Issue 18733: Confusing comments (gems-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: The comments about the GEMS Version field in Table 8.2 are confusing. Is the example trying to imply that starting with GEMS version 1.2 the GEMS Version field digits matches the actual GEMS version number, or what? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: May 24, 2013: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 24 May 2013 15:51:11 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Michael Heffron Employer: mailFrom: michael.heffron.ctr@us.af.mil Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: Ground Equipment Monitoring Service (GEMS) Section: 8 FormalNumber: formal/2012-03-03 Version: 1.2 Doc_Year: Year Doc_Month: Month Doc_Day: Day Page: 49 Title: Confusing comments Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Remote Name: 132.3.57.80 Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; InfoPath.2; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; SLCC1) Time: 03:51 PM Description: The comments about the GEMS Version field in Table 8.2 are confusing. Is the example trying to imply that starting with GEMS version 1.2 the GEMS Version field digits matches the actual GEMS version number, or what? X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=0BnTbQRU/+/gdvi8UesFhNmyblfBAEOMXylfx726eOY=; b=Ru5m0FCXNhP158Sge0sMI0pSPcpfDuqO4WHOf/Ydg7T9ehV4AQwaN+LL785JSeSwm5 IaOi/IPEkgtYZco+sHyo53Mtlm/6Ncenk17WArd35rKd6SREXaTY/8edha7sOIG7jjwx DeLlKegu2aYpzfju16o4+pyoCMIju2+S85LtQN73sIj3aydc4QhEzJVxpoTgqq+NcZDH Ydebu6VwjLrxRaMEJIermRbEIM1+b6d5FxFehZlBhAVUaaAZyNILohu9/1MTyE/FZd4R TyL2jjp7crYfFJWFl3bBfmpz0H8SunLOX9KaAq1Bzsf5WQeb4tNjQXFVPCD3wqwOcV4B nboA== X-Received: by 10.112.6.6 with SMTP id w6mr9558747lbw.123.1369427149983; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:25:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Rob Andzik Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 14:25:29 -0600 Subject: Fwd: issue 18733 -- GEMS RTF issue To: "gems-rtf@omg.org" X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk5bEZy/aqRFLj0FbLUmMl+Bqz2Vomoq48UKygdJaVNZyoWbO/NW9jHzEJTL1effsoup9rL X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Here is my response. -- Rob ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rob Andzik Date: Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:23 PM Subject: Fwd: issue 18733 -- GEMS RTF issue To: michael.heffron.ctr@us.af.mil Hi Michael, I received the issue you posted against GEMs. The short answer is yes. The problem we ran into was translating between GEMS-ASCII and GEMS-XML. The version numbers were fundamentally different. So to simplify that, we use the version number without the decimal point. We couldn't go back in time and change it, but going forward the numbers will be the same. 1.2 == 12 1.3 == 13 2.0 == 20 and so forth. I suppose we just made the change without actually putting in any explanation of why. Thanks for asking! -- Rob On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Juergen Boldt wrote: From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 24 May 2013 15:51:11 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Michael Heffron Employer: mailFrom: michael.heffron.ctr@us.af.mil Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: Ground Equipment Monitoring Service (GEMS) Section: 8 FormalNumber: formal/2012-03-03 Version: 1.2 Doc_Year: Year Doc_Month: Month Doc_Day: Day Page: 49 Title: Confusing comments Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Remote Name: 132.3.57.80 Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; InfoPath.2; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; SLCC1) Time: 03:51 PM Description: The comments about the GEMS Version field in Table 8.2 are confusing. Is the example trying to imply that starting with GEMS version 1.2 the GEMS Version field digits matches the actual GEMS version number, or what? Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 109 Highland Ave Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org [] X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=sMlr275vZAx0dmPAyra8i+8SoYt9D+c40fBJQ0buDhw=; b=JD29wm0vLWsvpDSfD+EaWkuX6KerqQa+zYVBq7hxD4vMbucZGz3FpK78HiO6odOgFC HIgxsnRgfhiSBsu0EJ7znrgwVJ/NYulfc51lURrTTvm35ATmmUAiUwkzhRGyFGf2D1au RTKyy7N48Rci1YcBQrSFZ4ivVrI1Pdpg4TuIreudLbguRwpImZITEmexKo+wC4Hr1Ddi Jb6rNdq4Czesz2LzrZDQxPP1mQUYdTHehVY1ttYVxbT0k8ahxdN9DuFuoTugRCMyWwHu 3xq6eyfZhjghUa4i07LaEexP/L793wusE57Q6g+pRPaKhg9dNX+We8DVXwVgyqCC1kei yZ8A== X-Received: by 10.152.26.132 with SMTP id l4mr8162636lag.58.1374268371738; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 14:12:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Rob Andzik Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:12:31 -0600 Subject: Issue 18733: Confusing comments To: "gems-rtf@omg.org" X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmBtB5eT73E3TwVJL47HwmKJDcz4oZ48u5QmEFHyEwL8+8O+0UBADhbBJQAIyzaVGZRgAXH X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Issue 18733: Confusing comments Just need to clean up the comments describing the version field.