One of the existing non-XML parsers from IBM is capable of modelling an integer or decimal with non-contiguous ranges, eg, 0-100, 200-300, 400-500. It is also possible to model this using XML Schema, using a user-defined simple type which is a union of simple type restrictions. However it is not possible to model this in DFDL because unions are not supported. A choice could be used, but that would give different named elements in the resultant infoset depending on the value, which is not ideal. I believe this is use case that we should consider for DFDL 1.0. We could decide to allow unions, but with a constraint that the members of the union had to be restrictions of the same built-in type, and that clashing DFDL properties on the members was an error. I believe the existing scoping rules for visiting types would still apply ok. No annotation appears on the xs:union only on the xs:simpleType as currently. The net effect is that our parsing rules are the same as currently, but we gain validation capability. I am not in favour of more widespread support for unions. I don't have a compelling use case for union of different logical types, eg, xs:dateTime and xs:string. Your thoughts are welcome. !-- integer range 0 - 100 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange1"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="100"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="0"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> !-- integer range 200 - 300 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange2"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="300"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="200"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> !-- integer range 400-500 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange3"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="500"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="400"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> !-- Union of above types <xsd:simpleType name="intRange"> <xsd:union memberTypes="intRange1 intRange2 intRange3"/> </xsd:simpleType> !-- Union of anonymous types being restrictions of above types <xsd:simpleType name="intRangeLocal"> <xsd:union> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange1"/> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange2"/> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange3"/> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:union> </xsd:simpleType> !-- Union of anonymous types being local restrictions <xsd:simpleType name="intRangeLocalRestrictions"> <xsd:union> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="0"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="100"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="200"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="300"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="400"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="500"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:union> </xsd:simpleType> Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 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
What does this have to do with representation/ format ? Seems totally out of scope to me. ...mikeb On Mar 6, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
One of the existing non-XML parsers from IBM is capable of modelling an integer or decimal with non-contiguous ranges, eg, 0-100, 200-300, 400-500. It is also possible to model this using XML Schema, using a user-defined simple type which is a union of simple type restrictions.
However it is not possible to model this in DFDL because unions are not supported. A choice could be used, but that would give different named elements in the resultant infoset depending on the value, which is not ideal.
I believe this is use case that we should consider for DFDL 1.0. We could decide to allow unions, but with a constraint that the members of the union had to be restrictions of the same built-in type, and that clashing DFDL properties on the members was an error. I believe the existing scoping rules for visiting types would still apply ok. No annotation appears on the xs:union only on the xs:simpleType as currently. The net effect is that our parsing rules are the same as currently, but we gain validation capability.
I am not in favour of more widespread support for unions. I don't have a compelling use case for union of different logical types, eg, xs:dateTime and xs:string.
Your thoughts are welcome.
!-- integer range 0 - 100 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange1"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="100"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="0"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType>
!-- integer range 200 - 300 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange2"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="300"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="200"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType>
!-- integer range 400-500 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange3"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="500"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="400"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType>
!-- Union of above types <xsd:simpleType name="intRange"> <xsd:union memberTypes="intRange1 intRange2 intRange3"/> </xsd:simpleType>
!-- Union of anonymous types being restrictions of above types <xsd:simpleType name="intRangeLocal"> <xsd:union> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange1"/> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange2"/> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange3"/> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:union> </xsd:simpleType>
!-- Union of anonymous types being local restrictions <xsd:simpleType name="intRangeLocalRestrictions"> <xsd:union> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="0"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="100"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="200"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="300"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="400"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="500"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:union> </xsd:simpleType>
Regards
Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848
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
