045 - Disciminators
Resolve confusion from last call whether discriminator only apply to choices.
Clarification of postfix separators, terminators,finalTerminatorCanBeMissing
Discussion postponed from last WG call
045 - parsing rules for determining length
The last WG call agreed that dfdl:legnthKind determines if an item is scanned or not but we didn't discuss the effect on escaping.
If is suggested that dfdl:escapeSchemeRef should control if escaping occurs for text fields independently from dfdl:lengthkind. This allows escaping even when data is not scanned
Arrays
From Steve H email
Further discussion on array processing:

4) occursCountKind="expression". Is it a processing error if the number of occurrences in the data does not match the value of the expression?
It was noted that the dfdl:outputValueCalc expression of a count field should use the dfdl:countWithDefault() function to ensure default values are taken into account.

5) occursCountKind="useAvailableSpace". On unparsing, unused space should be padded with dfdl:fillByte (added below). But if the number in the infoset is a lot less than the box can hold, how do you know when re-parsing how many are in the box? Also, if we are trying to fit things into a box, does it matter if items are left over? I suggested this was an error below. Need Mike's input as he has seen the use cases for this.

6) Rename dfdl:separatorPolicy="required" to "always".

7) Noted that dfdl:separatorPolicy="suppress" and "suppressAtEnd" have the same behaviour for an array.
Does the parser/serializer have to start on a global element?
The spec says that one of the external parameters to the DFDL processor is a global element name to start from. Broker allows serialization of any subtree within a schema.
Go through remaining actions
Test suite for DFDL
Discuss test case format.

Plan to finish DFDL v1

Updated straw man schedule

Activity	Schedule	Who
Resolve Action items	- 23 Nov 2009	WG
Write up work items	16 Nov - 4 Dec 2009	AP
Restructure and complete specification	23 Nov - 4 Dec 2009	AP
WG review	7 Dec - 18 Dec 2009	WG
Incorporate review comments	4 Jan - 29 Jan 2010	AP +
OGF Editor Review / Incorporate changes	1 Feb - 1 Mar 2010	OGF
OGF Public Comment period (60 days)	1 Mar - 30 Apr 2010	OGF
OGF 28 Munich	15-19 March 2010

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
...
09/06: No Progress (low priority)
17/06: SH to check ICU code for lax calendar behaviour
24/06: no progress
...
12/08: no progress
19/08: Inconsistencies are being found in ICU behaviour so Calendars need reviewing again.
26/08: Specific three character short time zones may not be maintained during round tripping when there is more than one short form for a time zone offset. Because dates and datetimes in the infoset only maintain a time zone offset so on unparsing it isn't possible to say which short form will be selected for a particular offset when there is more than one possible. Need to document.
09/09: no progress
...
14/10: no progress
21/10: Will produce a list of known issues.
28/10: Discussed ICU farctional seconds behaviour. SF to send latest understanding.
04/11: no progress
11/11: no update
18/11: no update
25/11: no update

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 progress
...
12/08: No Progress (lower priority)
19/08: Clarify that this action is to go through the XML UPA checks to assess impact on dfdl schemas and advice best practice. Name clashes is just one example. SH or SKK
26/08: No Progress (lower priority)
09/09: no progress
...
04/11: no progress
11/11: Steve has started to look at this. He has requested a 'consumable' definition of the UPA rules from the XSD WG members. Even non-normative Appendix H in the XSD 1.0 spec is hard to consume.
18/11: no update
25/11: Steve H has not found simpler definition so may just go through them.

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
...
16/09: no progress
30/09: AP distributed proposal and others commented. Brief discussion AP to incorporate update and reissue
07/10: Updated proposal was discussed.Comments will be incorporated into the next version.
14/10: Alan to update proposal to include array scenario where minOccurs > 0
21/10: Updated proposal reviewed
28/10: Updated proposal reviewed see minutes
04/11: Discussed semantics of disciminators on arrays. MB to produce examples
11/11: Absorbing action 033 into 045. Maybe decorated discrminator kinds are needed after all. MB and SF to continue with examples.
18/11: Went through WTX implementation of example. SF to gather more documentation about WTX discriminator rules.
25/11: Further discussion. Will get more WTX documentation. Need to confirm that no changes need to Resolving Uncertainty doc.

