Alan, Greg
Thanks for reviewing the set of documents
so quickly and getting them into public comment stage.
I've updated the tracker to record a
couple of reasons why a reduced public comment period would be appreciated.
https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/117.
I note your comment that a standard
public comment period would lessen the need for another round of changes.
In practice it will not make any difference. Given where the two implementations
are, with some spec features still to be implemented, it is inevitable
that more errata will be found over the next year, so the WG anticipates
that a further revision will be needed regardless. It is this next revision
that the WG would move through to full Grid Recommendation.
Regards
Steve Hanson
Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL)
Co-Chair, OGF
DFDL Working Group
IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
smh@uk.ibm.com
tel:+44-1962-815848
From:
"Sill, Alan"
<alan.sill@ttu.edu>
To:
Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com>,
Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB,
Cc:
"Sill, Alan"
<alan.sill@ttu.edu>, "dfdl-wg@ogf.org" <dfdl-wg@ogf.org>,
Greg Newby <gbnewby@alaska.edu>, "David E. Martin" <martinde@northwestern.edu>,
GFSG Group <gfsg@ogf.org>
Date:
15/09/2013 20:32
Subject:
Re: Latest draft
of DFDL 1.0 specification - trackers created
Mike and Steve,
We discussed these documents during the GFSG meeting this evening in Madrid.
First of all, congratulations to the group for a very nice set of documents.
We agree with your handling of them and with your interpretation of the
rules.
The GFSG is willing to waive its initial review period for these documents
and put them into public comment. This will make them visible to
your users and to the wider OGF community, and allow them to be open for
general public comment. It is the fastest we can accelerate the process
to put them into public comment right away.
We would like to understand the reasons for wanting to shorten the period
of public comment. It is precisely to allow users (and other members of
the general public who might find these documents of interest) that we
have public comment periods at all. For this reason, it seems to
us to fit your needs and to make the best use of the public comment period
for us to open public comments and allow them to run for the usual period.
That way any defects or need for adjustment in the documents can
be resolved during that time, which would lessen the need for another round
of revisions.
Please discuss this and let us know whether you are amenable to this approach.
Alan
for the OGF GFSG
On Sep 13, 2013, at 11:22 PM, "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill@ttu.edu>
wrote:
> Thanks, Mike. We will look at these at the GFSG meeting Sunday evening
in Madrid.
>
> Alan
>
> On Sep 13, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I've attached the spec to the tracker for it.
>>
>> 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 Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com>
wrote:
>> Greg, Alan
>>
>> Thanks for the advice. I have read the page and also GFD.152.
I have created the following:
>>
>> 1) https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/117:
DFDL 1.0 Specification (revision)
>> - GWD-PR
>> - Hoping Mike will be able to attach the document later today
>>
>> 2) https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/118:
DFDL 1.0 Experience document #1
>> - GWD-E
>> - Document attached
>>
>> 3) https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/119:
DFDL 1.0 Experience document #2
>> - GWD-E
>> - I will attach document later today
>>
>> I marked 2 and 3 as 'High priority' but can't update 1 to be the
same.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Steve Hanson
>> Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL)
>> Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
>> IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
>> smh@uk.ibm.com
>> tel:+44-1962-815848
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill@ttu.edu>
>> To: Greg Newby <gbnewby@alaska.edu>,
>> Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill@ttu.edu>,
Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "dfdl-wg@ogf.org" <dfdl-wg@ogf.org>,
"David E. Martin" <martinde@northwestern.edu>
>> Date: 12/09/2013 22:50
>> Subject: Re: Latest draft of DFDL 1.0
specification
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Greg.
>>
>> Steve, that link to the Editor project is http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/editor
>>
>> You may be interested in pointing your members to the overall
description of the different types of OGF documents and their use, along
with various other useful links including copies of the document template
that include the latest IPR boilerplate, at the link below.
>>
>> http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/editor/wiki/About_OGF_Documents
>>
>> I recommend that everyone involved read this page.
