I'd like to add:

5. Putting the DFDL spec under formal change control

6. DFDL primer creation (from Mike)

7. DFDL test suite creation (from Mike)

8. Action 056 - dfdl:lengthUnit="bits" - to my mind this is the main open technical issue

9. Add a dfdl:pattern function for use in discriminators

Regards

Steve Hanson
Programming Model Architect, WebSphere Message  Brokers,
OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair,
Hursley, UK,
Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com,
Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848


From: Alan Powell/UK/IBM@IBMGB
To: dfdl-wg@ogf.org
Date: 04/11/2009 11:22
Subject: [DFDL-WG] Agenda for OGF DFDL WG call 21 Octobert 2009 - 13:00 UK        (8:00 ET)
Sent by: dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org





1. 051 Scoping Rules
Check latest draft v7. Confirm agreement to
"It is a schema definition error if more that one format annotation occurs at the same annotation point, except when selectors are used, or if the same property is defined in long and short form."

2. 045 Resolving points of uncertainty and parsing rules
Confirm wording for 'potentially point of uncertainty"
Confirm parsing rule
1.        The length of a dfdl:representation 'text' component which has a terminator, separator or parent terminator or separator does not match the required length.



3. Go through remaining actions

4. Plan to finish DFDL v1
Status

10 Actions  ( issues to be resolved )
10 Work items (features to be documented, areas to be improved)

Strawman Schedule
Activity Schedule Who
Resolve Action items 23 Oct - 30 Oct 2009  WG
Write up work items 23 Oct - 2 Nov 2009 AP
Restructure and complete specification 23 Oct - 13 Nov 2009 AP
WG review 16  Nov - 27 Nov 2009 WG
Incorporate review comments 30 Nov - 7 Dec 2009 AP
OGF Editor Review 7 Dec - 19 Dec 2009 OGF
OGF Public Comment period (60 days) 4 Jan - 5 Mar 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
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
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
16/09: no progress
30/09: no progress
07/10: 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.
033
MB: Need for scope indicator on discriminator
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)
....
19/08: No Progress (lower priority)
26/08: No Progress (lower priority)
09/09: no progress
16/09: no progress
30/09: no progress
07/10: no progress
14/10: Action re-titled and assigned to Mike B
21/10: no progress
28/10: no progress
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)
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
16/09: no progress
30/09: no progress
07/10: no progress
14/10: no progress
21/10: no progress
28/10: 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
19/08: No Progress
26/08: No Progress
09/09: 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
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.
.....
19/08: No Progress (lower priority)
26/08: No Progress (lower priority)
09/09: no progress
30/09: no progress
07/10: no progress
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
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
19/08: AP will document new syntax rules.
26/08: No Progress
09/09: AP has documented new scoping rules. Not discussed
16/09: Not disussed. AP to update element reference examples
30/09: Significant dissatisfaction with proposed new rules. New proposal developed during call. AP to document.
07/10: New proposal was refined. Details in minutes.
14/10: Discussed at length. Details in minutes.
21/10: Discussed at length. Details in minutes.
056
resolve lenghtUnit=bits including fillbytes
12/08: No Progress
19/08: No Progress
26/08: No Progress
09/09: no progress
30/09: no progress
07/10: no progress
14/10: no progress
21/10: no progress
28/10: no progress
059
9/9: define how encoding,  byteorder and floating point format externally
16/09: no progress
07/10: no progress
14/10: no progress
21/10: SH to investigate
28/10: no progress
061
Refactor dfdl:textNumberFormat to remove dfdl:numberBase.
14/10: Base 2, 8, 16 numbers are invariably integers without formatting, use of pattern etc is overkill
21/10: no progress
28/10: no progress
062
SH investigate technical writer support.
28/10: SH had contacted S Gao to understand the W3 process and support.




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





--
 dfdl-wg mailing list
 dfdl-wg@ogf.org
 http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg







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