[Sea-sa] [EXTERNAL] Re: New version of RASDS++ uploaded to the CWE

Tue Oct 24 19:02:45 UTC 2023

Hi Fred,

I’m not sure just what levels of document completeness the SC14 typically uses to gauge whether a doc is a WD, or a CD, or a DIS?  That said, since this current draft still has some known gaps, omissions, and inconsistencies I think I would call it a Working Draft (WD) and not a Committee Draft (CD).  If you agree then I think it would be appropriate to send it out to at least the members of SC14 who would:

  1.  Care about such a document
  2.  Understand what a reference architecture is
  3.  Are willing to help contribute to getting it to CD status

Does this make sense to you?   Can we hope to get any feedback from SC14 by the time of the CCSDS Working Meeting, Thursday, 9 Nov 23?

Thanks, Peter

From: Frederick Slane <freds at spacestandards.org>
Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 8:01 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: Ramon Krosley <r.krosley at andropogon.org>, "Radulescu, Costin (US 9300)" <cradule at jpl.nasa.gov>, Shelbun Cheng <shelbun.k.cheng at jpl.nasa.gov>, Christian Stangl <Christian.Stangl at dlr.de>, Robert Rovetto <ontologos at yahoo.com>, SEA-SA <sea-sa at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: New version of RASDS++ uploaded to the CWE

I hadn't thought of the SC14 phases in this context, bt it will work pretty well here.

The SC14 phases are
New Work Item (NWI) for concept development
Working Draft (WD) draft in development by the working group team
Committee Draft (CD) draft from the working group for committee discussion/comment
Draft International Standard (DIS) public review stage
Final Draft International Standard (FDIS) if more than one stage of public review is needed.

After a NWI is approved one is in the WD stage. At the end of the WD stage the team will send out a CD for Comment (CD for comment), resolve those comments and then send out a CD for Ballot upon resolution of all CD comments. When countries agree those comments were properly resolved the document becomes a DIS and goes out for public review. When all DIS comments are resolved to the satisfaction of the SC14 membership, the document becomes at Standard.

I think we are at the CD for Comment stage, and naming it as such will help ISO reviewers understand our level of development. Are you OK with that correlation?

Cheers,
Fred
Frederick A. Slane
Executive Director
Space Infrastructure Foundation
731 North Tejon Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80904
freds at spacestandards.org<mailto:freds at spacestandards.org>
www.spacestandards.org<https://urldefense.us/v3/__http:/www.spacestandards.org__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!L48i6l8rHOu-WmWxEO-1lVauSJs-Y71p3JZmzuj-GtDGiqM4yZLnHoLC7e05mq_kVZTSUfvFax7apxce4fCuW7xga071$>
+1-719-229-4252

"If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing." ~W. Edwards Deming

“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” - Confucius

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 7:37 AM Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>> wrote:
Hi Fred,

It’s still pretty rough, in my opinion, but as long as you make clear that this is a very early complete draft I do not have an issue with sharing it with SC14.  I’m still operating on the assumption that this is going to be a joint publication, with CCSDS following our process and SC14 following the ISO one.  Does this document equate to a committee draft, or some similar designation?

Any thoughts about the structural / sub-section ordering issues I raised?

Cheers, Peter

From: Frederick Slane <freds at spacestandards.org<mailto:freds at spacestandards.org>>
Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 4:45 AM
To: Peter Shames <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Cc: Ramon Krosley <r.krosley at andropogon.org<mailto:r.krosley at andropogon.org>>, "Radulescu, Costin (US 9300)" <cradule at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:cradule at jpl.nasa.gov>>, Shelbun Cheng <shelbun.k.cheng at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:shelbun.k.cheng at jpl.nasa.gov>>, Christian Stangl <Christian.Stangl at dlr.de<mailto:Christian.Stangl at dlr.de>>, Robert Rovetto <ontologos at yahoo.com<mailto:ontologos at yahoo.com>>, SEA-SA <sea-sa at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sea-sa at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New version of RASDS++ uploaded to the CWE

Peter,
Many thanks for this update.I'm currently at section 6.  I will share with the SC14 architecture group and try to get a Teams call in with them.

