Re: [DFDL-WG] Action Item 049: Built-in specification description and schemas
Thanks Steve for your note.. Comments below I agree there will be handful of escape schemes and the opportunity for their reuse is very high.. Looking at Calendar format - the attribute that would vary most are calendarPattern followed by calendarTimeZone. calendarPatternKind goes along with calendarPattern; it tells whether to use calendar pattern from schema date/time type or from DFDL properties. Rest of the attributes are likely to be same for a particular format. For consistency with textNumberFormat, I am fine to add all attributes defined in calendarFormat to dfdl:element and dfdl:simpleType.. Suman Kalia IBM Toronto Lab WMB Toolkit Architect and Development Lead WebSphere Business Integration Application Connectivity Tools http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/zones/businessintegration/wmb.ht... Tel : 905-413-3923 T/L 969-3923 Fax : 905-413-4850 T/L 969-4850 Internet ID : kalia@ca.ibm.com From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB To: Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Date: 02/02/2010 04:59 AM Subject: Re: Action Item 049: Built-in specification description and schemas Thanks for highlighting this Suman. The reason for hiving off the properties for text numbers into a separate named annotation was reuse. It was considered that a given data format might have a large number of text number fields, but that they could be described by a far lesser number of annotations, because a limited set of 'number patterns' were used. In Suman's example that's clearly not the case, but it is an artificial one. We need to consider real world formats. I've had a look through example COBOL copybooks, and while there is a large variation in text number fields, reuse of 'number patterns' would be a benefit. For example, a set of related values might be declared the same: 15 ORIGINAL-PRICE PIC 9(013)V99. 15 DISCOUNTED-PRICE PIC 9(013)V99. 15 SALE-PRICE PIC 9(013)V99. 15 STAFF-PRICE PIC 9(013)V99. 15 TOTAL-PRICE PIC 9(013)V99. The question then becomes what is the best way to achieve this reuse. If you look at a dfdl:textNumberFormat annotation, it is the number pattern that varies. Everything else would be defined once in a dfdl:format annotation and scoped. So it does seem overkill to have a dfdl:textNumberFormat for every number pattern, because the contained properties can not be scoped and must be redeclared each time. I suggest the best reuse mechanism for this scenario is the simple type. In the above example I could declare a PRICE simple type and put the number pattern on that. I therefore agree with Suman. Remove dfdl:textNumberFormat and dfdl:defineTextNumberFormat, add all the properties to dfdl:element and dfdl:simpleType. In practice most will be set in a dfdl:format and scoped, only the number pattern will vary per element or simple type. We should also consider whether the same issue applies to dfdl:calendarFormat and dfdl:escapeScheme. For both these the reuse opportunity is high. There is likely to be just one escape scheme per data format. There is likely to be a small number of calendar formats per data format (eg, one for a date, one for a time, one for a timestamp). But in the latter case, it is typically just the calendarPattern that would vary, the rest of the properties would be set once. I suggest that whatever we adopt for text numbers we also adopt for calendars, for consistency. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect, WebSphere Message Broker, OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair, Hursley, UK, Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com, Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 From: Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA To: Alan Powell/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Date: 02/02/2010 00:21 Subject: Action Item 049: Built-in specification description and schemas I am trying to create DFDL definition for COBOL copy book and have experienced a usability issue with TextNumberFormat which have to be named and referenced from dfdl:element and dfdl:simpleType annotations. Consider a sample COBOL copy book, attached below, where I have 3 elements having PIC 9999 display clause (a.k.a zoned decimal) and 2 external (standard) decimal. They all have same length but the main difference between them is number is sign which could leading or trailing. As per the V.38 spec, I would have to create a named textNumberFormat for each of the picture clause. The key difference in the named textNumberFormats for these definitions would be numberPattern and rest of the attributes for standard decimal and zoned decimal are going to be same for a particular platform or data definition format. The generated DFDL schema will be containing many occurrences of TextNumberFormat and in the worst case scenario one for each element defined in the COBOL copy book. This is not very usable and also user would have to carefully choose the name for these formats so he can easily identify and distinguish if wants to resue them something like TextNumberStandardLength5SignLeading etc.. 01 CobolTypes. * External decimal ( Zoned decimal) 05 elem9 PIC 9999 DISPLAY. 