Change the description of Table 8.2 from "Standard Request Message Fields" to "Standard header" since it is the ASCII standard header as referenced throughout section 8.

Change the reference "<See Table 9.2>" to "<See Table 8.2>" in the first row of Table 8.3 for Standard Header to match all other references. Table 9.2 does not exist.

Fix various typos

In section 8.2.3, change the description of Table 8.2 from "Standard Request Message Fields" to "Standard Header" since it is the ASCII standard header as referenced throughout section 8.

In Table 8.3, change the reference "<See Table 9.2>" to "<See Table 8.2>" in the first row so the Standard Header matches all other references. Table 9.2 does not exist.

The boolean type is inconsistently identified as 'bool' once within the GEMS 1.5 specification document. The name of this data type should be consistent throughout the specification.

The PIM calls the boolean type "boolean".
The XML PSM calls the boolean type "boolean".

However, the ASCII PSM calls the boolean type "bool" on page 61 in section 8.2.1.1 table 8.1 within the Example Format column and calls the boolean type "boolean" in the example mixed_set message on page 62 in section 8.2.1.2.

Change "bool" to "boolean" to be consistent within the spec

In Table 8.1 in section 8.2.1.1 on page 61, change the text in the Example Format column for the 'boolean' Parameter Type per the Revised Text field.

Parameter set example shows array notation after the type field:
setlist:set_type[2]=A:hex_value=FA/7;B:string[2]=text1,text2;,A:hex_value=2F/6;B:string[1]=text2;

Though in section 8.2.1, array notation is defined after the parameter_name:
parameter_name[3]:type=value1,value2,value3

This seems inconsistent/confusing.

Update the spec wording for Multiplicity

In section 8.2.1, move the square bracket array notation after the parameter name field to after the type field.

During the March 23, 2022 GEMS RTF Meeting, the RTF members agreed to update sections 6.2.10, 6.9, 7.5, and 8.5 to clarify that the device definition file is optional, and when it is provided by the device vendor, can be retrieved through various methods, e.g. manually from the vendor via some form of electronic media, file transfer, product information, or programmatically via API request.

Update section 6.9 to clarify that device definitions cover both read-only/GET and read-write/SET parameters. Update the second bullet in section 6.9 to explicitly call out the "Get Definitions", i.e. "List of Parameter Get Definitions or Parameter Set Definitions".

State that the device definition file typically comes in XML format for the sole purpose of accurately describing device capabilities, and that it applies to both the ASCII and XML PSMs.

Describe that the device definition file may contain additional device capabilities such as:

• Async Status Message support
• Save Configuration Message support
• Restore Configuration Message support

Ensure sections 6.2.10, 6.9, 7.5, and 8.5 contain helpful references among one another to aid understanding.

Clarify wording for device definition files

Update sections 6.2.10, 6.9, 7.5, and 8.5 to clarify various aspects about GEMS device definition files as detailed in the revised text.

The link for the GEMS 1.5 document is pointing to the right URL for GEMS 1.5 PDF, but the document that shows up is the GEMS 1.4 PDF.

https://www.omg.org/spec/GEMS/1.5/PDF
Version says 1.4
Date says June 2016

Version should be 1.5
Date should be January 2021

Is it the wrong document?

Remove and replace invalid GEMS version 1.5 web pages and references

There is no version 1.5 of the GEMS specification. The latest official version is 1.4.

Web pages were (incorrectly) created for version 1.5 following the GEMS 1.5 RTF which only deferred issues with no changes to the 1.4 version of the specification.

See the revised text for changes required to resolve this issue.

Add the missing "UnknownResponse" message to the PIM in section 6.3 and to the ASCII PSM in section 8.2.

Add missing UnknownResponse message

Figure 6.8 GEMS UML: Add missing "UnknownResponse" message class.
Figure 6.10 GEMS Message Classes: Add missing "UnknownResponse" message class.
Table 8.3 - Response Message Fields: Clarify the "UnknownResponse" message.

Add schema to section 7.2.1.27 AsyncStatusMessage.

Add missing GEMS-XML schema for AsyncStatusMessage

7.2.1.27 AsyncStatusMessage: Add XSD schema for GEMS-XML mapping.
Use the XSD schema spacing shown only when the "Revised Text" field is in EDIT mode.

Sorry, I tried to locate an existing issue for this, but could not.

The GEMS-XML mapping for the MessageType (7.2.1.4) has an attribute gems_version. In the pdf the type is xsd:int, in the xsd file the type is xsd:decimal.

This error is present from at least spec version 1.2 to current.

Update the spec wording for XML gems_version

In section 7.2.1.4, fix the wording on the second line of the XSD snippet to change the gems_version xsd type.