Do you mind if I share with others (Koki, Office of Space Commerce, US leads in SC14)? This language is desperately needed to begin the training and education of big parts of our industry.

Fred
Frederick A. Slane
Executive Director
Space Infrastructure Foundation
731 North Tejon Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80904
freds at spacestandards.org<mailto:freds at spacestandards.org>
www.spacestandards.org<https://urldefense.us/v3/__http:/www.spacestandards.org__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IMA8r5FA1nYZuyIBuEft6ojDooPzCq7GQ4ybTkVgk0JINMJCeBt-kTPrLnVkN1GMqca6TB_9_gHChagcbohzhZgV10vz$>
+1-719-229-4252

"If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing." ~W. Edwards Deming

“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” - Confucius

On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 7:18 AM Shames, Peter M (US 312B) <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>> wrote:
Dear SEA RASDS++ enthusiasts,

I have finally completed a first complete, end-to-end, pass through the updated RASDS++ document.  All of the new figures are inserted, new text is included all sections, and major edits have been made across the board.  The document is uploaded to:  https://cwe.ccsds.org/sea/docs/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fsea%2Fdocs%2FSEA%2DSA%2FDraft%20Documents%2FRASDS%20Revisions%202020%2FRASDS%20revisions%20draft%20documents&FolderCTID=0x012000F83FD93BEFF45E4FB5D1769B01CA762F&View=%7BA709F322%2D0E67%2D45C7%2D932D%2DCB78C55CE268%7D<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/cwe.ccsds.org/sea/docs/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=*2Fsea*2Fdocs*2FSEA*2DSA*2FDraft*20Documents*2FRASDS*20Revisions*202020*2FRASDS*20revisions*20draft*20documents&FolderCTID=0x012000F83FD93BEFF45E4FB5D1769B01CA762F&View=*7BA709F322*2D0E67*2D45C7*2D932D*2DCB78C55CE268*7D__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!IMA8r5FA1nYZuyIBuEft6ojDooPzCq7GQ4ybTkVgk0JINMJCeBt-kTPrLnVkN1GMqca6TB_9_gHChagcbohzhekL_cSo$>

On the Preface page, near the front, I have added some notes for the major contributors, but feedback from anyone will be welcome.  Of particular note is that there are two different chapter styles that are being tried out.  One starts with the same “object overview” diagrams as the original version.  The other starts with the new “object ontology” diagrams.  Other approaches are likely to be possible, and feedback is most definitely requested.  I would like the structure and flow of each of the sections to be the same, right now they are intentionally different, as I just describe, but also somewhat “ragged”.  This needs to be fixed, suggestions are welcome.  We also agreed during the last telecon to move some of the more “compelling” examples up into Chap 2.  This changes the character of the document somewhat, but all to the good in my opinion.

Other than that, there are a number of loose ends, “attend to me”, and “what are we doing with this” sorts of questions throughout.  Some of these relate to the inclusion of RM-ODP “parentage”, which is still true, but may no longer be terribly relevant.

And there are some specific sections where there are tags with various folks names on them.  Please review and propose solutions where you can.  Some of the additional figures in later chapters are missing or not yet recovered from the original, or maybe need to be replaced.  Please keep an eye out and signal what you think (or what you are willing to do).  We also need for figure out what we are going to do in the various Annexes.  I did not yet include Koki Ansari’s figure, but would like to put it into a new “Here is another way to use RASDS++” annex.

In the absence of other specific guidance or requests for change I am going to assume that the chapter assignments identified in the “RASDS++ ToC draft - writing assignments - 2023 August 15” still reflects your commitments to getting the chapters assigned to you done.  If that can occur prior to the working meetings that would be ideal.

Looking forward to hearing feedback and to seeing you in The Hague.

Thanks for the continued support, Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sea-sa/attachments/20231024/6328843b/attachment-0001.htm>