05 elem9Signed PIC S9999 DISPLAY. 05 elem9SignedLeading PIC S9999 DISPLAY SIGN LEADING. * in DFDL - modeled as standard decimal 05 elem9SignedLeadingSeparate PIC S9999 DISPLAY SIGN LEADING SEPARATE . 05 elem9SignedTrailingSeparate PIC S9999 DISPLAY SIGN TRAILING SEPARATE . Number Format When textNumberRepresentation is ?zoned? only the pattern for positive numbers is used. Only the following pattern characters may be used: '+' to indicate whether the leading or trailing digit carries the overpunched sign, 'V' to indicate the location of an implied decimal point and '0' to indicate the number of digits (including overpunched). The number is '0' characters must match the number of digits in the representation otherwise it is a schema definition error. Better approach would be Add numberPattern to dfdl:element and dfdl:simpleType annotation and rest of the attributes from TextNumberFormat block to either a) dfdl:format only or (b) both dfdl:format and dfdl:element and dfdl:simpleType. Let's discuss this in the DFDL workgroup call tomorrow .. Attached below is a schema coded with the assumption (a) listed above.. <xsd:complexType name="CobolTypes"> <xsd:sequence> <!---------------- External Decimal --------------------------------> <xsd:element name="elem9" dfdl:ref= "dfdlCobolFmt:CobolZonedDecimalFormat" dfdl:length="4" dfdl:representation="text" dfdl:numberPattern="0000"> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:short"> <xsd:minInclusive value="0" /> <xsd:maxInclusive value="9999" /> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name="elem9Signed" dfdl:ref= "dfdlCobolFmt:CobolZonedDecimalFormat" dfdl:length="4" dfdl:representation="text" dfdl:numberPattern="0000+" > <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:short"> <xsd:minInclusive value="-9999" /> <xsd:maxInclusive value="9999" /> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name="elem9SignedLeading" dfdl:ref= "dfdlCobolFmt:CobolZonedDecimalFormat" dfdl:length="4" dfdl:representation="text" dfdl:numberPattern="+0000"> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:short"> <xsd:minInclusive value="-9999" /> <xsd:maxInclusive value="9999" /> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name="elem9SignedLeadingSeparate" dfdl:ref= "dfdlCobolFmt:CobolStandardDecimalFormat" dfdl:length="5" dfdl:representation="text" dfdl:numberPattern="+0000;-00000" > <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:short"> <xsd:minInclusive value="-9999" /> <xsd:maxInclusive value="9999" /> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name="elem9SignedTrailingSeparate" dfdl:ref= "dfdlCobolFmt:CobolStandardDecimalFormat" dfdl:length="5" dfdl:representation="text" dfdl:numberPattern="0000+;00000-"> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:short"> <xsd:minInclusive value="-9999" /> <xsd:maxInclusive value="9999" /> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:element> ----- Data format Definitions <xsd:defineFormat name="CobolStandardDecimalFormat"> <xsd:format ref:= "tns:BaseTextNumberStandardDecimal" dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" dfdl:lengthUnits="bytes" dfdl:alignment="1" dfdl:alignmentUnits="bytes" dfdl:leadingSkipBytes="0" dfdl:trailingSkipBytes="0" /> </xsd:defineFormat> <xsd:defineFormat name="CobolZonedDecimalFormat"> <xsd:format ref:="tns:BaseTextNumberZonedDecimal" dfdl:lengthKind="explicit" dfdl:lengthUnits="bytes" dfdl:alignment="1" dfdl:alignmentUnits="bytes" dfdl:leadingSkipBytes="0" dfdl:trailingSkipBytes="0" /> </xsd:defineFormat> -- Text number Formats ( added here for reference to identify applicable attributes for standard and zoned decimal) <xsd:defineTextNumberFormat name="ZonedDecimalNumberFormat"> <xsd:textNumberFormat numberCheckPolicy="lax" numberRoundingMode="roundUp" numberZonedSignStyle="asciiStandard" /> </xsd:defineTextNumberFormat> <xsd:defineTextNumberFormat name="StandardDecimalFormat"> <xsd:textNumberFormat numberGroupingSeparator="," numberDecimalSeparator="." numberExponentCharacter="E" numberCheckPolicy="lax" numberInfinityRep="\u221E" numberNanRep= "\uFFFD" numberRoundingMode="roundUp" numberZeroRep="" "" /> </xsd:defineTextNumberFormat> Suman Kalia IBM Toronto Lab WMB Toolkit Architect and Development Lead WebSphere Business Integration Application Connectivity Tools http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/zones/businessintegration/wmb.ht... Tel : 905-413-3923 T/L 969-3923 Fax : 905-413-4850 T/L 969-4850 Internet ID : kalia@ca.ibm.com
I think the summary is to flatten the calendarFormat and numberFormat objects, putting their properties back on element and simpleType, but to leave escapeScheme as is. This sounds right to me. ...mike On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Suman Kalia <kalia@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
Thanks Steve for your note.. Comments below
- I agree there will be handful of escape schemes and the opportunity for their reuse is very high..
