• A dfdl:discriminator resolves the presence of its parent group (sequence or choice). Note this isn't necessarily a point of uncertainty
• If the parent group is the content model for a complex types then the instance of the element of the complex type also exists (that is: if the group is only defining the content of a complex element then the discriminator propagates from the group to the element automatically)

Next action: 071

Actions raised at this meeting

No	Action

Current Actions:

No	Action
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. 04/11: Further discussion about arrays. 09/12: Reviewed proposed discriminator semantic.
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 04/12: no update 09/12: no update
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 04/12: no update. ALan will set up a separate call to progress this action. 09/12: no update. ALan will set up a separate call to progress this action.
064	MB/SH Request WG presentation at OGF 28 25/11: Session requested 04/12: no update 09/12: no update
066	Investigate format for defining test cases 25/11:IBM to see if it is possible to publish its test case format. 04/12: no update 09/12: no update

Closed actions

No	Action
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. 04/12: Steve has received a simpler description from S Gao and will go though each check. 09/12: Only 2 UPA apply to DFDL. These will be treated as errors Closed
070	Clarification of postfix separators, terminators,finalTerminatorCanBeMissing 09/12: - Last 'postFix' separator is not optional - Terminators are mandatory. - dfdl:documentFinalTerminatorCanBeMissing - dfdl:documentFinalSeparatorCanBeMissing   Closed
068	Should the roots of messages be designated.? 09/12: Yes. New dfdl:documentRoot property Closed
069	Is the SCD syntax usable as a DFDL external. 09/12:  DFDL does not need to define the syntax of processor properies Closed

Work items:

No	Item	target version	status
005	Improvements on property descriptions		not started
011	How speculative parsing works (combining choice and variable-occurence - currently these are separate) (from action 045)		awaiting completion of actions 045
012	Reordering the properties discussion: move representation earlier, improve flow of topics		not started
036	Update dfdl schema with change properties	ongoing
038	Improve length section including bit handling		some improvement in 036
042	Mapping of the DFDL infoset to XDM	none	not required for V1 specification
069	ICU fractional seconds
070	Write DFDL primer
071	Write test cases.
072	it is a processing error if the number of occurrences in the data does not match the value of the expression or prefix
073	Rename dfdl:separatorPolicy="required" to "always".
074	- Last 'postFix' separator is not optional - Terminators are mandatory. - dfdl:documentFinalTerminatorCanBeMissing - dfdl:documentFinalSeparatorCanBeMissing  (Action (70))
075	Remove occursCountKind="useAvailableSpace".
076	dfdl:documentRoot,  will be defined that can only be on global elements. The DFDL spec does not have to define the format of parameters to the DFDL processor but will indicate that it must be possible to adresss any element. Agreed that ANY element within the schema cane be the starting point for parsing or unparsing.
077	'delimited' means the item is delimited by the item’s terminator (if specified) or an enclosing construct’s separator or end of the enclosing construct designated by its known length or its terminator.   The definition of EndOfParent also needs improving.
078	document UPA checks

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