Issue 9039: MS-009	De-calibration of cmd parameters? (xtce-rtf)
Source:  (, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Source:	Michael Staub	michael.staub@dlr.de
	Description :	Is command parameter processing intentionally left out? On the other hand, TM 
	calibration is mentioned. The same is valid for command packetization.
	Resolution:	but for command arguments
	Title:	GV-007	Dependencies or aggregation
	Source:	Gert Villemos	gev@terma.com
	Description :	The UML diagrams seems to use dependencies (arrow) instead of aggregation (line
	 with diamond). From the context, aggregation is meant. It is not clear whether the 
	UML diagrams are intended only to illustrate the definition or actually be formal 
	Resolution:	Notation was decided by the tool that was used to do reverse engineering (from 
	XML Schema to UML). It is agreed that the suggested representation is more 
	correct.
	
	ACTION GV-007-01: Gert Villemos to provide updated UML diagrams for XTCE. 
	Due 30May05
Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
October 11, 2005: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
ource:	Michael Staub	michael.staub@dlr.de
	Description :	Is command parameter processing intentionally left out? On the other hand, TM 
	calibration is mentioned. The same is valid for command packetization.
	Resolution:	but for command arguments
	Title:	GV-007	Dependencies or aggregation
	Source:	Gert Villemos	gev@terma.com
	Description :	The UML diagrams seems to use dependencies (arrow) instead of aggregation (line
	 with diamond). From the context, aggregation is meant. It is not clear whether the 
	UML diagrams are intended only to illustrate the definition or actually be formal 
	Resolution:	Notation was decided by the tool that was used to do reverse engineering (from 
	XML Schema to UML). It is agreed that the suggested representation is more 
	correct.
	
	ACTION GV-007-01: Gert Villemos to provide updated UML diagrams for XTCE. 
	Due 30May05