Looking at Calendar format - the attribute that would vary most are calendarPattern followed by calendarTimeZone. calendarPatternKind goes along with calendarPattern; it tells whether to use calendar pattern from schema date/time type or from DFDL properties. Rest of the attributes are likely to be same for a particular format.
For consistency with textNumberFormat, I am fine to add all attributes defined in calendarFormat to dfdl:element and dfdl:simpleType..
Suman Kalia IBM Toronto Lab WMB Toolkit Architect and Development Lead WebSphere Business Integration Application Connectivity Tools
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/zones/businessintegration/wmb.ht...
Tel : 905-413-3923 T/L 969-3923 Fax : 905-413-4850 T/L 969-4850 Internet ID : kalia@ca.ibm.com
[image: Inactive hide details for Steve Hanson---02/02/2010 04:59:14 AM---Thanks for highlighting this Suman. The reason for hiving off]Steve Hanson---02/02/2010 04:59:14 AM---Thanks for highlighting this Suman. The reason for hiving off the properties for text numbers into a
From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB To: Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Date: 02/02/2010 04:59 AM Subject: Re: Action Item 049: Built-in specification description and schemas ------------------------------
Thanks for highlighting this Suman.
The reason for hiving off the properties for text numbers into a separate named annotation was reuse. It was considered that a given data format might have a large number of text number fields, but that they could be described by a far lesser number of annotations, because a limited set of 'number patterns' were used. In Suman's example that's clearly not the case, but it is an artificial one. We need to consider real world formats. I've had a look through example COBOL copybooks, and while there is a large variation in text number fields, reuse of 'number patterns' would be a benefit. For example, a set of related values might be declared the same:
15 ORIGINAL-PRICE PIC 9(013)V99. 15 DISCOUNTED-PRICE PIC 9(013)V99. 15 SALE-PRICE PIC 9(013)V99. 15 STAFF-PRICE PIC 9(013)V99. 15 TOTAL-PRICE PIC 9(013)V99.
The question then becomes what is the best way to achieve this reuse. If you look at a dfdl:textNumberFormat annotation, it is the number pattern that varies. Everything else would be defined once in a dfdl:format annotation and scoped. So it does seem overkill to have a dfdl:textNumberFormat for every number pattern, because the contained properties can not be scoped and must be redeclared each time.
I suggest the best reuse mechanism for this scenario is the simple type. In the above example I could declare a PRICE simple type and put the number pattern on that.
I therefore agree with Suman. Remove dfdl:textNumberFormat and dfdl:defineTextNumberFormat, add all the properties to dfdl:element and dfdl:simpleType. In practice most will be set in a dfdl:format and scoped, only the number pattern will vary per element or simple type.
We should also consider whether the same issue applies to dfdl:calendarFormat and dfdl:escapeScheme. For both these the reuse opportunity is high. There is likely to be just one escape scheme per data format. There is likely to be a small number of calendar formats per data format (eg, one for a date, one for a time, one for a timestamp). But in the latter case, it is typically just the calendarPattern that would vary, the rest of the properties would be set once.
I suggest that whatever we adopt for text numbers we also adopt for calendars, for consistency.
