[Moims-ipr] Re: [Moims-dai] URGENT: [CESG] CESG Final Review of
XFDU Structure and Construction Rules
John Garrett
John.G.Garrett at nasa.gov
Thu Jul 24 13:26:36 EDT 2008
Hi Nestor,
I have made contact with Lou and have some additional information from him.
The non-expansion of the bytestream object was an EDITORIAL decision.
When the final schema was produced it was impossible to see the double
line the shows the bounds of the bytestream object as opposed to the
data object. Sergey and I tried different techniques but could not keep
the schema at one readable page and therefore did not include the
expansion.
The extension object was a concern from the beginning of the draft Blue
Book generation. I had discussions with Don Sawyer and presented this to
the IPR WG during the RID discussions. Neither Don nor the IPR WG
thought the change was large enough to trigger a new review. I also had
discussions with Dan Crichton and Steve Hughes and they concurred that
the change was not large enough to trigger a new review. There were
also discussions with Tom Gannett and he did not think that the change
was not large enough to trigger a new review.
The Implementation Report Yellow Book included extension object.
I have had several email exchanges with Tom Gannett on the diagram
quality including one where I told him that we could not do it on our
current tool and he responded that if it was ok with us it was ok with
him. I think that changing to a different design tool such as oxygen or
xml spy to get higher quality diagrams would be a major change. Many of
the figures are the same figures as those that appeared in the Red
Book. Any figures that were replaced are of the same quality as the
originals. There were no RIDs or comments from the Red Book review
regarding quality of the figures.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
-JOhn
John Garrett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lou will not likely be available to respond for the next couple weeks.
> In his absence, the following would be the response of several of us
> at NASA/GSFC:
>
> The "extension" element was added in response to my RID which was sent
> in the name of the IPR Working Group which decided it was desirable to
> continue to have an extension capability. We updated the extension
> capability from just a wildcard to the extension element that
> contained a wildcard to comply with how we believed was the preferred
> extension method suggested by the XML Guidelines SIG. We do not
> believe the addition of the 'extension type' is a 'substantial'
> technical change in the sense of needing another review. It is an
> additional, optional, feature that does not add significant complexity
> and it is hard to see on what basis anyone would object to adding it.
>
> The "bytestream" element remains unchanged in the XML Schema and is of
> "byteStreamType".
> The full diagram expanded the byteStreamType in the Red Book and did
> not expand it in the Blue Book which has led to this confusion.
> However, it remains unchanged in the draft Blue Book XML Schema and
> the expansion is shown earlier in Figure 8-1 of the draft Blue Book.
> To address Adrian's point, I would suggest that we provide a
> replacement figure with byteStream expanded for Figure 11-1 of the
> draft Blue Book.
> I believe this is simply an editorial change and should not hold up
> approval as a Blue Book.
>
> We believe the XFDU implementations correctly use the byteStream
> element and the extension capability has also been demonstrated by
> implementation.
>
> We believe all the concerned agencies have been involved in these
> minor changes, the implementations reflect these minor changes, and
> all concerned agencies have already seen and approved the new material
> that responded to the RIDs. We also believe it is unlikely that we
> will have any new reviewers and that no substantive RIDs would be
> generated by another agency review. We feel that approving this as a
> Blue Book at this time could save the agency resources that would need
> to be applied for a formal agency review at each and every one of the
> agencies. We feel those resources could better be applied to
> standards development.
>
>
> Please let us know if anybody on this list believes they or their
> agency or organization has not had a chance to properly review and
> approve of these changes.
>
>
> Cheers,
> -JOhn
>
>
> Nestor.Peccia at esa.int wrote:
>> Please give me urgently your feedback.
>> Adrian is asking for a second RB review
>> ciao
>> nestor
>> ----- Forwarded by Nestor Peccia/esoc/ESA on 21/07/2008 00:33 -----
>>
>> "Adrian J.
>> Hooke"
>> <adrian.j.hooke at jp
>>
>> l.nasa.gov> To
>> Sent by: CCSDS
>> Rapporteur
>> cesg-bounces at mailm <secretariat at mailman.ccsds.org>
>>
>> an.ccsds.org cc
>>
>> cesg at mailman.ccsds.org
>>
>> Subject 18/07/2008 18:10 Re: [CESG] CESG Final
>> Review of XFDU Structure and
>> Construction Rules
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 04:27 PM 7/17/2008, CCSDS Rapporteur wrote:
>> 1) This document contains technical changes that have not been
>> re-circulated for review by the CCSDS Agencies:
>> - an "extensionType" has been added in response to a RID.
>> - the normative/ruling full XML Schema has been modified (in
>> addition
>> to addition of "extensionType"): attributes/subordinate
>> elements of
>> "byteStream" shown in Red-1 issue have been deleted from the
>> current
>> issue.
>>
>> Tom: this clearly rules out CESG approval. If substantive technical
>> changes
>> have been made, the document needs to go out for another final Agency
>> review.
>> The only case where changes could be permitted without re-review is
>> the one
>> where minor editorial fixes were made that did not alter the technical
>> content.
>>
>> 2) The graphics supplied with the document are
>> screen-resolution bit
>> maps and as such are well below normal publication quality.
>>
>> Perhaps the WG could fix this problem while the document is being
>> re-reviewed, and supply you with proper graphics?
>>
>> Nestor: please advise the WG.
>>
>> ///adrian
>> _______________________________________________
>> CESG mailing list
>> CESG at mailman.ccsds.org
>> http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moims-dai mailing list
>> Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
>> http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moims-dai mailing list
> Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
> http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai
More information about the Moims-ipr
mailing list