Issues for Smart Transducers Revision Task Force

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

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

Issue 5686: Conformance section
Issue 5746: Clarify description of OP-Codes
Issue 6013: replace "node name" with "logical name"

Issue 5686: Conformance section (smart-transducers-rtf)

The conformance section of the Smart Transducers specification
(chapter 3 requirements and IDL) is not shaped right. It should be
expressed in terms of discrete mandatory or optional conformance
points. The name Conformance points is better suited that requirement
as this may be confused with the RFP requirements.


There are too many options to choose from in optional conformance
points, you should probably identify a few option sets that make sense
from a practical point of view. 


Putting the Consolidated IDL in a separate chapter would also improve
clarity.


Also, it is customary to include a section (in the introduction)
describing how the submission adresses the mandatory and optional
points in the RFP.


In general take an other submission as an example of how conformance
statements are usually structured.

The term “requirement” is replaced with “conformance point”.
It is our intention to have a minimal set of mandatory conformance points in order
to allow very cheap hardware as platform for an ST. Since most of the optional
conformance points can be implemented (and also be used) individually the
tradeoff between the desired field of application and the availability of resources
will determine the set of optional requirements that should be implemented.
Although there are some of the optional compliance points that are especially
intended for master-nodes or gateway-nodes we don’t want to forbid
implementing them also in a slave node by subdividing this part of the
specification into compliance points for slaves, master-nodes, and gatewaynodes.
The IDL is moved to a separate chapter (as it already has happened in the
available specification formal/2003-01-01). The section that describes how the submission addresses to the mandatory and
optional points in the RFP has been removed between the versions ptc/2001-12-
07 and ptc/2002-05-01 by the OMG. It is believed that at this stage of the
standardization process it is not necessary to reinsert it again.

In Section 2.3.2 "File Operations", Table 2-1 is the description:


00b     write from bus to slave's IFS
01b     read to bus from slave's IFS


The terms "write from" and "read to" sound a little bit odd and
should be clarified

In order to be consistent with the remainder of the specification
on page 2-7 the term "node name" should be replaced by
"logical name".