Regards
Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect, WebSphere Message Broker, OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair, Hursley, UK, Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com, Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848
[image: Inactive hide details for Suman Kalia---02/02/2010 00:21:40---I am trying to create DFDL definition for COBOL copy book and hav]Suman Kalia---02/02/2010 00:21:40---I am trying to create DFDL definition for COBOL copy book and have experienced a usability issue wit
From: Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA To: Alan Powell/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Mike Beckerle < mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Date: 02/02/2010 00:21 Subject: Action Item 049: Built-in specification description and schemas ------------------------------
I am trying to create DFDL definition for COBOL copy book and have experienced a usability issue with TextNumberFormat which have to be named and referenced from dfdl:element and dfdl:simpleType annotations. Consider a sample COBOL copy book, attached below, where I have 3 elements having PIC 9999 display clause (a.k.a zoned decimal) and 2 external (standard) decimal. They all have same length but the main difference between them is number is sign which could leading or trailing. As per the V.38 spec, I would have to create a named textNumberFormat for each of the picture clause. The key difference in the named textNumberFormats for these definitions would be * numberPattern* and rest of the attributes for standard decimal and zoned decimal are going to be same for a particular platform or data definition format. The generated DFDL schema will be containing many occurrences of TextNumberFormat and in the worst case scenario one for each element defined in the COBOL copy book. This is not very usable and also user would have to carefully choose the name for these formats so he can easily identify and distinguish if wants to resue them something like TextNumberStandardLength5SignLeading etc..
01 CobolTypes.
* External decimal ( Zoned decimal) 05 elem9 PIC 9999 DISPLAY. 05 elem9Signed PIC S9999 DISPLAY. 05 elem9SignedLeading PIC S9999 DISPLAY SIGN LEADING.
* in DFDL - modeled as standard decimal 05 elem9SignedLeadingSeparate PIC S9999 DISPLAY SIGN LEADING SEPARATE. 05 elem9SignedTrailingSeparate PIC S9999 DISPLAY SIGN TRAILING SEPARATE. *Number Format* When textNumberRepresentation is ‘zoned’ only the pattern for positive numbers is used. Only the following pattern characters may be used: '+' to indicate whether the leading or trailing digit carries the overpunched sign, 'V' to indicate the location of an implied decimal point and '0' to indicate the number of digits (including overpunched). The number is '0' characters must match the number of digits in the representation otherwise it is a schema definition error.
Better approach would be
- Add numberPattern to dfdl:element and dfdl:simpleType annotation and rest of the attributes from TextNumberFormat block to either a) dfdl:format only or (b) both dfdl:format and dfdl:element and dfdl:simpleType. -
Let's discuss this in the DFDL workgroup call tomorrow ..
Attached below is a schema coded with the assumption (a) listed above..
<xsd:complexType name=*"CobolTypes"*> <xsd:sequence> <!---------------- External Decimal --------------------------------> <xsd:element name=*"elem9"* dfdl:ref=* "dfdlCobolFmt:CobolZonedDecimalFormat"* dfdl:length=*"4"* dfdl:representation=*"text"* *dfdl:numberPattern**=** "0000"*> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base=*"xsd:short"*> <xsd:minInclusive value=*"0"* /> <xsd:maxInclusive value=*"9999"* /> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name=*"elem9Signed"* dfdl:ref=* "dfdlCobolFmt:CobolZonedDecimalFormat"* dfdl:length=*"4"* dfdl:representation=*"text"* *dfdl:numberPattern**=** "0000+"* > <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base=*"xsd:short"*> <xsd:minInclusive value=*"-9999"* /> <xsd:maxInclusive value=*"9999"* /> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name=*"elem9SignedLeading"* dfdl:ref=* "dfdlCobolFmt:CobolZonedDecimalFormat"* dfdl:length=*"4"* dfdl:representation=*"text"* *dfdl:numberPattern**=** "+0000"*> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base=*"xsd:short"*> <xsd:minInclusive value=*"-9999"* /> <xsd:maxInclusive