle Attribution checks that police model ambiguity. And even re-jigging the model sometimes fails to fix this. Note this is equally applicable to XMl Schema 1.1 and 1.0. While the DFDL parser/unparser can happily resolve the ambiguities, the issue is one of definition. If an XSD editor that implements UPA checks is used to create DFDL Schema, then errors will be flagged. DFDL may have to adopt the position that:
a)DFDL parser/unparser will not implement some/all UPA checks (exact checks tbd)
b) XML Schema editors that implement UPA checks will not be suitable for all DFDL models
c) If DFDL annotations are removed, the resulting pure XSD will not always be valid (ie, the equivalent XML is ambiguous and can't be modelled by XML Schema 1.0)
Ongoing in case another solution can be found.
29/04: Will ask DG and S Gao for opinion before closing
06/05: Discussed S Gao email and suggestions. Decided need to review all XML UPA rules and decide which apply to dfdl.
20/05: SH or SKK to investigate
27/05: No Progress
03/06: The concern is that some dfdl schemas will fail UPA check when validation is turned on or when editted using tooling that enforces UPA checks. Renaming fields will resolve some/most issues. Need documentation that describes issue and best practice.
17/06: no change
24/06: no change
01/07: no prgress
15/07: No Progress (lower priority)
29/07: No Progress (lower priority)
05/08: No Progress (lower priority)
12/08: No Progress (lower priority)

042
MB: Complete variable specification.
To include how properties such as encoding can be set externally. Must be a known variable name.
06/05: No progress
20/05: AP to make proposal
27/05: MB proposed differentiating between input and output variables to avoid unnecessary evaluations during parse and unparse. Need to complete rest of variable specification.
03/06: Pointed out problem of declaring variables input or output when used to define syntax which is used both times. MB to update proposal to include how variables are set externally and how specific properties such as encoding are set.
09/06: SKK to use example to dicument his proposal
17/06: SKK to refine proposal. Other aspects need progress.
24/06: SKK proposal discussed but not accepted. PL to document simpler proposal.
07/01: PL working on proposal
15/07: PL has distributed his proposal. SH, MB and SKK have commented. Broad agreement in principle. Need to agree on better name for dfdl:variable to reflect the annotation's purpose. PL to update proposal.
15/07: No Progress
29/07: No Progress
05/08: SH and others had commented on Variables [Draft proposal - 20090715].doc. SH stated that fixOnMatch is not needed in dfdl v1.0
MB will document how to implement fixOnMatch behaviour with existing function. PL to update proposal
12/08: PL to update proposal with SKK examples.

044
13/05: Bidi
20/05: AP: will check what IBM products support.
27/05: Bidi is supported so will be needed in dfdl v1
03/06: No Progress
09/06: No Progress
24/06: No Progress
01/07: AP started investigation and documented issues. Suggest do whatever XML does.
15/07: No further progress
29/07: No Progress
05/08: AP has been in touch with IBM bidi experts.
12/08: No Progress

045
20/05 AP: Speculative Parsing
27/05: Psuedo code has been circulated. Review for next call
03/06: Comments received and will be incorporated
09/06: Progress but not discussed
17/06: Discussed briefly
24/06: No Progress
01/07: No Progress
15/07: No progress. MB not happy with the way the algorithm is documented, need to find a better way.
29/07: No Progress
05/08: No Progress. Will document behaviour as a set of rules.
12/08: No Progress

049
20/05 AP Built-in specification description and schemas
03/06: not discussed
24/06: No Progress
24/06: No Progress (hope to get these from test cases)
15/07: No progress. Once available, the examples in the spec should use the dfdl:defineFormat annotations they provide.
29/07: No Progress (lower priority)
05/08: No Progress (lower priority)
12/08: No Progress (lower priority)

051
Scoping rules.
MB: to document change to scoping rules to satisfy implementation concerns
17/06: MB and SH proposals discussed. Needs further discussion
24/06: AP to update presentation with latest proosal
24/06: AP had updated presentation. MB to review
08/07: Discussed at length. Simple types will now take annotations. Variables will be used for parameters.
15/07: No further progress. Needs final write up.
29/07: No Progress
05/08: No Progress
12/08: No Progress

