DR 09-0099 - SML: No Normative References or Definitions for "MDX" and "OLAP"

[Chris Rae]

Oh dear. Well spotted. I've rewritten this to refer to " behavior, implementation-defined". This appears to cover the same scope as "implementation-defined". Our other new definition ("implementation-dependent") was unreferenced as yet, but also appears to equate to " behavior, unspecified" so I've removed it too, but I added a note saying that "behaviour, unspecified" was also known as "application-dependent". Changes attached - let's discuss in the next call.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Jaeschke [mailto:rex at RexJaeschke.com] 
Sent: 13 October 2010 14:49
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: RE: DR 09-0099 - SML: No Normative References or Definitions for "MDX" and "OLAP"

So how do these new terms interact with these existing terms?

behavior, implementation-defined - Unspecified behavior where each implementation is expected to document that behavior, which would thereby promote predictability and reproducibility within any given implementation.
(This term is sometimes called "application-defined behavior".)

behavior, unspecified -Behavior where ISO/IEC 29500 makes no recommendations. [Note: To add an extension, an implementer must use the extensibility mechanisms described by ISO/IEC 29500 rather than trying to do so by giving meaning to otherwise unspecified behavior. end note]

Rex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Rae [mailto:Chris.Rae at microsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 2:07 AM
> To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> Cc: francis at franciscave.com
> Subject: RE: DR 09-0099 - SML: No Normative References or Definitions 
> for "MDX" and "OLAP"
> 
> We discussed this DR in Tokyo at some length - I have in my notes that 
> we agreed to add definitions of "implementation-defined" and 
> "implementation-specific" to the standard, then to refer MDX to the 
> newly-minted "implementation-defined". I also agreed to make sure that 
> we have MDX-related examples in the primer (which we do) and that 
> Microsoft properly referenced their MDX documentation in their 
> implementer notes (which I haven't done yet, but will do - it's not 
> necessary for the resolving of this DR).
> 
> I've updated the text for this DR, and the new version is attached. 
> The major difference is the addition of the two terms above to the 
> definitions and the modification of the "MDX" definition - for the 
> definition of the terms I borrowed heavily from ISO/IEC 9075, the SQL 
> standard, which uses:
> 
> implementation-defined: Possibly differing between 
> SQL-implementations, but specified by the implementor for each 
> particular SQL- implementation.
> 
> implementation-dependent: Possibly differing between SQL- 
> implementations, but not specified by ISO/IEC 9075, and not required 
> to be specified by the implementor for any particular SQL-implementation.
> 
> They also refer to a third definition:
> 
> SQL-implementation: A processor that processes SQL-statements. A 
> conforming SQL-implementation is an SQL-implementation that satisfies 
> the requirements for SQL-implementations as defined in Clause 8, 
> "Conformance".
> 
> I chose not to do this by instead incorporating the definition of an 
> "implementation" inline.
> 
> Your thoughts,
> 
> Chris
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Rae [mailto:Chris.Rae at microsoft.com]
> Sent: 25 August 2010 15:12
> To: francis at franciscave.com; e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> Subject: RE: DR 09-0099 - SML: No Normative References or Definitions 
> for "MDX" and "OLAP"
> 
> Hello Francis - many thanks for taking a look at this. Your 
> definitions are a lot better than mine. I think the OLAP one is pretty 
> clear now - I'd agree that the MDX one is still a little vague but 
> unfortunately I think that's the nature of the beast - the "MDX" 
> expressions in IS
> 29500 are not there to be processed by the spreadsheet application 
> itself, they're just to be passed on to an OLAP data provider that the 
> spreadsheet application connects to via any means it chooses.
> 
> We should discuss this DR in Tokyo - I've attached a new version of my 
> faux-tracked-changes document using Mr Cave's definitions.
> 
> Chris
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis Cave [mailto:francis at franciscave.com]
> Sent: 24 August 2010 16:56
> To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> Subject: RE: DR 09-0099 - SML: No Normative References or Definitions 
> for "MDX" and "OLAP"
> 
> Hi Chris
> 
> I don't think this quite does the job. Here are your definitions:
> 
> -----
> 
> MDX - A multi-dimensional expression language, passed to an OLAP 
> provider.
> The method of interpreting of this is defined by the server-side OLAP 
> provider implementation.
> 
> OLAP - A type of online analytical processing database which uses a 
> multi-dimensional data model.
> 
> -----
> 
> The second sentence of the 'MDX' definition contains a typo: the 
> second "of"
> should be deleted. However, this is a trivial point.
> 
> The problem with these definitions is that they introduce further 
> terms that could cause uncertainty for implementers. What is an "OLAP 
> provider"? What is an "online analytical processing database"? Can 
> these uncertainties be avoided by either stripping out or providing 
> further explanation of potentially puzzling terms? For example:
> 
> -----
> 
> MDX - A multi-dimensional expression language, used to construct 
> queries on a multi-dimensional OLAP database. The method of 
> interpreting expressions in this language is defined by the OLAP 
> database implementation.
> 
> OLAP - An acronym for "online analytical processing", an approach to 
> data analysis; hence the name of a specific type of database, used in 
> online analytical processing, which uses a multi-dimensional data 
> model.
> 
> -----
> 
> These definitions are still somewhat circular, but perhaps beg fewer 
> questions?
> 
> Francis
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Rae [mailto:Chris.Rae at microsoft.com]
> > Sent: 24 August 2010 21:39
> > To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> > Subject: DR 09-0099 - SML: No Normative References or Definitions 
> > for "MDX" and "OLAP"
> >
> > http://cid-
> >
> c8ba0861dc5e4adc.office.live.com/view.aspx/Public%20Documents/2009/DR-
> > 09-0099.docx
> >
> > This DR covers the use of the terms "OLAP" and "MDX" in the standard 
> > without accompanying definitions. It also points out a few uses of 
> > "mdx" when "MDX" was meant.
> >
> > Proposed changes are attached - essentially I'm defining both terms 
> > inside "terms and definitions" and then correcting the "mdx"
> instances
> > that should have been "MDX".
> >
> > Your thoughts,
> >
> > Chris
> 





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: proposed changes.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 69254 bytes
Desc: proposed changes.docx
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20101026/fc9107c6/attachment-0001.bin>