value=*"9999"* /> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name=*"elem9SignedLeadingSeparate"* dfdl:ref=* "dfdlCobolFmt:CobolStandardDecimalFormat"* dfdl:length=*"5"* dfdl:representation=*"text"* *dfdl:numberPattern**=** "+0000;-00000"* > <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base=*"xsd:short"*> <xsd:minInclusive value=*"-9999"* /> <xsd:maxInclusive value=*"9999"* /> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name=*"elem9SignedTrailingSeparate"* dfdl:ref=* "dfdlCobolFmt:CobolStandardDecimalFormat"* dfdl:length=*"5"* dfdl:representation=*"text"* *dfdl:numberPattern**=** "0000+;00000-"*> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base=*"xsd:short"*> <xsd:minInclusive value=*"-9999"* /> <xsd:maxInclusive value=*"9999"* /> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:element>
----- Data format Definitions
<xsd:defineFormat name=*"CobolStandardDecimalFormat"*> <xsd:format ref=*"tns:BaseTextNumberStandardDecimal"* dfdl:lengthKind=* "explicit"* dfdl:lengthUnits=*"bytes"* dfdl:alignment=*"1"* dfdl:alignmentUnits=* "bytes"* dfdl:leadingSkipBytes=*"0"* dfdl:trailingSkipBytes=*"0"* /> </xsd:defineFormat>
<xsd:defineFormat name=*"CobolZonedDecimalFormat"*> <xsd:format ref=*"tns:BaseTextNumberZonedDecimal"* dfdl:lengthKind=* "explicit"* dfdl:lengthUnits=*"bytes"* dfdl:alignment=*"1"* dfdl:alignmentUnits=* "bytes"* dfdl:leadingSkipBytes=*"0"* dfdl:trailingSkipBytes=*"0"* /> </xsd:defineFormat>
-- Text number Formats ( added here for reference to identify applicable attributes for standard and zoned decimal)
<xsd:defineTextNumberFormat name=*"ZonedDecimalNumberFormat"*> <xsd:textNumberFormat numberCheckPolicy=*"lax"* numberRoundingMode=* "roundUp"* numberZonedSignStyle=*"asciiStandard"* /> </xsd:defineTextNumberFormat>
<xsd:defineTextNumberFormat name=*"StandardDecimalFormat"*> <xsd:textNumberFormat numberGroupingSeparator=*","* numberDecimalSeparator=*"."* numberExponentCharacter=*"E"* numberCheckPolicy=*"lax"* numberInfinityRep=*"\u221E"* numberNanRep=*"\uFFFD"* numberRoundingMode=* "roundUp"* numberZeroRep=*"" ""* /> </xsd:defineTextNumberFormat>
Suman Kalia IBM Toronto Lab WMB Toolkit Architect and Development Lead WebSphere Business Integration Application Connectivity Tools
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/zones/businessintegration/wmb.ht...
Tel : 905-413-3923 T/L 969-3923 Fax : 905-413-4850 T/L 969-4850 Internet ID : kalia@ca.ibm.com
-- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
Thanks Mike - Great.. It sounds right to me too.. Suman Kalia IBM Toronto Lab WMB Toolkit Architect and Development Lead WebSphere Business Integration Application Connectivity Tools http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/zones/businessintegration/wmb.ht... Tel : 905-413-3923 T/L 969-3923 Fax : 905-413-4850 T/L 969-4850 Internet ID : kalia@ca.ibm.com From: Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> To: Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA Cc: Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com>, dfdl-wg@ogf.org Date: 02/02/2010 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Action Item 049: Built-in specification description and schemas I think the summary is to flatten the calendarFormat and numberFormat objects, putting their properties back on element and simpleType, but to leave escapeScheme as is. This sounds right to me. ...mike On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Suman Kalia <kalia@ca.ibm.com> wrote: Thanks Steve for your note.. Comments below I agree there will be handful of escape schemes and the opportunity for their reuse is very high.. Looking at Calendar format - the attribute that would vary most are calendarPattern followed by calendarTimeZone. calendarPatternKind goes along with calendarPattern; it tells whether to use calendar pattern from schema date/time type or from DFDL properties. Rest of the attributes are likely to be same for a particular format. For consistency with textNumberFormat, I am fine to add all attributes defined in calendarFormat to dfdl:element and dfdl:simpleType.. Suman Kalia IBM Toronto Lab WMB Toolkit Architect and Development Lead WebSphere Business Integration Application Connectivity Tools http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/zones/businessintegration/wmb.ht... Tel : 905-413-3923 T/L 969-3923 Fax : 905-413-4850 T/L 969-4850 Internet ID : kalia@ca.ibm.com Steve Hanson---02/02/2010 04:59:14 AM---Thanks for highlighting this Suman. The reason for hiving off the properties for text numbers into a From: Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB