[Smwg] Information Entities survey

[Barkley, Erik J (3970)]

CSSM Colleagues,

To follow up from yesterday's teleconference attached is a preliminary survey of the information entities based on the list found in the inter-recommendation tracking spreadsheet. In doing this, I think I do now recall the issue that Colin identified at the Cleveland meetings -- the SMURF has several distinct request types and these are not really captured in the information entities listed that we have so far. It is also possible to argue that we do have them captured but just not fully elaborated which then begs the question of how we organize this in keeping with the decision yesterday to stick with a "flat" list for the SANA registry. There is also something of an analogous situation with the provisional plan. I believe it's quite possible to continue with the flat list approach abiding by the comments found (in the attached file)  for the information entities that ultimately are part of the provisional plan.

I propose to review this further at the next telecon as there are comments on several I.E. identifications.  Thoughts via email prior to the next telecon also appreciated.

Colin,

There is a suggested action in here to provide a list of request types. I'm okay doing a first cut on this but given that this will also ultimately tie into how the SMURF class diagram is organized I think it makes more sense for you to take a look at this if you have the time.

Best regards,
-Erik

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20160810/94db6da3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: d0-InformationEntitySurvey-10-Aug-2016.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 13570 bytes
Desc: d0-InformationEntitySurvey-10-Aug-2016.xlsx
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20160810/94db6da3/attachment.xlsx>