[Smwg] terminology "respecified" versus "dynamically assigned"
Barkley, Erik J (3970)
Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov
Fri Sep 21 19:05:14 UTC 2018
Related to terminology - I just want to note that the OIDs are still in the picture - rather that we are looking at using the "common" name (I believe John has labeled this the "nickname" in the FRM). I agree that it's not the 220.127.116.11.5.7.etc numbering being used, but technically, the object is being identified.
Okay, onto the main event :-) I think both dynamically assigned and re-specification etc. smack a little too much of computer science. From a software engineering perspective of course these are just fine terms. But I think the use case here is that these are configuration parameters for this specific service package instance. So my thinking would be to go along the lines of something like "modified configuration parameters" -- I think that gets a little closer to the day-to-day usage envisioned.
From: SMWG <smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-LCN0)[MTI SYSTEMS, INC.]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 12:17
To: CCSDS Service Mgmt WG <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>
Subject: [Smwg] terminology "respecified" versus "dynamically assigned"
Hello, in the course of moving away from using OIDs to indicate the respecified parameter values in the Service Package, there are a couple different alternative terms that people suggested that would replace the "OIDParameter" in the service package class description and schema.
Initially, John suggested "RespecificationParameter". This sounds good to me. It's what I've currently used in the latest draft of the book and XML schema description.
However, I found some meeting notes I'd jotted down that indicate someone had also suggested "dynamically assigned" as the terminology we could use. I didn't capture the rationale, but I believe it might have been because the terminology of respecifiable parameters is rooted in the legacy SN messaging, so we wanted to distinguish the new standard from that, while having equivalent functionality.
Are there other books (e.g. on the service profile or agreement) where we're already using one or the other of these terms, so that we can make sure this is consistent?
Should I change to:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SMWG