054
ICU DecimalNumber/ Calendar behaviour
15/07: No progress
29/07: No Progress.
05/08: No Progress. This action is to discover and document ICU behaviour. DFDL will do whatever ICU does.
12/08: No Progress

055
Document which properties can take an expression
12/08: AP has distributed proposed list of properties and wording

056
resolve lenghtKind=bits including fillbytes
12/08: No Progress

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

No	Action
012	AP/SH: Update decimalCalendarScheme 10/9: Not allocated yet 17/9: No update 24/9: Add calendar binary formats to actions 22/10: No progress 16/1: proposal distributed and discussed. Will be redistributed 21/1: add locale, 04/02: changed from locale to specific properties 18/2: Need more investigation of ICU strict/lax behaviour. 08/04: Not discussed 22/04: AP to complete asap once the ICU strict/lax behaviour is understood. 29/04: No progress 06/05: No progress 13/05: Calendar has been added to latest spec version v034 but still a few details to clarify. 20/05: No Progress 27/05: No Progress 03/06: No Progress (low priority) 09/06: No Progress (low priority) 17/06: SH to check ICU code for lax calendar behaviour 24/06: no progress 01/07: no progress 15/07: no progress 29/07: no progress 05/08: no progress 12/08: no progress
026	SH: Envelopes and Payloads 08/04: Not discussed explicity, but recursive use of DFDL is tied up with this 22/04: Two aspects. Firstly compositional - do sufficient mechanisms exist to model an envelope with a payload that varies. Secondly markup syntax - this might be defined in the envelope. The second of these is very much tied up with the variable markup action 028, so will be considered there. SH to verify the composition aspect. 29/04: SH and AP working on proposal. related to Action 028 06/05: No progress 06/05: No progress 20/05: No Progress 27/05: Still a number of aspects to be decided. - Compostion - Does the envelope and payload need to be defined in the same schema or should they be dynamically bound at runtime? - Compostion- How is a variable payload specified. Choice or xs:any; New action raised to discuss xs:any - extracting dymanic syntax from data. Covered by action 029 valuecalc. 03/06: Dynamic runtime binding will not be supported. SH investigating use of variables to enable standalone and use in envelope of global element. 09/06: Payload should be specified using a choice rather than xs:any 17/06: SH still working on example using variables 24/06: SH to document how property list satisfies uses cases. 01/07: SH to document how property list satisfies uses cases. PL looking at variable also. MB suggested modelling first separator as data for use case 3. 15/07: Action 042 on variables now includes examples of enevlopes and payloads. SH will also circulate what he has agreed with WTX team. 29/07: no progress 05/08: see action 042 12/08: see action 042
033	AP/TK: Assert/Discriminator semantics. AP to document. TK to check uses of discriminator besides choice. 08/04: In progress within IBM 22/04: Waiting for TK to return from leave to complete. 29/04: TK has sent examples shown need for discriminators beyond choice. Agreed. MB to respond to TK 06/05: Discussed suggestion of adding type indicator to discriminator. MB to provide examples. 15/03: Semantic documented in v034. MB to provide examples of need for scope indicator on discriminator 20/05: MB to provide examples of need for scope indicator on discriminator (but lower priority than action 029) 27/05: No Progress (lower priority) 03/06: No Progress (lower priority) 09/06: No Progress (lower priority) 24/06: No Progress (lower priority) 01/07: No Progress (lower priority) 15/07: No Progress (lower priority) 29/07: no progress (lower priority) 05/08: No Progress (lower priority) 12/08: No Progress (lower priority)