It's a validation issue. I have a packed decimal number with ranges 0-100, 200-300, 400-500. I can't parse and validate this with DFDL. WTX can handle this today. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 DFDL <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> 07/03/2009 04:49 To Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB cc "dfdl-wg@ogf.org" <dfdl-wg@ogf.org> Subject Re: [DFDL-WG] Numbers with multiple ranges What does this have to do with representation/ format ? Seems totally out of scope to me. ...mikeb On Mar 6, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com> wrote: One of the existing non-XML parsers from IBM is capable of modelling an integer or decimal with non-contiguous ranges, eg, 0-100, 200-300, 400-500. It is also possible to model this using XML Schema, using a user-defined simple type which is a union of simple type restrictions. However it is not possible to model this in DFDL because unions are not supported. A choice could be used, but that would give different named elements in the resultant infoset depending on the value, which is not ideal. I believe this is use case that we should consider for DFDL 1.0. We could decide to allow unions, but with a constraint that the members of the union had to be restrictions of the same built-in type, and that clashing DFDL properties on the members was an error. I believe the existing scoping rules for visiting types would still apply ok. No annotation appears on the xs:union only on the xs:simpleType as currently. The net effect is that our parsing rules are the same as currently, but we gain validation capability. I am not in favour of more widespread support for unions. I don't have a compelling use case for union of different logical types, eg, xs:dateTime and xs:string. Your thoughts are welcome. !-- integer range 0 - 100 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange1"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="100"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="0"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> !-- integer range 200 - 300 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange2"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="300"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="200"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> !-- integer range 400-500 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange3"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="500"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="400"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> !-- Union of above types <xsd:simpleType name="intRange"> <xsd:union memberTypes="intRange1 intRange2 intRange3"/> </xsd:simpleType> !-- Union of anonymous types being restrictions of above types <xsd:simpleType name="intRangeLocal"> <xsd:union> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange1"/> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange2"/> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange3"/> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:union> </xsd:simpleType> !-- Union of anonymous types being local restrictions <xsd:simpleType name="intRangeLocalRestrictions"> <xsd:union> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="0"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="100"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="200"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="300"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="400"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="500"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:union> </xsd:simpleType> Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 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
But you can parse it. If it's just the validation, you still have ambiguitities e.g., suppose I form a union of two types, each derived from xs:int, but with different DFDL representations. There's a conflict then, how is that resolved. Rules for "consistency" among two DFDL annotations will be complex. E.g., is an int with a 31 bit representation compatible wiht an int with 32 bit representation? - shouldn't be unless both are unsigned. Etc. ...mike Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair | CTO | Oco, Inc. Tel: 781-810-2100 | 100 Fifth Ave., 4th Floor, Waltham MA 02451 | <mailto:mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com _____ From: Steve Hanson [mailto:smh@uk.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 4:46 AM To: DFDL Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Numbers with multiple ranges It's a validation issue. I have a packed decimal number with ranges 0-100, 200-300, 400-500. I can't parse and validate this with DFDL. WTX can handle this today. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 DFDL <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> 07/03/2009 04:49 To Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB cc "dfdl-wg@ogf.org" <dfdl-wg@ogf.org> Subject Re: [DFDL-WG] Numbers with multiple ranges What does this have to do with representation/ format ? Seems totally out of scope to me. ...mikeb On Mar 6, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Steve Hanson < <mailto:smh@uk.ibm.com> smh@uk.ibm.com> wrote: One of the existing non-XML parsers from IBM is capable of modelling an integer or decimal with non-contiguous ranges, eg, 0-100, 200-300, 400-500. It is also possible to model this using XML Schema, using a user-defined simple type which is a union of simple type restrictions. However it is not possible to model this in DFDL because unions are not supported. A choice could be used, but that would give different named elements in the resultant infoset depending on the value, which is not ideal. I believe this is use case that we should consider for DFDL 1.0. We could decide to allow unions, but with a constraint that the members of the union had to be restrictions of the same built-in type, and that clashing DFDL properties on the members was an error. I believe the existing scoping rules for visiting types would still apply ok. No annotation appears on the xs:union only on the xs:simpleType as currently. The net effect is that our parsing rules are the same as currently, but we gain validation capability. I am not in favour of more widespread support for unions. I don't have a compelling use case for union of different logical types, eg, xs:dateTime and xs:string. Your thoughts are welcome. !-- integer range 0 - 100 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange1"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="100"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="0"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> !