Table 8.1 includes spaces where they are not expected.

"param:double=1 0.12" should be "param:double=10.12"
"param:short=-1 2" should be "param:short=-12"

Remove unexpected spaces

In Table 8.1 in section 8.2.1.1 on pages 61 and 62, change the text in the Example Format column for the 'double' and 'short' Parameter Types per the Revised Text field.

Following text:
Z - the character “Z” denotes GreenwichMean
Time (GMT).

should not contain a box character after Greenwich. Suggest changing text to:

Z - the character “Z” denotes Greenwich Mean
Time (GMT).

Remove unexpected character

In Table 8.1 in section 8.2.1.1 on page 62, change the text in the Comments column for the 'utime' Parameter Type per the Revised Text field, i.e. remove the extraneous (box) control character after the word 'Greenwich'.

Add the missing "Field Delimiter" and "Standard Trailer" to the end of the Response Message specification in Table 8.3.
Field Delimiter is the pipe character, and the Standard Trailer is the "END" field.

Add missing pipe and END fields to response message

In Table 8.3 in section 8.2.3 on page 65, add the missing Field Delimiter '|' Pipe character (ASCII 124) and End of Message 'END' fields to the table.

The "time" parameter in Table 8.1 indicates 9 places for seconds (decimal), however any contemporary UTC time needs 10 places for seconds (see examples from GEMS web site).

For the "utime" parameter in Table 8.1, clarify the description for:
ss - seconds (00-59), and
[.nnnnnnnnn] - nanoseconds (9 digit number).

Update time and utime examples

Update the "time" and "utime" examples in Table 8.1 of section 8.2.1.1 per the Revised Text.

Section 6.5 typo "messages are structure as" vs "messages are structured as".

Section 8 should be "PSM (ASCII)" not "PIM (ASCII)".

Table 8.2, row "Transaction ID" column "Comments" - formatting error. The extra line break character after the word "message" makes the last word ("correlation") wrap outside the table cell boundary and therefore difficult to find. Fix formatting error.

Fix trivial typos and formatting

Make updates in section 6.5, section 8, and Table 8.2 per the revised text.

utime example is shown as '2009-273T09:14:50.02Z'
However, all GEMS-ASCII fields should be formatted as: parameter_name:parameter_type=parameter_value

Therefore, the example should look like:
param:utime=2009-273T09:14:50.02Z

Add the missing "param:utime=" to the utime example

In Table 8.1 in section 8.2.1.1 on page 62, change the text in the Example Format column for the 'utime' Parameter Type per the Revised Text field.

In section 8.2.3, figure mentions a 'sequence number', though text that follows uses the term of 'transaction number'.

Use of sequence number implies it is incrementing whereas transaction number does not. This is causing confusion about how the field is to be used.

Fix the diagram to say Transaction ID instead of Sequence Number

In section 8.2.3 on page 63, change the text in the diagram per the Revised Text field below.

Sections 6.3.3.5, 6.3.3.6 and 6.3.3.7 have the wrong heading level - should not be headings at all, but rather paragraphs under 6.3.3.4.

Fix these heading levels

Sections 6.3.3.5, 6.3.3.6 and 6.3.3.7 have the wrong heading level - should not be headings at all, but rather paragraphs under 6.3.3.4.

Add versions 1.3 and 1.4 to the "currently supported versions".

Clarify version text in section 6.3.2.1

In section 6.3.2.1 on page 25, change the text in 'version' subsection per the Revised Text field.

