Hi Mike I think we are in sync on this, but please can I reinforce the point that the primary aim of the F2F should be to come to an agreement between all parties on the high-level design issues? Regards, Steve Steve Hanson WebSphere Business Integration Brokers, IBM Hursley, England Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 mike.beckerle@asc entialsoftware.co m To Sent by: dfdl-wg@gridforum.org owner-dfdl-wg@gri cc dforum.org Subject [dfdl-wg] Agenda topics for F2F 17/11/2004 21:13 meeting Summarized from our call today. Agenda for F2F meeting: * High-level design issues - clarify what we already agree on - issue: complexity of what rep-property applies when they can be on type, scope, local, default, etc. - note: IBM suggestion: no rep annotations on simple type definitions * Transforms - how to specify them, and what their properties/parameters are. - (we need a new name different from 'transforms' I think - mikeb) - black-box external transforms - internally specified "in DFDL" transforms - everyone's dissatisfied with these examples in Jim's latest set, so far. * OMG Type Descriptor Model - review its capabilities - consider relative to prior rep-properties proposals? * Complexity Limits - review some "hard" examples where we don't have constructs yet to handle them. - do we want/need to cover these examples. That's enough agenda to fill the 2 days. We'll also allow ourselves some flexibility to re-prioritize.