-- integer range 200 - 300 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange2"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="300"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="200"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> !-- integer range 400-500 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange3"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="500"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="400"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> !-- Union of above types <xsd:simpleType name="intRange"> <xsd:union memberTypes="intRange1 intRange2 intRange3"/> </xsd:simpleType> !-- Union of anonymous types being restrictions of above types <xsd:simpleType name="intRangeLocal"> <xsd:union> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange1"/> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange2"/> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange3"/> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:union> </xsd:simpleType> !-- Union of anonymous types being local restrictions <xsd:simpleType name="intRangeLocalRestrictions"> <xsd:union> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="0"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="100"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="200"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="300"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="400"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="500"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:union> </xsd:simpleType> Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: <mailto:smh@uk.ibm.com> <mailto:smh@uk.ibm.com> smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 _____ 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 <mailto:dfdl-wg@ogf.org> <mailto:dfdl-wg@ogf.org> dfdl-wg@ogf.org <http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg> <http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg> 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
Mike - I see your point.. In this case, how about allowing DFDL annotations only on the union and no DFDL annotations on the members of the union. 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: "'Steve Hanson'" <smh@uk.ibm.com> Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Date: 03/09/2009 09:38 AM Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Numbers with multiple ranges But you can parse it. If it's just the validation, you still have ambiguitities e.g., suppose I form a union of two types, each derived from xs:int, but with different DFDL representations. There's a conflict then, how is that resolved. Rules for "consistency" among two DFDL annotations will be complex. E.g., is an int with a 31 bit representation compatible wiht an int with 32 bit representation? - shouldn't be unless both are unsigned. Etc. ...mike Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair | CTO | Oco, Inc. Tel: 781-810-2100 | 100 Fifth Ave., 4th Floor, Waltham MA 02451 | mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com From: Steve Hanson [mailto:smh@uk.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 4:46 AM To: DFDL Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Numbers with multiple ranges It's a validation issue. I have a packed decimal number with ranges 0-100, 200-300, 400-500. I can't parse and validate this with DFDL. WTX can handle this today. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 DFDL <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> 07/03/2009 04:49 To Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB cc "dfdl-wg@ogf.org" <dfdl-wg@ogf.org> Subject Re: [DFDL-WG] Numbers with multiple ranges What does this have to do with representation/ format ? Seems totally out of scope to me. ...mikeb On Mar 6, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com> wrote: One of the existing non-XML parsers from IBM is capable of modelling an integer or decimal with non-contiguous ranges, eg, 0-100, 200-300, 400-500. It is also possible to model this using XML Schema, using a user-defined simple type which is a union of simple type restrictions. However it is not possible to model this in DFDL because unions are not supported. A choice could be used, but that would give different named elements in the resultant infoset depending on the value, which is not ideal. I believe this is use case that we should consider for DFDL 1.0. We could decide to allow unions, but with a constraint that the members of the union had to be restrictions of the same built-in type, and that clashing DFDL properties on the members was an error. I believe the existing scoping rules for visiting types would still apply ok. No annotation appears on the xs:union only on the xs:simpleType as currently. The net effect is that our parsing rules are the same as currently, but we gain validation capability. I am not in favour of more widespread support for unions. I don't have a compelling use case for union of different logical types, eg, xs:dateTime and xs:string. Your thoughts are welcome. !-- integer range 0 - 100 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange1"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="100"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="0"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> !-- integer range 200 - 300 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange2"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="300"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="200"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> !-- integer range 400-500 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange3"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="500"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="400"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> !-- Union of above types <xsd:simpleType name="intRange"> <xsd:union memberTypes="intRange1 intRange2 intRange3"/> </xsd:simpleType> !-- Union of anonymous types being restrictions of above types <xsd:simpleType name="intRangeLocal"> <xsd:union> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange1"/> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange2"/> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange3"/> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:union> </xsd:simpleType> !-- Union of anonymous types being local restrictions <xsd:simpleType name="intRangeLocalRestrictions"> <xsd:union> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="0"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="100"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="200"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="300"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="400"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="500"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:union> </xsd:simpleType> Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 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 -- dfdl-wg mailing list dfdl-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/dfdl-wg
That was what I was originally going to propose (more correctly any annotations on members of the union are ignored) but it would mean the scoping rules for simple types would be different when unions are involved. I am ok with that if others are. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 Suman Kalia <kalia@ca.ibm.com> 09/03/2009 13:45 To mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com cc dfdl-wg@ogf.org, dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org, Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB Subject Re: [DFDL-WG] Numbers with multiple ranges Mike - I see your point.. In this case, how about allowing DFDL annotations only on the union and no DFDL annotations on the members of the union. 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: "'Steve Hanson'" <smh@uk.ibm.com> Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Date: 03/09/2009 09:38 AM Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Numbers with multiple ranges But you can parse it. If it's just the validation, you still have ambiguitities e.g., suppose I form a union of two types, each derived from xs:int, but with different DFDL representations. There's a conflict then, how is that resolved. Rules for "consistency" among two DFDL annotations will be complex. E.g., is an int with a 31 bit representation compatible wiht an int with 32 bit representation? - shouldn't be unless both are unsigned. Etc. ...mike Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair | CTO | Oco, Inc. Tel: 781-810-2100 | 100 Fifth Ave., 4th Floor, Waltham MA 02451 | mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com From: Steve Hanson [mailto:smh@uk.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 4:46 AM To: DFDL Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Numbers with multiple ranges It's a validation issue. I have a packed decimal number with ranges 0-100, 200-300, 400-500. I can't parse and validate this with DFDL. WTX can handle this today. Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 DFDL <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> 07/03/2009 04:49 To Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB cc "dfdl-wg@ogf.org" <dfdl-wg@ogf.org> Subject Re: [DFDL-WG] Numbers with multiple ranges What does this have to do with representation/ format ? Seems totally out of scope to me. ...mikeb On Mar 6, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com> wrote: One of the existing non-XML parsers from IBM is capable of modelling an integer or decimal with non-contiguous ranges, eg, 0-100, 200-300, 400-500. It is also possible to model this using XML Schema, using a user-defined simple type which is a union of simple type restrictions. However it is not possible to model this in DFDL because unions are not supported. A choice could be used, but that would give different named elements in the resultant infoset depending on the value, which is not ideal. I believe this is use case that we should consider for DFDL 1.0. We could decide to allow unions, but with a constraint that the members of the union had to be restrictions of the same built-in type, and that clashing DFDL properties on the members was an error. I believe the existing scoping rules for visiting types would still apply ok. No annotation appears on the xs:union only on the xs:simpleType as currently. The net effect is that our parsing rules are the same as currently, but we gain validation capability. I am not in favour of more widespread support for unions. I don't have a compelling use case for union of different logical types, eg, xs:dateTime and xs:string. Your thoughts are welcome. !-- integer range 0 - 100 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange1"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="100"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="0"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> !-- integer range 200 - 300 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange2"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="300"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="200"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> !-- integer range 400-500 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange3"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="500"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="400"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> !-- Union of above types <xsd:simpleType name="intRange"> <xsd:union memberTypes="intRange1 intRange2 intRange3"/> </xsd:simpleType> !-- Union of anonymous types being restrictions of above types <xsd:simpleType name="intRangeLocal"> <xsd:union> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange1"/> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange2"/> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange3"/> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:union> </xsd:simpleType> !-- Union of anonymous types being local restrictions <xsd:simpleType name="intRangeLocalRestrictions"> <xsd:union> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="0"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="100"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="200"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="300"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="400"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="500"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:union> </xsd:simpleType> Regards Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 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 -- 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
I suggest unions are of only non annotated types. This is the conservative choice. We can allow unions of annotated types later if we decide it's useful. ...mikeb On Mar 9, 2009, at 10:27 AM, Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
That was what I was originally going to propose (more correctly any annotations on members of the union are ignored) but it would mean the scoping rules for simple types would be different when unions are involved. I am ok with that if others are.