037	All: Approach for XML Schema 1.0 UPA checks. 22/04: Several non-XML models, when expressed in their most obvious DFDL Schema form, would fail XML Schema 1.0 Unique Particle Attribution checks that police model ambiguity. And even re-jigging the model sometimes fails to fix this. Note this is equally applicable to XMl Schema 1.1 and 1.0. While the DFDL parser/unparser can happily resolve the ambiguities, the issue is one of definition. If an XSD editor that implements UPA checks is used to create DFDL Schema, then errors will be flagged. DFDL may have to adopt the position that: a)DFDL parser/unparser will not implement some/all UPA checks (exact checks tbd) b) XML Schema editors that implement UPA checks will not be suitable for all DFDL models c) If DFDL annotations are removed, the resulting pure XSD will not always be valid (ie, the equivalent XML is ambiguous and can't be modelled by XML Schema 1.0) Ongoing in case another solution can be found. 29/04: Will ask DG and S Gao for opinion before closing 06/05: Discussed S Gao email and suggestions. Decided need to review all XML UPA rules and decide which apply to dfdl. 20/05: SH or SKK to investigate 27/05: No Progress 03/06: The concern is that some dfdl schemas will fail UPA check when validation is turned on or when editted using tooling that enforces UPA checks. Renaming fields will resolve some/most issues. Need documentation that describes issue and best practice. 17/06: no change 24/06: no change 01/07: no prgress 15/07: No Progress (lower priority) 29/07: No Progress (lower priority) 05/08: No Progress (lower priority) 12/08: No Progress (lower priority)
042	MB: Complete variable specification. To include how properties such as encoding can be set externally. Must be a known variable name. 06/05: No progress 20/05: AP to make proposal 27/05: MB proposed differentiating between input and output variables to avoid unnecessary evaluations during parse and unparse. Need to complete rest of variable specification. 03/06: Pointed out problem of declaring variables input or output when used to define syntax which is used both times. MB to update proposal to include how variables are set externally and how specific properties such as encoding are set. 09/06: SKK to use example to dicument his proposal 17/06: SKK to refine proposal. Other aspects need progress. 24/06: SKK proposal discussed but not accepted. PL to document simpler proposal. 07/01: PL working on proposal 15/07: PL has distributed his proposal. SH, MB and SKK have commented. Broad agreement in principle. Need to agree on better name for dfdl:variable to reflect the annotation's purpose. PL to update proposal. 15/07: No Progress 29/07: No Progress 05/08: SH and others had commented on Variables [Draft proposal - 20090715].doc. SH stated that fixOnMatch is not needed in dfdl v1.0 MB will document how to implement fixOnMatch behaviour with existing function. PL to update proposal 12/08: PL to update proposal with SKK examples.
044	13/05: Bidi 20/05: AP: will check what IBM products support. 27/05: Bidi is supported so will be needed in dfdl v1 03/06: No Progress 09/06: No Progress 24/06: No Progress 01/07: AP started investigation and documented issues. Suggest do whatever XML does. 15/07: No further progress 29/07: No Progress 05/08: AP has been in touch with IBM bidi experts. 12/08: No Progress
045	20/05 AP: Speculative Parsing 27/05: Psuedo code has been circulated. Review for next call 03/06: Comments received and will be incorporated 09/06: Progress but not discussed 17/06: Discussed briefly 24/06: No Progress 01/07: No Progress 15/07: No progress. MB not happy with the way the algorithm is documented, need to find a better way. 29/07: No Progress 05/08: No Progress. Will document behaviour as a set of rules. 12/08: No Progress
049	20/05 AP Built-in specification description and schemas 03/06: not discussed 24/06: No Progress 24/06: No Progress (hope to get these from test cases) 15/07: No progress. Once available, the examples in the spec should use the dfdl:defineFormat annotations they provide. 29/07: No Progress (lower priority) 05/08: No Progress (lower priority) 12/08: No Progress (lower priority)
051	Scoping rules. MB: to document change to scoping rules to satisfy implementation concerns 17/06: MB and SH proposals discussed. Needs further discussion 24/06: AP to update presentation with latest proosal 24/06: AP had updated presentation. MB to review 08/07: Discussed at length. Simple types will now take annotations. Variables will be used for parameters. 15/07: No further progress. Needs final write up. 29/07: No Progress 05/08: No Progress 12/08: No Progress
054	ICU DecimalNumber/ Calendar behaviour 15/07: No progress 29/07: No Progress. 05/08: No Progress. This action is to discover and document ICU behaviour. DFDL will do whatever ICU does. 12/08: No Progress
055	Document which properties can take an expression 12/08: AP has distributed proposed list of properties and wording
056	resolve lenghtKind=bits including fillbytes 12/08: No Progress