The following notes were taken by R. Joyner. Corrections are welcome. IN PROGRESS
Planetary Data System Standards Teleconference
7 March 2007 9-10 AM
Announcements:
None
1. Report the Node votes on the following re-written SCRs and discuss if there is interest (All)
- SCR 3-1104.v1: Increase the length of START_TIME & STOP_TIME keywords (A.Raugh)
- A.Raugh asked that her name be removed from the SCR because she didn't submit it and she is not in favor of it. S.Slavney agreed that she would take the SCR (if no one else wanted it) since MRO-CRISM needs it..
- SCR 3-1103.v4: Chapter 7: Date Time Format (A.Raugh / T.King)
- L.Huber indicated that D.Simpson is correct and the SCR should go to MC for vote. No one in the Tech Group disagreed with sending the SCR to the MC (as is). R.Joyner indicated that the SCR as written does not include anything but a re-write of Chapter 7 (i.e., the document does not contain the usual SCR summary information). M.Gordon indicated that the SCR should include the usual wrapper (e.g., scope, objective, impact statements, etc). The group agreed to send the SCR (as is) to Reta for distribution to MC.
- SCR 3-1104.v1: Increase the length of START_TIME & STOP_TIME keywords (A.Raugh)
- M.Gordon indicated the SCR impact assessment does not say (and needs to say) that Chapter 7 has to be changed. The SCR addresses changes to the DDICT but does not address changes to the Standards Reference. R.Simpson indicated that passing this SCR will promulgate conflicting Standards. A.Raugh indicated that you need to change the maximum length of the TIME data type in the DDICT.
- A.Raugh asked if the SCR needs to go to MC for a vote. R.Joyner indicated that the SCR should go to MC and let them approve the SCR and then it will sit on E.Rye's desk (along with all of the other approved SCRs that affect the Standards Reference) until it is time to release the Standards Reference.
- M.Gordon indicated that this SCR has little to no effect on the International Community and their ability to use the data. But, the MC should have an opportunity to reflect on this point. A.Raugh indicated that the SCR will have an affect on Rosetta. M.Gordon suggested that we not but forth the SCR until further changes have been made. A lien will be put against the current SCR. R.Simpson indicated that it is safer to route the SCR to the MC for a decision. If the SCR is trivial, then the SCR will pass quickly. P.Garcia reminded the group that in the past we have introduced many inconsistencies where elements of a Class word do not have identical (or even similar) attributes. And Section 2.2.2 of the PSDD states that CLASS words are to be universally identical -- including data type and size..
- R.Joyner asked for a vote of whether or not to send the SCR to MC. M.Gordon indicated that there currently are no clear guidelines on the process to follow. R.Simpson indicated that the WG is in the process or documenting the new process. He sent a draft to the WG last week. R.Simpson suggested that the SCr should be offered to MC first. A.Raugh indicated that there are other places (e.g., PSDD) affected by the changes in this SCR. P.Garcia indicated that Section 2.3.5 of the PSDD is affected by the increase in the precision of the time format.
- A.Raugh sent an email (3/5/2007) with a set of recommendations that need to be added to the SCR. R.Joyner asked if it makes sense to re-write the SCR (yet again) and bring the SCR back for a re-vote. A.Raugh agreed to re-write the SCR and include her concerns. R.Simpson suggested that we move to reconsider the approval of the SCR. M.Gordon second'ed the motion. R.Joyner called for a vote to reconsider the SCR. There were no opposing votes. Version 1 of the SCR was withdrawn.
- A.Raugh asked if (in the re-write) do we want to limit the length of the keywords. S.Slavney suggested no length (so we won't have to talk about this again). A.Raugh suggested no more than 200 characters. The group collectively agreed on a length of 50 characters. A.Raugh asked if all TIME keywords should have a length of 50 characters. The re-write will be Version 2 and will include the edits associated with aligning Chapter 7 with the TIME format changes.
- SCR 3-1103.v4: Chapter 7: Date Time Format (A.Raugh / T.King)
- R.Joyner asked the group to confirm the fate of this SCR (given the agreement on SCR 3-1104). R.Simpson suggested that this SCR be put on hold. It doesn't make sense to send the MC two versions separated by a couple of months. .
- The group confirmed that the SCR is to be sent to Reta (as is). Reta will decide if the SCR is sufficiently self contained to present to the MC.
- SCR 3-1064.v3: Increase the length of PATH_NAME (A.Raugh)
- R.Joyner asked if there were any concerns (or interest) in reviewing this SCR. The SCR passed unanimously. R.Simpson indicated that if we continue to lengthen these keywords at some point they will not fit on the screen. Readability is an issue.
- A.Raugh indicated that the goal was to meet the maximum allowed and still stay within the limitations of the ISO standard. M.Gordon indicated that he just finished a peer-review where the peer-reviewers commented on being able to use useful pathnames (i.e., directory naming conventions appeared to take precedence over readability).
- The group confirmed that the SCR will be sent to MC for a vote (once the impacts are assessed by A.Raugh)
- SCR 3-1105.v2: Change BAND_NAME definition to include non-spectral bands (S.Slavney)
- R.Joyner indicated that this SCR passed with unanimous votes.
- M.Gordon asked what happens next to SCR 3-1064 and 3-1105 ???