Regards
Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848
Suman Kalia <kalia@ca.ibm.com> 09/03/2009 13:45
To mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com cc dfdl-wg@ogf.org, dfdl-wg-bounces@ogf.org, Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB Subject Re: [DFDL-WG] Numbers with multiple ranges
Mike - I see your point.. In this case, how about allowing DFDL annotations only on the union and no DFDL annotations on the members of the union.
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: "'Steve Hanson'" <smh@uk.ibm.com> Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Date: 03/09/2009 09:38 AM Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Numbers with multiple ranges
But you can parse it.
If it's just the validation, you still have ambiguitities e.g., suppose I form a union of two types, each derived from xs:int, but with different DFDL representations. There's a conflict then, how is that resolved. Rules for "consistency" among two DFDL annotations will be complex. E.g., is an int with a 31 bit representation compatible wiht an int with 32 bit representation? - shouldn't be unless both are unsigned. Etc.
...mike
Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair | CTO | Oco, Inc. Tel: 781-810-2100 | 100 Fifth Ave., 4th Floor, Waltham MA 02451 | mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com
From: Steve Hanson [mailto:smh@uk.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 4:46 AM To: DFDL Cc: dfdl-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [DFDL-WG] Numbers with multiple ranges
It's a validation issue. I have a packed decimal number with ranges 0-100, 200-300, 400-500. I can't parse and validate this with DFDL. WTX can handle this today.
Regards
Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848 DFDL <mbeckerle.dfdl@gmail.com> 07/03/2009 04:49
To Steve Hanson/UK/IBM@IBMGB cc "dfdl-wg@ogf.org" <dfdl-wg@ogf.org> Subject Re: [DFDL-WG] Numbers with multiple ranges
What does this have to do with representation/ format ?
Seems totally out of scope to me.
...mikeb
On Mar 6, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Steve Hanson <smh@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
One of the existing non-XML parsers from IBM is capable of modelling an integer or decimal with non-contiguous ranges, eg, 0-100, 200-300, 400-500. It is also possible to model this using XML Schema, using a user-defined simple type which is a union of simple type restrictions.
However it is not possible to model this in DFDL because unions are not supported. A choice could be used, but that would give different named elements in the resultant infoset depending on the value, which is not ideal.
I believe this is use case that we should consider for DFDL 1.0. We could decide to allow unions, but with a constraint that the members of the union had to be restrictions of the same built-in type, and that clashing DFDL properties on the members was an error. I believe the existing scoping rules for visiting types would still apply ok. No annotation appears on the xs:union only on the xs:simpleType as currently. The net effect is that our parsing rules are the same as currently, but we gain validation capability.
I am not in favour of more widespread support for unions. I don't have a compelling use case for union of different logical types, eg, xs:dateTime and xs:string.
Your thoughts are welcome.
!-- integer range 0 - 100 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange1"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="100"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="0"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType>
!-- integer range 200 - 300 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange2"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="300"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="200"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType>
!-- integer range 400-500 <xsd:simpleType name="intRange3"> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:maxInclusive value="500"/> <xsd:minInclusive value="400"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType>
!-- Union of above types <xsd:simpleType name="intRange"> <xsd:union memberTypes="intRange1 intRange2 intRange3"/> </xsd:simpleType>
!-- Union of anonymous types being restrictions of above types <xsd:simpleType name="intRangeLocal"> <xsd:union> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange1"/> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange2"/> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="intRange3"/> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:union> </xsd:simpleType>
!-- Union of anonymous types being local restrictions <xsd:simpleType name="intRangeLocalRestrictions"> <xsd:union> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="0"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="100"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="200"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="300"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> <xsd:simpleType> <xsd:restriction base="xsd:int"> <xsd:minInclusive value="400"/> <xsd:maxInclusive value="500"/> </xsd:restriction> </xsd:simpleType> </xsd:union> </xsd:simpleType>
Regards
Steve Hanson Programming Model Architect WebSphere Message Brokers Hursley, UK Internet: smh@uk.ibm.com Phone (+44)/(0) 1962-815848
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
-- 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
font>
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
r> >
participants (4)
-
DFDL -
Mike Beckerle
-
Steve Hanson -
Suman Kalia