[CESG] Fwd: Retirement of conditions (RE: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 19 January 2018)

CCSDS Secretariat thomas.gannett at tgannett.net
Wed Apr 18 13:59:12 UTC 2018


Dear CESG Members:

Conditions for approval of CESG-P-2017-12-004 
Approval to publish CCSDS 647.4-O-1, Data Entity 
Dictionary Specification Language (DEDSL)-XML/XSD 
Syntax (Orange Book, Issue 1) have been disposed 
to the satisfaction of the AD who voted to 
approve with conditions. The Secretariat will now 
proceed with CMC polling to authorize publication.


>From: "Barkley, Erik J (3970)" <erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>
>To: John Garrett <garrett at his.com>
>CC: "'david'" <david at giaretta.org>,
>         "CCSDS Secretariat
>  (thomas.gannett at tgannett.net)" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
>Subject: Retirement of conditions (RE: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls
>  closing 19 January 2018)
>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:24:25 +0000
>
>The responses address my conditions and those 
>conditions are now retired.  Thank you very much for addressing them.
>
>Best regards,
>-Erik
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Garrett <garrett at his.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 10:17 PM
>To: Barkley, Erik J (3970) 
><erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.govBØΈ    Ù]šY    È]šYÚX at retta.org>
>Subject: FW: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 19 January 2018
>
>Hello Erik,
>
>I planned on trying to catch you at the meeting 
>this week, but without joint meeting areas for 
>breaks, I haven't caught up with you.  I'll stop 
>and chat with you later this week if I get a 
>chance, but wanted to send this message in case I don't see you.
>
>The DAI WG has received your Conditions for 
>publication of the DEDSL XML/XSD Orange 
>Book.  We have discussed it at our meeting this 
>week and we think we have resolutions to your 
>conditions.  I just wanted to touch base and 
>ensure that you concurred with our 
>resolutions.  We will also verify these updates 
>with the CNES document author who did  not join us this week.
>
>Now our proposed responses:
>
>1) Second paragraph in section 1.1:
>FROM: "..Two implementations have been defined 
>in the past, by the CCSDS: a Data Entity 
>Specification Language using PVL syntax (see 
>reference [9]) and a Data Entity Specification 
>Language using XML/DTD syntax (see reference [8])..."
>
>TO: "..Two recommended standards have been 
>defined in the past, by the CCSDS: a Data Entity 
>Specification Language using PVL syntax (see 
>reference [9]) and a Data Entity Specification 
>Language using XML/DTD syntax (see reference [8])..."
>
>The references are in fact to CCSDS standards 
>and do not refer to implementations per se.
>
>         We agree to the proposed change, i.e. 
> change "implementations" to "Recommended Standards"
>
>2) section 1.1, please characterize "some 
>choices" -- choices are always being made, the 
>question is how do they affect the purpose and 
>scope of this proposed experimental 
>recommendation. Please provide some essential 
>characterization -- this will help to better 
>orient the reader as to the purpose and scope of the experimental standard.
>
>         We propose to delete the two sentences mentioning "choices"
>
>From:
>Because of some limitations of the underlying 
>language, some choices had been made while 
>implementing the abstract syntax in PVL or in XML/DTD.
>Because of some limitations of the underlying 
>language, some choices have also been made while 
>implementing the abstract syntax in XML/XSD. 
>However, all the options of the Abstract Syntax 
>have been taken in this Experimental Specification.
>
>To:
>All the options of the Abstract Syntax have been 
>addressed in this Experimental Specification.
>
>Rationale:
>The previous DEDSL publications  (PVL and DTD) 
>did not discuss choices made while defining them.
>The DAI WG felt that the XML/XSD should not discuss them either.
>
>We also believe that the publication describes 
>the implementation that we defined.  Since other 
>ways of representing the information do not 
>conform with the standard, we don't feel there 
>is any benefit to discussing them.  In fact 
>discussing non-conformant constructs is probably 
>detrimental to ensuring that users conform to the standard.
>
>
>3) Please position the schema as indicated in 
>the SANA registry section at the URL advertised 
>(it currently returns as 404 (not found)).
>
>We have messaged SANA to ensure that schema is added to the registry.
>
>Please feel free to stop me, respond back to me 
>or drop by the MOIMS-DAI meeting if you have any questions or concerns.
>If you agree with our resolutions, please let us 
>know and we will inform Tom Gannett that we have resolved your conditions.
>
>Peace and joy,
>-JOhn Garrett
>MOIMS-DAI WG Deputy Chair
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: CESG-All 
>[mailto:cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of CCSDS Secretariat
>Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 2:14 PM
>To: cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org
>Subject: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 19 January 2018
>
>...
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2017-12-004 
>Approval to publish CCSDS 647.4-O-1, Data Entity 
>Dictionary Specification Language 
>(DEDSL)—XML/XSD Syntax (Orange Book, Issue 1) 
>Results of CESG poll beginning 29 December 2017 and ending 19 January 2018:
>
>                   Abstain:  1 (14.29%) (Calzolari)
>   Approve Unconditionally:  5 (71.43%) (Merri, 
> Behal, Shames, Burleigh, Wilmot)
>   Approve with Conditions:  1 (14.29%) (Barkley)
>   Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)
>
>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
>
>Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions): 1) 
>Second paragraph in section 1.1: FROM: "..Two 
>implementations have been defined in the past, 
>by the CCSDS: a Data EntitySpecification 
>Language using PVL syntax (see reference [9]) 
>and a Data Entity Specification anguage using 
>XML/DTD syntax (see reference [8])..." TO: 
>"..Two recommended standards have been defined in the past, by the
>CCSDS: a Data EntitySpecification Language using 
>PVL syntax (see reference [9]) and a Data Entity 
>Specification anguage using XML/DTD syntax (see 
>reference [8])..." The references are in fact to 
>CCSDS standards and do not refer to implementations per se.
>2) section 1.1, please characterize "some 
>choices" -- choices are always being made, the 
>question is how do they affect the purpose and 
>scope of this proposed experimental 
>recommendation. Please provide some essential 
>characterization -- this will help to better 
>orient the reader as to the purpose and scope of the experimental standard.
>
>3) Please position the schema as indicated in 
>the SANA registry section at the URL advertised 
>(it currently returns as 404 (not found)).
>
>
>Total Respondents: 7
>All Areas responded to this question.
>
>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate
>CMC poll after conditions have been addressed
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ...




More information about the CESG mailing list