ESA > Join & Share > Forums > LTDP SAFE > Representation language trade-off results > Re: Re: Re: Representation language trade-off results



Show posts:
Jump to forum:

Re: Re: Re: Representation language trade-off results

I share Stephan's first comment that besides the four presented possibilities - DFDL, SDF, BinX and EAST - the idea for this trade-off was to have a fifth one consisting of a new language to be designed from scratch, even if the comparison would not be very fair because it would be based on hypothetical (not actual) characteristics of that new language. I propose that it is included in the trade-off, even if dismissed briefly upfront.

I also share the view that this issue is different from the one in trade-off 0066. The two issues are related but still independent enough to be looked at separately. Trade-off 0066 resulted from a RID/idea from Dominic Lowe and was "only" about whether instead of having new schemas for each new product type, we could have a very generic schema able to represent all possible product types (quite challenging and, I agree, of dubious added value because it would have to be really generic) and then instances of this generic XML schema for each new product type.

Anyway, the real issue is then whether the decision of having 1 schema + M instances instead of N schemas influences trade-off 0070 and in particular the need for a new language to be designed. I don't think so.

We should also not forget the comment that Bernard Buckl from DLR made during the SRR, that there are probably strong (unavoidable) reasons for languages like DFDL and SDF to use annotations to be able to represent binary data. I think this is the really interesting discussion, but it is more relevant to trade-off 0066.

Regarding this trade-off, I had a few comments of my own:

- I am slightly concerned about the immaturity of DFDL and in particular of the Daffodil parser. I'm sure we will see updates to both in the coming months and this is not optimal considering the upcoming SAFE developments.
- Maybe the trade-off could consider other parameters in the analysis, such as "maturity", "complexity" and "limitations". DFDL, for example, would probably score low on maturity, EAST would score low on complexity (i.e. it's complex), and BinX would score low on limitations (it has several).
- Stephan also mentioned this. I found it curious that BinX uses a master schema and then representation information consists of XML instances/documents. This is exactly the subject of trade-off 0066.

About the conclusion of the trade-off, no doubt about changing to DFDL as it stands.


Show posts:
Jump to forum: