[Ccsds-omg-liaison] Re: AB homework: GEMS 1.3 RTF report

[Rob Andzik]

I have made the changes and add comments in line below to describe what was
done.   I will send out the updated documents for a new round of voting
shortly.

-- Rob

Rob Andzik
719-522-2813
AMERGINT Technologies
www.amergint.com


On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM, VINCENT Hugues <
hugues.vincent at thalesgroup.com> wrote:

> Dear Rob, Brad and other GEMS RTF members,****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Here are my first comments as AB reviewer of the "GEMS 1.3 RTF report"
> (dtc/13-08-18..22).****
>
>  ****
>
> The XSD files are correct yet their namespaces (targetNamespace and xmlns)
> includes date numbers which are not the ones of the spec (20110323 vs.
> 20130801): was it the intent?****
>
>  ****
>
> Issue 16950: ****
>
>    - The revised text part is not specific enough: it needs to tell
>    exactly how to modify what (we are only voting on the report document).
>    ****
>
>
>    - You said that "odd bit lengths may be specified by including an even
>    number of hex characters and specifying the correct bit length" yet you
>    didn't say anything on the extra characters: ****
>       - is it mandatory to use '0' (as in your example) or is e.g. E2/4
>       allowed ?****
>       - is it mandatory to use just one extra character (as in your
>       example) or is e.g. E2013/4 allowed ?****
>
>   Anyway, all this needs to be specified.****
>
>    - This implies a new round of RTF voting
>
>
Changes Made


>
>    - ****
>
>  ****
>
> Issue 16952:****
>
>    - In the revised text, "Reflect these changes in the examples in
>    section 7.2 of the GEMS specification document." is not enough:****
>       - the revised text must tell exactly how to modify what****
>       - section 7.2 is not the only part of the text having been fixed:
>       section 7.1.1.3, 7.1.1.19 and 7.1.1.22****
>
>
>    - In section 7.1.1.3 of the with-revision-bars version, the "choice
>    minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"" was fixed but this part is not
>    commented with the issue number.****
>
>
>    - You said that some text in the examples in section 7.2 was fixed but
>    this does not appear with a comment holding the number of the issue. Please
>    add such a note.****
>
>
>    - This implies a new round of RTF voting since I'm not sure what the
>    voters understood in the preceding votes.
>
>
The examples actually did not need to change.  This change simply allowed
the parameter set to occur prior to a parameter.  That doesn't mean the
have to change, so the current examples are fine with regards to this
issue.

I did however re-paste the Schema in to 7.1.1.6.  The document did not
match the schema. I do not know when this happened, but it now matches.

Fixed the RTF report to match.



>
>    - ****
>
>  ****
>
> Issue 18313:****
>
>    - The Revised text part is not complete: the fix entails modifications
>    in the XSD which are reflected neither in the revised text, nor as an issue
>    tag in the with-revision-bars submission, nor in the XSD itself: Please add
>    all these.
>
>
I am not clear why the fix entails modifications to the XSD. The
authentication is simply describing how to format the target attribute
string -- it is not necessary to define that in XSD.


>
>    - ****
>    - This implies a new round of RTF voting since I'm not sure what the
>    voters understood in the preceding votes.****
>
>  ****
>
> Issue 18314:****
>
>    - In the revised text: "Change the Range of Values column to include
>    ten characters in each side of the range.": please provide the exact value
>    you want to put in the specification.****
>    - Section 8.2 of the with-revision-bars version holds a comment which
>    says "extend the message length field in all examples": what does that
>    mean? please fix.
>
>
Added issue markers in the specification and changes for each section to
the RTF report.


>
>    - ****
>
>  ****
>
> Issue 18535:****
>
>    - The revised text part says "adding the following text after the
>    <xsd;sequence> tag" when it should have said "adding the following text
>    before the </xsd:sequence> tag". Please fix this in the report.****
>    - In the with-revision-bars, the modifications were tagged as "Issue
>    18313" when they should have been tagged as 18535. Please fix this.
>
>
fixed


>
>    - ****
>
>  ****
>
> Issue 18733:****
>
>    - The fix says that the decimal is to be removed when it's the decimal
>    point that needs to be removed. If this is indeed the case (the English
>    language can be confusing…), please fix.
>
>
Fixed


>
>    - ****
>
>  ****
>
> Issue 18813:****
>
>    - In the revised text part, I guess that this fix needs to be done in
>    the ParameterSetDefType complex type rather than in the ParameterSetDef
>    complex type. Please fix this.****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> These comments don't preclude any further comments from me or other AB
> members.****
>
>  ****
>
> Best regards,****
>
> Hugues VINCENT****
>
> OMG Architecture Board Member****
>
> hugues_vincent (at) omg.org****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> [@@ OPEN @@]****
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/ccsds-omg-liaison/attachments/20130909/82b3c41d/attachment.htm