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.
...
14/10: no progress
21/10: Discussed the real need for this being in the specification. It seemed that the main value is it define a schema location for downloading 'known' defaults from the web.
28/10: no progress
04/11: no progress
11/11: no update
18/11: no update
25/11: Agreed to try to produce for CSV and fixed formats

056
MB Resolve lengthUnits=bits including fillbytes
12/08: No Progress
...
28/10: no progress
04/11: MB to look at lengthUnits = bits
11/11: no update
18/11: no update
25/11: no update

063
Write DFDL primer and test cases.
11/11: no update
25/11: no update

064
MB/SH Request WG presentation at OGF 28
25/11: Session requested

065
Resolve parsing rules for various lengthKinds
25/11: Agreed dfdl:lengthKind define how to extract the data. Didn'r
t discuss if this changes escaping.

066
Investigate format for defining test cases
25/11:IBM to see if it is possible to publish its test case format.

067
25/11:Investigate problem tracking tools.

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 ... 09/06: No Progress (low priority) 17/06: SH to check ICU code for lax calendar behaviour 24/06: no progress ... 12/08: no progress 19/08: Inconsistencies are being found in ICU behaviour so Calendars need reviewing again. 26/08: Specific three character short time zones may not be maintained during round tripping when there is more than one short form for a time zone offset. Because dates and datetimes in the infoset only maintain a time zone offset so on unparsing it isn't possible to say which short form will be selected for a particular offset when there is more than one possible. Need to document. 09/09: no progress ... 14/10: no progress 21/10: Will produce a list of known issues. 28/10: Discussed ICU farctional seconds behaviour. SF to send latest understanding. 04/11: no progress 11/11: no update 18/11: no update 25/11: no update
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 progress ... 12/08: No Progress (lower priority) 19/08: Clarify that this action is to go through the XML UPA checks to assess impact on dfdl schemas and advice best practice. Name clashes is just one example. SH or SKK 26/08: No Progress (lower priority) 09/09: no progress ... 04/11: no progress 11/11: Steve has started to look at this. He has requested a 'consumable' definition of the UPA rules from the XSD WG members. Even non-normative Appendix H in the XSD 1.0 spec is hard to consume. 18/11: no update 25/11: Steve H has not found simpler definition so may just go through them.
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 ... 16/09: no progress 30/09: AP distributed proposal and others commented. Brief discussion AP to incorporate update and reissue 07/10: Updated proposal was discussed.Comments will be incorporated into the next version. 14/10: Alan to update proposal to include array scenario where minOccurs > 0 21/10: Updated proposal reviewed 28/10: Updated proposal reviewed see minutes 04/11: Discussed semantics of disciminators on arrays. MB to produce examples 11/11: Absorbing action 033 into 045. Maybe decorated discrminator kinds are needed after all. MB and SF to continue with examples. 18/11: Went through WTX implementation of example. SF to gather more documentation about WTX discriminator rules. 25/11: Further discussion. Will get more WTX documentation. Need to confirm that no changes need to Resolving Uncertainty doc.
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. ... 14/10: no progress 21/10: Discussed the real need for this being in the specification. It seemed that the main value is it define a schema location for downloading 'known' defaults from the web. 28/10: no progress 04/11: no progress 11/11: no update 18/11: no update 25/11: Agreed to try to produce for CSV and fixed formats
056	MB Resolve lengthUnits=bits including fillbytes 12/08: No Progress ... 28/10: no progress 04/11: MB to look at lengthUnits = bits 11/11: no update 18/11: no update 25/11: no update
063	Write DFDL primer and test cases. 11/11: no update 25/11: no update
064	MB/SH Request WG presentation at OGF 28 25/11: Session requested
065	Resolve parsing rules for various lengthKinds 25/11: Agreed dfdl:lengthKind define how to extract the data. Didn'r t discuss if this changes escaping.
066	Investigate format for defining test cases 25/11:IBM to see if it is possible to publish its test case format.
067	25/11:Investigate problem tracking tools.