To: Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Date: 02/02/2010 04:59 AM Subject: Re: Action Item 049: Built-in specification description and schemas Thanks for highlighting this Suman. The reason for hiving off the properties for text numbers into a separate named annotation was reuse. It was considered that a given data format might have a large number of text number fields, but that they could be described by a far lesser number of annotations, because a limited set of 'number patterns' were used. In Suman's example that's clearly not the case, but it is an artificial one. We need to consider real world formats. I've had a look through example COBOL copybooks, and while there is a large variation in text number fields, reuse of 'number patterns' would be a benefit. For example, a set of related values might be declared the same: 15 ORIGINAL-PRICE PIC 9(013)V99. 15 DISCOUNTED-PRICE PIC 9(013)V99. 15 SALE-PRICE PIC 9(013)V99. 15 STAFF-PRICE PIC 9(013)V99. 15 TOTAL-PRICE PIC 9(013)V99. The question then becomes what is the best way to achieve this reuse. If you look at a dfdl:textNumberFormat annotation, it is the number pattern that varies. Everything else would be defined once in a dfdl:format annotation and scoped. So it does seem overkill to have a dfdl:textNumberFormat for every number pattern, because the contained properties can not be scoped and must be redeclared each time. I suggest the best reuse mechanism for this scenario is the simple type. In the above example I could declare a PRICE simple type and put the number pattern on that. I therefore agree with Suman. Remove dfdl:textNumberFormat and dfdl:defineTextNumberFormat, add all the properties to dfdl:element and dfdl:simpleType. In practice most will be set in a dfdl:format and scoped, only the number pattern will vary per element or simple type. We should also consider whether the same issue applies to dfdl:calendarFormat and dfdl:escapeScheme. For both these the reuse opportunity is high. There is likely to be just one escape scheme per data format. There is likely to be a small number of calendar formats per data format (eg, one for a date, one for a time, one for a timestamp). But in the latter case, it is typically just the calendarPattern that would vary, the rest of the properties would be set once. I suggest that whatever we adopt for text numbers we also adopt for calendars, for consistency. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect, WebSphere Message Broker, OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair, Hursley, UK, Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com, Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 Suman Kalia---02/02/2010 00:21:40---I am trying to create DFDL definition for COBOL copy book and have experienced a usability issue wit From: Suman Kalia/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA To: Alan Powell/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Mike Beckerle < mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Date: 02/02/2010 00:21 Subject: Action Item 049: Built-in specification description and schemas I am trying to create DFDL definition for COBOL copy book and have experienced a usability issue with TextNumberFormat which have to be named and referenced from dfdl:element and dfdl:simpleType annotations. Consider a sample COBOL copy book, attached below, where I have 3 elements having PIC 9999 display clause (a.k.a zoned decimal) and 2 external (standard) decimal. They all have same length but the main difference between them is number is sign which could leading or trailing. As per the V.38 spec, I would have to create a named textNumberFormat for each of the picture clause. The key difference in the named textNumberFormats for these definitions would be numberPattern and rest of the attributes for standard decimal and zoned decimal are going to be same for a particular platform or data definition format. The generated DFDL schema will be containing many occurrences of TextNumberFormat and in the worst case scenario one for each element defined in the COBOL copy book. This is not very usable and also user would have to carefully choose the name for these formats so he can easily identify and distinguish if wants to resue them something like TextNumberStandardLength5SignLeading etc.. 01 CobolTypes. * External decimal ( Zoned decimal) 05 elem9 PIC 9999 DISPLAY. 05 elem9Signed PIC S9999 DISPLAY. 