>>
>> As we are meeting for the GFSG this coming Sunday in Madrid, getting
something in front of us that we can act on then, at least to get the review
process started, would be the most expeditious way to proceed.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> Alan
>>
>> On Sep 12, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Greg Newby <gbnewby@alaska.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Understood, and no problem for pre-allocating a number. Would
you
>>> please make a new tracker in the Editor pipeline, so I can
put the number
>>> there? That's where we keep track of assigned numbers.
It's ok
>>> if you don't add the draft document yet.
>>>
>>> The idea of an expedited review process seems reasonable to
me. Once
>>> we have the document, we can bring that suggestion to the
GFSG for
>>> their decision on how to handle it. I'm sure they'll
be receptive.
>>>
>>> -- Greg
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 09:52:23AM +0100, Steve Hanson wrote:
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> GFD.152 implies that there is a 15-day GFSG review followed
by a 60-day
>>>> public comment period. We had a public comment period
for GFD.174, and the
>>>> changes in the revision are based on actual experience
from implementers
>>>> and users. I would question whether the public comment
period is
>>>> necessary for the revision, and request that the revision
just undergoes
>>>> the 15-day GFSG review. There will no doubt be a few more
errata as
>>>> implementations progress further, and so we anticipate
one more revision
>>>> at some point in the future, and that is the revision
that would move to
>>>> full Grid Recommendation.
>>>>
>>>> We are on a tight schedule and want to publish by end
of September. We
>>>> have users eagerly awaiting the appearance of the revision,
and to publish
>>>> an internal WG draft is not appropriate (IBM product infocenters
embed the
>>>> HTML rendering of the spec so needs to be official document).
>>>>
>>>> We requested the GFD number simply so that Mike Beckerle
can complete the
>>>> document edits. The document pushes the boundaries of
MS Word and I think
>>>> Mike also uses an additional plugin, so edits are best
done by him.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Steve Hanson
>>>> Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL)
>>>> Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
>>>> IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
>>>> smh@uk.ibm.com
>>>> tel:+44-1962-815848
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Greg Newby <gbnewby@alaska.edu>
>>>> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB,
>>>> Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill@ttu.edu>,
"dfdl-wg@ogf.org"
>>>> <dfdl-wg@ogf.org>, "David E. Martin" <martinde@northwestern.edu>
>>>> Date: 11/09/2013 21:07
>>>> Subject: Re: Latest draft of
DFDL 1.0 specification
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Steve,
>>>>
>>>> Is this document in the editor pipeline somewhere? I'm
>>>> not seeing it:
>>>> https://redmine.ogf.org/projects/editor/issues
>>>>
>>>> Usually we wait until a document has undergone most of
the
>>>> review process (per GFD #152) before assigning a GFD number.
>>>> If you have a reason to need one sooner, we can allocate
>>>> one sooner. The usual practice, though, is to wait
until
>>>> publication is imminent.
>>>>
>>>> We're looking forward to these revisions to #174.
>>>> -- Greg
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 06:08:36PM +0100, Steve Hanson
wrote:
>>>>> Alan, Greg
>>>>>
>>>>> Please can you allocate us a new GFD number so we
can complete the
>>>>> document?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Hanson
>>>>> Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL)
>>>>> Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
>>>>> IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
>>>>> smh@uk.ibm.com
>>>>> tel:+44-1962-815848
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill@ttu.edu>
>>>>> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB,
>>>>> Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill@ttu.edu>,
"dfdl-wg@ogf.org"
>>>>> <dfdl-wg@ogf.org>, Greg Newby <gbnewby@alaska.edu>,
"David E. Martin"
>>>>> <martinde@northwestern.edu>
>>>>> Date: 11/09/2013 15:49
>>>>> Subject: Re: Latest draft
of DFDL 1.0 specification
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 11, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When you say 'new version' what does that imply
about version numbers?
>>>>
>>>>> The WG still considers what we are working on to be
DFDL 1.0 plus
>>>> errata.
