[Smwg] Response to AI 2016-0119-1 and hopefully penultimate version of SoS book

Barkley, Erik J (3970) erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov
Sat Sep 24 01:25:20 UTC 2016

CSSM Colleagues,

I have edited the schedule of services book and posted the update at the link shown below.  The changes have been tracked.

A summary of the edits:

a)      the SANA considerations section has been overhauled to a fair degree and this also brings it into compliance with the RMP (registry management policy) published in June 2016; also, the information entities and XML schema registries discussion has been added

b)      the latest overview diagram has been included in this update

c)      the pattern for Time Code B and the discussion related to Time Code B has been revised given the latest understanding achieved with the CESG that in fact the fractional seconds are optional and not required

d)      the initial list of information entities in Annex B has been revised to be consistent with the latest inter-recommendation tracking spreadsheet

e)      various minor editorial corrections

There are still some follow-up actions and/or responses to questions needed:

Annex E:  I believe a minor update to the XML schema material is needed, given the new extensibility mechanism.   Holger, can you do this update?

Use of xsd:types directly for the extensibility mechanism:  the abstract parameter class diagram (which is the basis for the extensibility mechanism) makes direct use of XML schema type definitions yet does not really introduce the "xsd:" notation. Certainly, ultimately this is what we want to see in the XML schema but the main class diagram for the schedule definition steers clear of using XML type definitions directly in favor of mapping to XML schema. However the use of xsd: types directly in Annex B does not truly follow the same approach.   I think this could be fairly easy to fix by just simply dropping the "xsd:" notation and then making sure that there is a table listing the data types.  That would mean that the xsd:any notation would have to have some sort of verbiage to indicate that this could be arbitrary structuring of data but I think that should be just fine and probably not too hard really to do. Does anybody the working group have an opinion on this?

Schema mapping reference: Related to the "xsd:" question  is the reference to "[G1]" for the XML schema mapping - but there is no reference G1.  I believe this should be a reference to CCSDS 910.14-G-1.  But  in taking a quick look at this I'm not so sure that this is still correct - I think its bound too closely to SM B1.  I think it should be possible to have a slimmed down version of this and include it as an Annex for this recommendation.   Anthony, if you have a chance could you take a crack at identifying the modifications needed to produce the slimmed down version of the schema mapping?  If I can find a bit of time, I will also attempt to do the same and hopefully we can compare notes at the Rome meetings.

Blank Table fields for Table A-1:  I don't quite understand why there are pages of tables with blank entries here?  Colin, do you have any comments on this?

Working group review requested: assuming that we have the questions/updates addressed above, can we review the document prior to the Rome meetings?  The goal is  then to check this at the Rome meetings.  Subsequently, coming out of the Rome meetings, I hope will be the submission copy for the secretariat to initiate blue book polling.

Best regards,


To retrieve the latest book:

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20160924/70842968/attachment.html>

More information about the SMWG mailing list