[Smwg] terminology "respecified" versus "dynamically assigned"

Tue Sep 25 12:29:04 UTC 2018

Hi,

Short drop from my side:

I think as long we can distinguish these parameters and we explain in the Blue Book what for they are good, than we are fine. So if we call them "Modified" I'm fine...

Btw. the consideration between respecified and dynamically assigned (both came I believe from John) came from the point of view, where the parameter is respecified only once during service lifetime, and  implying them being already specified, whereas some parameters may be dynamically assigned multiple times during the service lifetime and also meaning previously not necessarily set. Anyhow, as Erik correctly mentioned, these is nerd's talk ;-).

Marcin

From: SMWG [mailto:smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Barkley, Erik J (3970)
Sent: Freitag, 21. September 2018 22:02
To: Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-LCN0)[MTI SYSTEMS, INC.]; CCSDS Service Mgmt WG
Subject: Re: [Smwg] terminology "respecified" versus "dynamically assigned"

Hi Wes,  that works for me.

-Erik

From: SMWG <smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>> On Behalf Of Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-LCN0)[MTI SYSTEMS, INC.]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 12:52
To: Barkley, Erik J (3970) <Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>; CCSDS Service Mgmt WG <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: Re: [Smwg] terminology "respecified" versus "dynamically assigned"

Thanks Erik, that makes sense to me.  Would "ModifiedParameter" be an agreeable thing to call these in the UML and schema?

From: Barkley, Erik J (3970) <Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:Erik.J.Barkley at jpl.nasa.gov>>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 3:05 PM
To: Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-LCN0)[MTI SYSTEMS, INC.] <wesley.m.eddy at nasa.gov<mailto:wesley.m.eddy at nasa.gov>>; CCSDS Service Mgmt WG <smwg at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:smwg at mailman.ccsds.org>>
Subject: RE: terminology "respecified" versus "dynamically assigned"

Hi Wes,

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 1.2.3.4.5.7.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.

Best regards,
-Erik

From: SMWG <smwg-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto: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<mailto: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:
"DynamicallyAssignedParameter"
versus
"RespecificationParameter"
?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/smwg/attachments/20180925/3e82225c/attachment.html>