[Smwg] AB review for Standardized Spacecraft Schedule Exchange Descriptions RFP

Mon Feb 27 14:30:53 UTC 2017

That's interesting...

Besides the first correlation with OMG is "Oh My God" ;-), I found the web page of OMG. Seems that they do more-less same as we (ok, I do not know details). And members of OMG are virtually everybody except.... the space agencies and space companies (but Ford, Microsoft and Open Canarias).  Well...

In principle I read from the cited mail, they want at least look at our work... As such not bad, or?

Best Regards
Marcin

From: SMWG [mailto:smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of John Pietras
Sent: Montag, 27. Februar 2017 15:09
To: CCSDS SMWG ML (smwg at mailman.ccsds.org)
Subject: [Smwg] FW: AB review for Standardized Spacecraft Schedule Exchange Descriptions RFP

Some of you have undoubtedly also received this email. It sounds like OMG may be poised to do something that duplicates/overlaps the Simple Schedule work (and perhaps more CSSMWG-chartered work?)

From: CCSDS-OMG-Liaison [mailto:ccsds-omg-liaison-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of VINCENT Hugues
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 3:10 AM
To: donald.sather at aero.org<mailto:donald.sather at aero.org>; space at omg.org<mailto:space at omg.org>
Cc: ab at omg.org<mailto:ab at omg.org>
Subject: [Ccsds-omg-liaison] AB review for Standardized Spacecraft Schedule Exchange Descriptions RFP

Dear all,

Here are my first comments as AB reviewer of the "Standardized Spacecraft Schedule Exchange Descriptions RFP" (space/17-02-04).

This RFP is quite clear. Contacting CCSDS before issuing it must be considered.

Specific comments:
*         Section 6.2: "At least one Platform Specific Model (PSM) - preferably using XML - that implements the contact and resource schedule exchange PIM." you also have to state in Section 6.8 Evaluation Criteria that XML is favoured.
*         Section 6.4: "CCSDS is doing work in this area. It is unknown what the scope of their effort is. They should be consulted to avoid any possible duplication of effort." Couldn't that be done before the issuance of this RFP?
*         Section 6.5.1: move the note either in Sections 6.6 (non mandatory features) and/or 6.7 (discussion)
*         Section 6.5.2: "An XML- based Platform Specific Model is preferred, but not required." to be moved into Sections 6.6 (non mandatory features) and/or 6.7 (issues to be discussed)
*         Section 6.5.3.1, 1st bullet: define what an IRON is in Section A.2 and reference this.
*         Section 6.5.3.1, 3rd bullet: references (CCSDS Orbit Data Message) need to be written also in extension in Section A.1. If this is a CCSDS standard, the standard itself needs also to be referenced (not just a white paper) and this standard must be included in section 6.4
*         Section 6.5.3.1, 4th bullet: "Due to the variability in the setup and takedown time for various assets, it is assumed the scheduling product accounts for a standard setup and takedown time for a given contact asset to provide the requestor the requested start time and accounts for the time needed to reconfigure the contact asset for the next requestor." I must admit that I do not fully grab the meaning of all this. Could it be possible to make it a bit clearer?
*         Section 6.5.3.2: define TLE, RF, ERP, PRN in Section A.2.
*         Section 6.5.3.4: move this into Sections 6.6 (non mandatory features) and 6.7 (discussion)
*         Section 6.5.4.3: move this into Sections 6.6 and 6.7

Lack of sections:
*         6.7 Issues to be discussed
*         6.8 Evaluation Criteria
*         6.9 Other information unique to this RFP
This sections should appear even if empty.

The RFP timetable shows a foolishly tight schedule that needs to be reconsidered peacefully.

These comments don't preclude any further comments from me or other AB members.

Best regards,
Hugues VINCENT
OMG Architecture Board Member
hugues_vincent (at) omg.org

[@@ OPEN @@]

________________________________
NOTE: This message was trained as non-spam. If this is wrong, please correct the training as soon as possible.
Spam<https://filter.gst.com/canit/b.php?c=s&i=01SNIiuL8&m=708c76e15331>
Not spam<https://filter.gst.com/canit/b.php?c=n&i=01SNIiuL8&m=708c76e15331>
Forget previous vote<https://filter.gst.com/canit/b.php?c=f&i=01SNIiuL8&m=708c76e15331>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20170227/c666dcfc/attachment.html>