[CESG] CESG poll appears to have closed early? -- Conditions re CESG-P-2024-10-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 311.0-M-2, Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Magenta Book, Issue 2)

[Barkley, Erik J (US 3970)]

I also noted an 8th point:


  1.  Figure C-4 - comments/TODO list regarding review with Mike Anderson may not be the most appropriate for a formal CCSDS document publication?


From: Barkley, Erik J (US 3970)
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 16:50
To: Oliver, Brian H <BOliver at asrcfederal.com>
Cc: CCSDS Support <techsupport at mailman.ccsds.org>; cesg at mailman.ccsds.org; Secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: CESG poll appears to have closed early? -- Conditions re CESG-P-2024-10-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 311.0-M-2, Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Magenta Book, Issue 2)

Brian,

It is still the workday here for November 19 on the US West Coast, but I find the latest set of CESG polls that are set to close at the end of today (November 19) have already closed. Do these polls run on GMT?  In any case, I was dutifully reviewing RASDS V2.  My vote is for approve with conditions.  These conditions are stated below. If the poll can be reopened, I will be happy to enter them formally to record the voting properly.

Best regards,
-Erik

CSS AD Vote re  CESG-P-2024-10-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 311.0-M-2, Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (Magenta Book, Issue 2):



  1.  Section 1.3, re the text  "...can, and have, been directly adopted for use with the UML and SysML representations that are provided by typical Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) tools" can references regarding the "directly adopted for use" be provided? Perhaps as a footnote?


  1.  Figure 2-4 -- can this be cleaned up?  At least get the text to fit in the boxes (Metamodel, Environment), and not have the arrows slice through the text (e.g. it says "Offers" from Function to Service but it is not really clear). It should be possible to move the text or arrows sufficiently so that all is clear.


  1.  Figure 2-4 -- what is meant by "prop" in Component Node, Connector (Link)?


  1.  Figure 3-1 -- Are the textual element for the "Logical Link between Elements" required for this icon?  (these are "Service Consumer, Data, Service Provider") -- it seems this is an example application of the icon, not the icon "definition"?  I will note that the box with "Data" tends to make sense as part of the icon definition. Perhaps "Service Consumer" and "Service Provider" should read Object A and Object B?


  1.  Figure 3-4 -- consider changing the term "Main Object" to just simply  " Object".  rationale:  this more readily supports the composition of an object by other objects as opposed to a composition of a  main object by other main objects and I think is more in line with what the diagram is showing. (Does RASDS distinguish between "main object" and "object"?) I think the change will make this figure more consistent with Figure 6-2 (which does not have a "main component", but just components)


  1.  Figure 4-6 -- could use some cleaning (reference comment on figure 2-4 -- also, the little cartoon figures with thought and speech bubbles -- are these part of RASDS? If not does RASDS recommend these kinds of embellishments?  ( to be clear, they do help, but I'm just trying to sort out what is actually RASDS versus what is not)


  1.  Annex C-- I am not sure  that this add anything very useful.  Reading through it, it appears more to be a tutorial on SYSML than  actually showing anything on RASDS.   Perhaps what could make this more useful is to show the RASDS equivalent for the SYSML diagrams shown . Presumably the RASDS diagrams would be more succinct? As is, I  don't really see that this adds anything to elucidate or otherwise define RASDS -- perhaps remove?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20241120/d0634fb6/attachment-0001.htm>