[Smwg] Inputs for PIF

[Marcin.Gnat at dlr.de]

Hi Erik & CSSM,

Below my short inputs to the PIF as requested (numbers correspond to events as in attached Excel):


1.       I agree with Erik's comment here, this event needs additional specification or naming (like ElevationAscendingEvent5Deg, ElevationAscendingEvent10Deg, etc...).

2.       See above.

3.       This one may be treated two way: either it has no meaning for free space spacecraft station, or this would define the closest distance within the visibility range (however the visibility be limited).

4.       Comment from Erik is fine for me and additional (optional) parameter would be ok.

5.       As above

6.       No special thoughts on that. Erik's comment is valid.

7.       I think this is straight forward - if some distance/range is reached (no difference from which direction coming) the event is being generated. The exact meaning will become apparent in context with other surrounding events (like Elevation ones).

8.       This would be analogue to the above, just wrt range rate.

9.       No special thoughts. Erik has a point in his comment though.

10.   Ok

11.   Ok

12.   Ok

13.   Ok

14.   On the first shot, I'd agree with Erik (split it into start and stop event), but maybe I'm overseeing something. I have an impression we already discussed that, but not remember.

15.   As above.


Best Regards
Marcin

From: SMWG [mailto:smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Barkley, Erik J (3970)
Sent: Dienstag, 29. August 2017 01:16
To: CCSDS Service Mgmt WG
Subject: [Smwg] Inputs for PIF

CSSM Colleagues,

Some comments and questions are in the attached spreadsheet. These come from thinking about the prototyping and producing a CCSDS PIF based on current planning information that is generated within the DSN.

Not in the spreadsheet but somewhat implied is the ability to add some annotation data to the event (for example of regard to the comment on the elevation ascending to indicate perhaps the semantics of clearing the particular elevation degree).  Also, the current PIF UML diagram has the notion of extension just being a parameter/value pair. Perhaps that is okay, but I think we probably should take a step back and look at the extension techniques that were developed for the SSF and see if they apply for the PIF, and to the SMURF for that matter as well.

I propose that we discussed this briefly at the teleconference tomorrow.


Best regards,
-Erik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20170913/c1212986/attachment.html>