Issue 8959: Propose that XCTE ( at this point ) will be limited to exchange data (xtce-rtf) Source: NASA (Mr. Kevin Rice, james.k.rice-1(at)nasa.gov) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Propose that XCTE ( at this point ) will be limited to exchange and not to all mission data Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: August 5, 2005: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: "Kevin Rice" To: Cc: "Jonathan gal-edd" , "Jane K. Marquart" Subject: issues from NASA GSFC JWST Mission Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 14:04:59 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2005 18:05:00.0495 (UTC) FILETIME=[3247B5F0:01C599E8] The following XTCE issues have been identified by the James Webb Space Telescope mission concerning XTCE. Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:23:00 -0400 From: Ed Shaya User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050319 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Juergen Boldt Cc: issues@omg.org, xtce-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: issues 8959 - 8962 -- XTCE RTF issues Juergen Boldt wrote: Issues From: "Kevin Rice" This is issue # 8959 Propose that XTCE ( at this point ) will be limited to exchange data I am not sure what this means. To exchange data meaninfully there must be a full model of the meaning and structure of the data. So XTCE attempts to be that model. Of course, modeling the data is different from modeling the software. XTCE does not try to model how actions are to be done. Do we need to explicit say this in the documentation? It would be best if there were an explicit list of what is not to be in XTCE so that the spaceDTF can begin work on stadardizing them. Propose that XTCE ( at this point ) will be limited to exchange and not to all mission data Well, it needs to cover all data that goes up and down and all data that determines when this happens and all data that is needed for calibration. If there is other data then that is probably out of scope (for now). An example or two of other stuff would be helpful. ================================================================= This is issue # 8960 too much leeway how to use the standard Ambiguity - The is too much leeway how to use the standard, and things are left for interpretation. The standard allows / calls for users to add thier own items when they are missing. Need to tighten the standard so things will be done consistently Yes. This is the place to discuss specific ambiguities and we can vote on proper usage at the meetings and either put in more XML facets to control things or add rules in the documentation. We probably should have a section in the documentation on proper usage that is not explicit in the schema. ==================================================================== This is issue # 8961 USE CCSDS examples how to use the standard USE CCSDS examples how to use the standard ( we can provide data set with tlm & commnad) ======================================================================== This is issue # 8962 Spec too complex? Too complex, ( I have some examples from the ASIST meeting ). Are we going to discuss this at the Atlanta meeting? This is not exactly a valid RTF issue as written. ================================= Jürgen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 250 First Avenue, Suite 100 Needham, MA 02494 Tel. +1 781 444 0404 ext. 132 Fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www www.omg.org ================================ 1. Propose that XCTE ( at this point ) will be limited to exchange and not to all mission data.