- M.Gordon suggested that we send this SCR to MC and let the MC decide the type of SCRs that are appropriate for their review and which are not. A.Raugh asked if she should research PDS documents to see if there are impacts. A.Raugh will research 3-1064 and check if there are any documents affected by the changes in this SCR. R.Joyner will add impacts if they are found by A.Raugh. The SCR will be on hold until A.Raugh finishes her search before submitting the SCR to MC.
- R.Joyner asked if SCR 3-1105.v2 should or should not be sent to MC ??? S.Slavney suggested that it not be sent to MC. Both R.Simpson and M.Gordon indicated that it should be sent to MC because we are broadening the definition of a BAND. L.Huber suggested that a keyword change should not be sent to the MC.
- The group agreed that the SCR should be sent to Reta for MC vote.
- SCR 3-1071.v1: Use of format effectors within attribute assignment statements (E.Rye)
- M.Gordon suggested that it didn't pass because it wasn't needed. R.Joyner indicated that he checked with the implementors and the SCR is not needed for tool development (i.e., it is dead).
- SCR 3-1083.v2: Increase length of SOURCE_PRODUCT_ID keyword
- L.Huber suggested that one of the problems was the length of 100 chars was too long. S.Slavney indicated that a length of 80 would work for her. M.Gordon suggested that one of the objections was that the assessment came up short. A.Raugh indicated that she objected to including PRODUCT_ID in the list of keywords to be changed (because it would affect the International Community and the ADS system). M.Gordon indicated that it may affect the International Community. S.Slavney suggested that we just leave PRODUCT_ID out of the list. She doesn't care about any of the other keywords except PRODUCT_ID.
- R.Joyner indicated that the votes were 4 and 4 and 1 abstain. R.Simpson indicated that he would probably vote favorably if the list was limited solely to PRODUCT_ID. A.Raugh pointed out that the Proposed Solution needs to be clarified to explicitly state the keywords to be changed.
- S.Slavney reminded the group that T.King wanted the full set of keywords. She also indicated that the SOURCE_PRODUCT_ID is not necessarily a file name. That sometimes the values are derived from external sources that cannot always adhere to the length limitation. S.Slavney suggested that we go back to the original SCR.
- R.Simpson asked if S.Slavney would be happy with 56 characters. B.Semenov suggested that the length shouldn't affect the display of the line since it can exist on a line by itself.
- The group agreed that Version 2 of the SCR is withdrawn. S.Slavney will submit a version 3 of the SCR. And that SCR will only address SOURCE_PRODUCT_ID with a length of 76 chars.
- SCR 3-1070.v1: ODL lines and records
- A.Raugh stated that it doesn't make any sense for ODL to be linked to physical record boundaries of computer systems (which probably don't exist anymore). There is no reason to change the Standard. R.Joyner indicated that the change does not affect physical records but the logical records dictated by RECORD_TYPE = FIXED_LENGTH; RECORDS_BYTES = 80. A.Raugh indicated that the section does not address logical records but rather governs physical records.
- The group agreed that the SCR is to be withdrawn as there are not enough science votes.
To summarize the group decisions:
(1) SCR 3-1103.v4: Chapter 7: Date Time Format (A.Raugh / T.King): The agreed to send the SCR (as is) to Reta for distribution to MC.
(2) SCR 3-1104.v1: Increase the length of START_TIME & STOP_TIME keywords (A.Raugh) : Version 1 was withdrawn; A.Raugh will submit Version 2 and will include the edits associated with aligning Chapter 7 with the TIME format changes.
(3) SCR 3-1064.v3: Increase the length of PATH_NAME (A.Raugh) : the SCR will be sent to MC for a vote (once the impacts are assessed by A.Raugh and the impacts are added if there are impacts)
(4) SCR 3-1105.v2: Change BAND_NAME definition to include non-spectral bands (S.Slavney) : The group agreed that the SCR should be sent to Reta for MC vote
(5) SCR 3-1071.v1: Use of format effectors within attribute assignment statements (E.Rye) -- dead
(6) SCR 3-1083.v2: Increase length of SOURCE_PRODUCT_ID keyword: Version 2 is withdrawn. S.Slavney will submit version 3 of the SCR. And that SCR will only address SOURCE_PRODUCT_ID with a length of 76 chars.
(7) SCR 3-1070.v1: ODL lines and records: The group agreed that Version 1 of the SCR is to be withdrawn
2. Second round of "Find the no-brainers'
- As there wasn't a quorum and T.King wasn't at the telecon, the group agreed to postpone the discussion until the next telecon
2. Next telecon
- The group agreed that the next telecon should be in two weeks (20070321).
Agenda for next telecon (20070321):
1. Discuss SCR 3-1073.v1: Update ARCHIVE_STATUS Keyword (B.Sword)
2. Discuss the T.King list of '2nd round of no-brainers'
3. Discuss the status of the following SCRs:
a. SCR 3-1103.v4: Chapter 7: Date Time Format (A.Raugh / T.King)
b. SCR 3-1104.v2: Increase length of START_TIME & STOP_TIME keywords (A.Raugh)
c. SCR 3-1064.v3: Increase length of PATH_NAME (A.Raugh)
d. SCR 3-1105.v2: Change BAND_NAME definition to include non-spectral bands (S.Slavney)
f. SCR 3-1083.v3 - Increase length of SOURCE_PRODUCT_ID keyword (S.Slavney)