Issues for Mailing list of the GEMS 1.3 revision task Force

To comment on any of these issues, send email to gems-rtf@omg.org. (Please include the issue number in the Subject: header, thusly: [Issue ###].) To submit a new issue, send email to issues@omg.org.

List of issues (green=resolved, yellow=pending Board vote, red=unresolved)

List options: All ; Open Issues only; or Closed Issues only

Issue 16950: GEMS-XML hex_value length Issue
Issue 16952: GEMS-XML ParameterSet Order

Issue 16950: GEMS-XML hex_value length Issue (gems-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Amergint Technologies (Mr. Rob Andzik, andzik(at)amergint.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The GEMS-XML XSD bases the HexParameter on the xsd:hexBinary type. This type expects an even number of characters (two for each octet). The GEMS-XML specification should mention this and explain how it needs to be handled.


Recommend always providing an even number of hex characters and using the bit length to specify the actual length.


Example of an invalid 4 bit field:  E/4


Example of a valid 4 bit field:  E0/4

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 10, 2012: received issue

Issue 16952: GEMS-XML ParameterSet Order (gems-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Amergint Technologies (Mr. Rob Andzik, andzik(at)amergint.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The current GEMS-XML schema requires that Parameters and ParameterSets are always listed in that order. (i.e. ParameterSets cannot precede Parameters). It seems that these should be order independent.


Reported to AMERGINT by Raytheon

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 10, 2012: received issue