<it> field

[elsdvlee]

Should the <it> field result in a logical iteration that you can further reference?
What would the <it> contain in case of CSV of relational table?
What about a joined logicalView? How would the <it> look like then?
Is the <it> field still needed?

[chrdebru]

During the meeting it was stated that one could refer to it via an expression. Would the iteration have a reference to a subdocument to the whole document (in XML, for example), or create a new document for each iteration. In the case of the former, one could grab the parent(s) of a sub document. This could thus potentially be used to manipulate the iterator. In other words, the behavior needs to be clarified.

[elsdvlee]

@pmaria What did you have in mind?
Last useful note from the TF meetings on this topic:

<it> is about accessing the raw value of an iteration and doesn't need to be referenceable
basic need: to define what it is that the value of fields provides

[pmaria]

@elsdvlee

I don't believe the <it> field is necessary anymore in the way we have currently defined the workings of fields. In the initial idea of fields a logical source record needed to have a string representation to work on. The string representation of the logical source was the <it> value. In the current definition this is not necessary anymore.

We might need to clarify what happens when you change reference formulations for a field. So a fields parent value was generated using a reference in a reference formulation X, what needs to happen with, or hold for, this value when the fields reference formulation is Y.