>>>>> Are you suggesting that the new revision is 1.1 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> OGF doesn't generally have a concept or framework
for revision numbers
>>>> for
>>>>> specifications. Some working groups do number their
specifications, and
>>>> we
>>>>> leave this to the work group to manage.
>>>>>
>>>>> The process of obsoleting and replacing a document
does give a good
>>>>> opportunity for changing an internally-managed revision
number.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the next DFDL call, this will be during
OGF 39. I could try to
>>>>
>>>>> join, but that time overlaps one of the sessions that
I should attend.
>>>>> Perhaps David or Greg (or both) could attend your
call at 16:00 Tues
>>>> 17th
>>>>> September? If so, please provide details. We'll
be happy to
>>>> communicate
>>>>> with you as much as possible on this topic before
then, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Forwarded by Steve Hanson/UK/IBM on 11/09/2013
16:35 -----
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM
>>>>> To: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill@ttu.edu>,
>>>>> Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill@ttu.edu>,
"dfdl-wg@ogf.org"
>>>>> <dfdl-wg@ogf.org>, Greg Newby <gbnewby@alaska.edu>,
"David E. Martin"
>>>>> <martinde@northwestern.edu>
>>>>> Date: 11/09/2013 15:08
>>>>> Subject: Re: Latest draft
of DFDL 1.0 specification
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your reply. I forgot to say that the next
call is on Tues
>>>> 17th
>>>>> September.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that the WG would probably go for your 2nd
suggestion, ie,
>>>> publish
>>>>> an updated P_REC that obsoletes GFD.174 but does not
yet propose to
>>>>> promote the spec to full recommendation status, because
we know there
>>>> are
>>>>> a few more errata that will be discovered before the
implementations are
>>>>
>>>>> completed.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you say 'new version' what does that imply about
version numbers?
>>>> The
>>>>> WG still considers what we are working on to be DFDL
1.0 plus errata.
>>>> Are
>>>>> you suggesting that the new revision is 1.1 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Hanson
>>>>> Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language (DFDL)
>>>>> Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
>>>>> IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
>>>>> smh@uk.ibm.com
>>>>> tel:+44-1962-815848
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill@ttu.edu>
>>>>> To: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "David
E. Martin"
>>>>> <martinde@northwestern.edu>,
>>>>> Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill@ttu.edu>,
"dfdl-wg@ogf.org"
>>>>> <dfdl-wg@ogf.org>, Greg Newby <gbnewby@alaska.edu>
>>>>> Date: 11/09/2013 14:51
>>>>> Subject: Re: Latest draft
of DFDL 1.0 specification
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve,
>>>>>
>>>>> Answers inline. Short summary: My recommendation would
be to publish a
>>>> new
>>>>> version that obsoletes the current GFD.174, and optionally
to use this
>>>>> opportunity to migrate the specification from a P-REC
to full REC
>>>> status.
>>>>> This would be facilitated by documenting, in any form
that is convenient
>>>>
>>>>> including but not limited to an informational GFD,
the experience gained
>>>>
>>>>> from implementations to date. Another option is to
publish an updated
>>>>> P_REC that obsoletes GFD.174 but does not yet propose
to promote the
>>>> spec
>>>>> to full recommendation status.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 11, 2013, at 6:47 AM, Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the DFDL 1.0 specification was published
in Feb 2011, the two
>>>>> implementation teams (IBM and the Daffodil project)
have identified a
>>>>> number of errata in the specification. These have
been recorded in an
>>>>> errata document held on Redmine. The number of errata
is currently at
>>>>> around 190, and include both clarifications to the
specification and
>>>>> changes that affect an implementation, both major
and minor. Typically
>>>> as
>>>>> errata have been raised, the implementation teams
include any implied
>>>>> changes in the next release of their implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any documentation as to the experience gained
from
>>>>> implementations that has led to these updates? I as
not as an OGF
>>>>> requirement, but just for information.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Both implementation teams, and users of the two
implementations, have
>>>>> requested that the DFDL 1.0 specification is revised
to include all
>>>> errata
>>>>> to date, so that the specification more closely reflects
the
>>>>> implementations. Accordingly all errata to date have
been incorporated
>>>>> into a new revision of the specification, which as
a result has grown
>>>> from
>>>>> 168 pages to 234 pages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This new revision of the specification supersedes
the original.
