[CMC] RES:AW: INPE Informal Review of the Draft Minutes of the October 2018 CMC Meeting (Berlin).
Eduardo W. Bergamini
eduardo.w.bergamini at outlook.com
Fri Dec 21 13:02:10 UTC 2018
Years ago I was in charge of compiling a Glossary as part of the SpaceOps Committee publication activities. In that context, soon, it became very clear that multiplicity of definitions for a same Glossary Term or
Item should be taken into account, for the sake of precision. In the context of CCSDS (and of ISO TC20/SC13, of course) this kind of multiplicity is even a more easy, clear and imperative evidence. A must to be
taken into account. Unfortunately, there is no "short-cut" way, in this case.
Thank you for your comment, Osvaldo.
Merry Christmas and New Year for you and for all of our CCSDS colleagues,
De: osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de <osvaldo.peinado at dlr.de>
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 21 de dezembro de 2018 05:58
Para: eduardo.w.bergamini at outlook.com; Michael.Blackwood at asrcfederal.com
Cc: cmc at mailman.ccsds.org
Assunto: AW: INPE Informal Review of the Draft Minutes of the October 2018 CMC Meeting (Berlin).
I agree with you Eduardo
I had several times the same discussion, it makes absolutely no sense to have a unify definition, that is not realistic.
For example the term Bandwidth has 4 different definitions and are all correct and with quite different meaning, depend on the context and also the book.
Thanks for bringing up this point
Merry Christmas to everyone
Von: CMC [mailto:cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] Im Auftrag von Eduardo W. Bergamini
Gesendet: Freitag, 21. Dezember 2018 02:44
An: 'Michael D. Blackwood, Mr. - ASRCFederal / CCSDS & ISO TC20/SC13 Secretariats'
Cc: CMC - CCSDS Management Council (cmc at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cmc at mailman.ccsds.org>)
Betreff: [CMC] INPE Informal Review of the Draft Minutes of the October 2018 CMC Meeting (Berlin).
I would have a comment that I wish to propose for consideration in the context of the enclosed <CMC Fall 2018 MoM Draft_v1.2> minutes.
Therefore, I leave to your consideration on what could be a best way to rephrase and synthesize my comment in a way that it may permit an adequately, brief inclusion in the context of the CMC draft minutes.
The comment. At our CMC meeting, when discussion came up on the Glossary to be maintained by SANA. At that point I made a point to the plenary of the meeting that can be equivalently expressed under
the following comment. It can be observed that a Term or Item of the Glossary may have conceptually more than one definition (2, or more), depending on the context it is being defined and used, for
instance, across the work context of more than one of the CCSDS WGs. To say the least, because the same term may also be in use with also conceptually different definitions by other groups or organizations,
outside of CCSDS. As a result, it is honestly unconceivable to try to "unify" under an "unique" conceptual definition a set of two or more definitions, associated to a same Glossary Term or Item which have been
that are being adopted under different contexts, for instance, of Standards and or Best Practices documents, or else. In conclusion, the point I expressed in the pertinent discussions we held in the CMC plenary
is that, for each Term or Item of the Glossary it may also include a pointing to the at least one document (a CCSDS Recommendation, Best Practice, or else) where it is originated from, or, simply cited, in the way it
is being defined, in the context of the pointed document. That is, each Term or Item of the Glossary can eventually hold more than one conceptually different definition, each of them, depending on the origin
where it has been defined. If such a proposed care is not taken in the context of a Glossary, it will fatally open the possibility of polemic interpretations or, even, misinterpretations to a specific Term or Item of
the Glossary, that may actually bear more than one conceptually different definitions that depend on the specific conceptual context they were defined from.
Thank you for your attention and consideration, as possible.
EDUARDO W. BERGAMINI
ENCLOSURE: <CMC Fall 2018 MoM draft_v1.2> Draft Minutes.
De: CMC <cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cmc-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> Em nome de Blackwood, Michael D. via CMC
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 13 de dezembro de 2018 14:46
Para: 'cmc at mailman.ccsds.org' <cmc at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:cmc at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Assunto: [CMC] Draft Minutes of the October 2018 CMC Meeting for Informal Review
Dear CMC Members,
Please find attached to this message the draft minutes of the CMC's October 2018 meeting. If you would, please take a moment to review these minutes and reply to me with any changes or updates by Friday, 21 December 2018. After this informal review, the minutes will proceed to CMC poll for final approval.
W: 301-837-3901 | michael.blackwood at asrcfederal.com<mailto:michael.blackwood at asrcfederal.com>
7515 Mission Drive, Seabrook, MD 20706
ASRC Federal | Customer-Focused. Operationally Excellent.
The preceding message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 2510-2512, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential, protected by attorney-client or other privilege, or otherwise protected from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and destroy the original message and all copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CMC