05 elem9SignedLeading PIC S9999 DISPLAY SIGN LEADING. * in DFDL - modeled as standard decimal 05 elem9SignedLeadingSeparate PIC S9999 DISPLAY SIGN LEADING SEPARATE. 05 elem9SignedTrailingSeparate PIC S9999 DISPLAY SIGN TRAILING SEPARATE. Number Format When textNumberRepresentation is ‘zoned’ only the pattern for positive numbers is used. Only the following pattern characters may be used: '+' to indicate whether the leading or trailing digit carries the overpunched sign, 'V' to indicate the location of an implied decimal point and '0' to indicate the number of digits (including overpunched). The number is '0' characters must match the number of digits in the representation otherwise it is a schema definition error. Better approach would be Add numberPattern to dfdl:element and dfdl:simpleType annotation and rest of the attributes from TextNumberFormat block to either a) dfdl:format only or (b) both dfdl:format and dfdl:element and dfdl:simpleType. Let's discuss this in the DFDL workgroup call tomorrow .. Attached below is a schema coded with the assumption (a) listed above.. <xsd:complexType name="CobolTypes"> <xsd:sequence> <!---------------- External Decimal --------------------------------> <xsd:element name="elem9" dfdl:ref="dfdlCobolFmt:CobolZonedDecimalFormat" dfdl:length="4" dfdl:representation="text" dfdl:numberPattern="0000"> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:short"> <xsd:minInclusive value="0" /> <xsd:maxInclusive value="9999" /> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name="elem9Signed" dfdl:ref= "dfdlCobolFmt:CobolZonedDecimalFormat" dfdl:length="4" dfdl:representation="text" dfdl:numberPattern="0000+" > <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:short"> <xsd:minInclusive value="-9999" /> <xsd:maxInclusive value="9999" /> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name="elem9SignedLeading" dfdl:ref= "dfdlCobolFmt:CobolZonedDecimalFormat" dfdl:length="4" dfdl:representation="text" dfdl:numberPattern="+0000"> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:short"> <xsd:minInclusive value="-9999" /> <xsd:maxInclusive value="9999" /> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name="elem9SignedLeadingSeparate" dfdl:ref= "dfdlCobolFmt:CobolStandardDecimalFormat" dfdl:length="5" dfdl:representation="text" dfdl:numberPattern= "+0000;-00000" > <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:short"> <xsd:minInclusive value="-9999" /> <xsd:maxInclusive value="9999" /> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name="elem9SignedTrailingSeparate" dfdl:ref= "dfdlCobolFmt:CobolStandardDecimalFormat" dfdl:length="5" dfdl:representation="text" dfdl:numberPattern= "0000+;00000-"> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:short"> <xsd:minInclusive value="-9999" /> <xsd:maxInclusive value="9999" /> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:element> ----- Data format Definitions <xsd:defineFormat name="CobolStandardDecimalFormat"> <xsd:format ref="tns:BaseTextNumberStandardDecimal" dfdl:lengthKind= "explicit" dfdl:lengthUnits="bytes" dfdl:alignment="1" dfdl:alignmentUnits="bytes" dfdl:leadingSkipBytes="0" dfdl:trailingSkipBytes="0" /> </xsd:defineFormat> <xsd:defineFormat name="CobolZonedDecimalFormat"> <xsd:format ref="tns:BaseTextNumberZonedDecimal" dfdl:lengthKind= "explicit" dfdl:lengthUnits="bytes" dfdl:alignment="1" dfdl:alignmentUnits="bytes" dfdl:leadingSkipBytes="0" dfdl:trailingSkipBytes="0" /> </xsd:defineFormat> -- Text number Formats ( added here for reference to identify applicable attributes for standard and zoned decimal) <xsd:defineTextNumberFormat name="ZonedDecimalNumberFormat"> <xsd:textNumberFormat numberCheckPolicy="lax" numberRoundingMode="roundUp" numberZonedSignStyle="asciiStandard" /> </xsd:defineTextNumberFormat> <xsd:defineTextNumberFormat name="StandardDecimalFormat"> <xsd:textNumberFormat numberGroupingSeparator="," numberDecimalSeparator="." numberExponentCharacter="E" numberCheckPolicy= "lax" numberInfinityRep="\u221E" numberNanRep="\uFFFD" numberRoundingMode= "roundUp" numberZeroRep="" "" /> </xsd:defineTextNumberFormat> Suman Kalia IBM Toronto Lab WMB Toolkit Architect and Development Lead WebSphere Business Integration Application Connectivity Tools http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/zones/businessintegration/wmb.ht... Tel : 905-413-3923 T/L 969-3923 Fax : 905-413-4850 T/L 969-4850 Internet ID : kalia@ca.ibm.com -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
participants (2)
-
Mike Beckerle -
Suman Kalia