>>>>>
>>>>> This statement is what leads to my suggestion to publish
a new document.
>>>>
>>>>> Note that our procedures do allow for replacement
of a REC or P-REC for
>>>>> non-normative changes that do not substantially affect
compatibility of
>>>>> implementations, but that just clarify or correct
errors in the original
>>>>
>>>>> publication. It is the statement that the new revision
supersedes the
>>>>> original coupled with your earlier observation that
major implementation
>>>>
>>>>> issues are addressed in your new version that causes
me to suggest that
>>>>> you pursue a new GFD that obsoletes the old one.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no implementation that exactly reflects
the original as
>>>>> published on the OGF web site, they both adhere more
closely to the new
>>>>> revision. The DFDL WG would therefore like to publish
the new revision.
>>>>> The DFDL WG also recognises that there may be comments
against the new
>>>>> revision, and that there may still be some errata
undetected by the
>>>>> implementation teams, so that a further revision may
be necessary in the
>>>>
>>>>> future. Nonetheless it is important that the new revision
in its current
>>>>
>>>>> form is externally visible, and not just kept as an
internal working
>>>>> document, as there are now many dozens of DFDL users,
and they need an
>>>>> up-to-date specification. In particular, IBM DFDL
wants to ship the HTML
>>>>
>>>>> version of the new revision to IBM customers in its
next release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are looking to the OGF for guidance on how
next to proceed.
>>>>>
>>>>> My guidance would be to publish a new version that
obsoletes the old
>>>> one,
>>>>> and optionally to use this opportunity to advance
the specification from
>>>>
>>>>> P-REC to REC status. Note that this is exactly
the pattern that OGF
>>>>> documents are supposed to follow in the life cycle
described in GFD.152
>>>> --
>>>>> experience gained fro real-world implementation is
fed back to produce a
>>>>
>>>>> new version of the specification, which at some point
can declare itself
>>>>
>>>>> to be mature enough to request full REC status.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for further revisions, they would be handled by
the procedure I
>>>>> mentioned above: non-normative changes can be folded
in as corrections
>>>>> through the errata process. THis is controlled by
the OGF editor (Greg
>>>>> Newby) and whether to accept and publish an errata
is decided
>>>> essentially
>>>>> entirely by his recommendation to the GFSG (Standards
Council) to do so.
>>>>
>>>>> If the changes would affect the interoperability of
implementations
>>>>> written to the earlier spec in a substantial way,
they should be handled
>>>>
>>>>> by the process of a new publication that obsoletes
the old one, as we
>>>> have
>>>>> just discussed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The process of going from a P-REC to a REC is largely
decoupled from
>>>>> errata revisions, but as I have tried to point out,
you may be in a
>>>>> position do do this at thei point - especially if
the group were to
>>>>> publish its experiences with the spec as one or more
informational
>>>>> documents to provide a paper trail motivating the
proposed changes.
>>>> (This
>>>>> part is your choice on how to produce the documentation,
which does not
>>>>> have to be in the form of a GFD but can and often
is done this way. The
>>>>> experiences of each group can be jointly or separately
documented, at
>>>> your
>>>>> group's choice.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Would it be possible for the OGF to join our next
DFDL WG call to
>>>>> discuss further? The call is at 16:00 UK (11:00 Eastern).
>>>>>
>>>>> If today, I can do this if you provide connection
details. I include
>>>> David
>>>>> Martin in this reply in case he is available.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve Hanson
>>>>>> Architect, IBM Data Format Description Language
(DFDL)
>>>>>> Co-Chair, OGF DFDL Working Group
>>>>>> IBM SWG, Hursley, UK
>>>>>> smh@uk.ibm.com
>>>>>> tel:+44-1962-815848
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
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