SCR 3-1117

SCR 3-1117: Bad formation rule in *_DATE keywords (Was “Bad formation rule in MISSION_START/STOP_DATE description”)

Priority: medium

Problem Summary

The MISSION_START/STOP_DATE keywords have a general data type of DATE, which implies a formation like YYYY-MM-DD – specifically, without a time component. The DESCRIPTIONs for these keywords, however, both contain this line: Formation rule: YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss[.fff]

Working Group

A. Raugh (lead) S. Hughes, E. Rye

Originator: Anne Raugh

Standards Change Request

12007-05-07A. RaughDOC
22008-05-30E. RyeDOC


Supplementary Material


StatusDateTaskResponsible PartyResponse
SUBMITTED 2007-05-07Submit issue.ORIGIssue submitted through online interface 05/07/07.
Form working group.EN-SEORIGWorking group consists of A. Raugh.
Update status to IN_PROGRESS.EN-SEStatus updated to IN_PROGRESS by E. Rye on 05/07/07.
IN_PROGRESS 2007-05-07Update queue to Disposition.EN-SEQueue updated to Disposition by E. Rye on 05/07/07.
Submit draft SCR.WGDraft SCR submitted to E. Rye and R. Joyner by A. Raugh on 05/07/07.
Update status to DRAFT.EN-SEStatus updated to DRAFT by E. Rye on 05/07/07.
DRAFT 2007-05-07Distribute SCR to tech group.EN-SEE. Rye sent email to S. Hughes on 05/21/07 asking him if he would be on working group and would verify impact section of SCR.
S. Hughes sent email to E. Rye on 05/22/07 agreeing to work on SCR.
E. Rye added S. Hughes to working group on 05/22/07.
E. Rye sent email to A. Raugh on 05/22/07 informing her of Steve’s addition to working group and asking about clarification of FORMATION_RULE attribute in SCR.


NodeRepresentativeVersion 1
GEOaSusie Slavneyyes, implementation, if Dick’s
RSbDick Simpsonno


 • End the description after the word “mission”, and
 • Add YYYY-DDD to the formation rule.
I have a mild curiosity about how formation rules are implemented, but not enough to delay this while we talk about it.


RS votes “no” pending resolution of a couple of questions (sorry to miss discussion yesterday; I had a competing telecon and thought this SCR would be straightforward).
 • YYYY-DDD is a legal DATE; so the proposed “solution” is incomplete.
 • DESCRIPTION will continue to refer to “UTC format”, which seems irrelevant, at best, once the hh:mm:ss[.fff] is gone.
Suggest that DESCRIPTION be edited to remove everything after “…of a mission.”

In a web vote ending 06/13/08, the Tech Group voted 6-2-1 (yes-no-absent) to approve version 2 of this SCR.

NodeRepresentativeVersion 2
ENSteve Hughesyes
GEOSusie Slavneyyes
IMGPatty Garciayes
NAIFBoris Semenovyes
PPIaTodd Kingno
RINGSMitch Gordonyes
RSDick Simpsonyes
SBNbAnne Raughno


While this is a worthwhile how change does it impact existing descriptions? We’ve always had the concern that “valid” labels will now become “invalid” with changes like this. It’s not addressed in the SCR.


SBN votes NO on this SCR3-1117 because we should not be wasting any more time on PDS3.

In a web vote ending 06/13/08, the Tech Group voted 6-1-2 (no MC-MC-absent) that an MC vote was unwarranted for this SCR. It’s status has been upgraded to TG_APPROVED.

NodeRepresentativeVersion 2
ENSteve HughesMC vote unwarranted
GEOSusie SlavneyMC vote unwarranted
IMGPatty GarciaMC vote unwarranted
NAIFBoris SemenovMC vote unwarranted
PPITodd Kingsubmit to MC for vote
RINGSMitch GordonMC vote unwarranted
RSDick SimpsonMC vote unwarranted