1. No GEMS PSM Reference Designs are available. There is no way to independently assess a PSM implementation's conformance against the PSM or PIM.
2. Issues with Device Definition file
2.1 Section 7.5.1 says there is an example Device Definition file in the Examples directory on the OMG web site. This is not true.
2.2 Section 6.2.10 "Obtain Device Information" appears to describe how a user retrieves the capabilities of the GEMS device - that is, it appears to define the Device Definition file and how to retrieve it. However there are no messages defined for the sequence in this paragraph nor any other.
2.3 Section 6.2.10 also describes the capabilities as "descriptions of the directives (including argument name and type information) and the parameters (including name, type and range information). This therefore does not describe any of the other messages supported by the Device.
2.4 That information is reiterated in Section 6.9, "Device Definitions" - it appears that only "parameters and directives supported by a GEMS Device" are included. Therefore should one assume that "parameters" means those attributes of a device controlled by SetConfigMessage?
2.5 No definition of the Device Definition file in the GEMS UML
2.6 No definition of the Device Definition file in the GEMS-ASCII PSM
3. UML message classes with no Use Cases defined:
3.1 PingMessage and PingResponse (appears in UML but not in Figure 6.1 nor text of Section 6.2)
3.2 GetConfigListMessage andGetConfigListResponse (appears in UML but not in Figure 6.1 nor text of Section 6.2)
3.3 DisconnectMessage (appears in UML and Figure 6.1 but not in text of Section 6.2)
3.4 MessageSequenceResponse (appears in UML but not in Figure 6.1 nor Section 6.2, nor in either PSM)
4. There are mismatches between the PIM specification and each of the XML and ASCII PSMs
4.1 AsyncStatusMessage is not specified in the XML PSM schema.
4.2 The following appear in XML PSM schema but not in the Spec nor ASCII PSM
4.2.1 UnknownResponse
4.3 No GEMS-ASCII PSM specification for
4.3.1 DisconnectMessage
4.3.2 PingMessage
4.3.3 PingResponse
4.3.4 MessageSequence, MessageSequenceResponse
4.4 No definition of the Device Definition file in the GEMS-ASCII PSM
4.5 No formal grammar for ParameterSet in GEMS-ASCII PSM, just "may be defined by the additional use of semi-colons".
4.6 Specification of utime incomplete or incorrect
5. Limitations on the GEMS specification are stated in Section 6.2.13 of that document. These specification limitations include that it:
5.1 Does not specify exact parameters, types and ranges for any specific Device or Device type
5.2 Proposes a Standard Devices package that would contain definitions of these standard devices, parameters and directives, but makes no attempt to define this package
5.3 Proposes a Custom Devices package that allows Device vendors to provide the specification of their PIM in a PSM-compliant fashion, but makes no attempt to define this package
6. version field of the GEMS message class only supports up to 1.2 though 1.4 is the current spec
7. Sections 6.3.3.5, 6.3.3.6 and 6.3.3.7 have the wrong heading level - should not be headings at all, but rather, paragraphs under 6.3.3.4
8. Likewise, sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 do not need to be headings, but rather, paragraphs under 6.4
9. Section 6.5 typo "messages are structure as" vs "messages are structured as"
10. Section 8 should be "PSM (ASCII)" not "PIM (ASCII)"
11. Table 8.2 should include the "type" (per Table 8.1) of each field
12. Table 8.2, row "Transaction ID" column "Comments" - formatting error. The extra line break character after the word "message" makes the last word ("correlation") wrap outside the table cell boundary and therefore difficult to find
13. ASCII PSM issues:
13.1 specifies that the message begins with the delimiter but doesn't end with the same delimiter
13.2 time parameter shown in Table 8.1 appears to indicate 9 places for seconds, decimal, 9 places for nanoseconds; however any contemporary UTC time needs 10 places for seconds (see examples from GEMS web site)
12.3 Table 8.3 refers to non-existent "Standard Header Table 9.2"
12.4 Length field in message is fixed-length at 10 ASCII characters but all examples show this as 6 ASCII characters
12.5 Description of Response message does not include a final delimiter before END marker; all examples show two delimiters between return code and END

Split the collection of issues into separate Jira tickets

All of the issues mentioned in GEMS16-2 have been dispositioned by the GEMS 1.6 RTF team during the June 2022 meeting in Orlando, and split into separate Jira tickets as detailed in the GEMS16-2 comments. So this issue can be closed since it is duplicated by these new separate issues.

The spec currently allows arrays, parameters sets, and arrays of parameter sets. These compound types can make for an API that's difficult to use. Specifically, if you want to modify a single member of a parameter set, you have to read it, deserialize it, modify part of it, re-serialize it, and write it back. This isn't wildly difficult, but I believe it's enough for a customer to complain about usability. This operation is particularly annoying in the case of arrays of parameter sets. Furthermore, the read/modify/write operation isn't atomic, and could result in race conditions that revert a simultaneous change.

I'd like to suggest that we extend the PIM to allow "leaf" values of compound types to be referenced directly. E.g., array elements and parameter set members could be referenced under the ASCII PSM using the following parameter names:

Array element: myArray/3
Set member: myParamSet/memberName
Array of sets: myArrayOfSets/5/memberName

...with a corresponding scheme for the XML PSM. This would require adding the forward slash as a reserved word that should not be used in parameter names, along with "|GEMS" and "|END".

Defer: Extend PIM to allow "leaf" values to be referenced directly

See GEMS16-1.

During the March 23, 2022 GEMS RTF Meeting, the RTF members agreed to add text to the GEMS specification describing how GEMS Directives could be used to achieve direct leaf value access (GETs and SETs) without changing the current GEMS 1.4 interface. Mr. Luis Rodriguez offered to write this text and provide example directives.

This "Directive" approach is an alternative to the preferred approach of changing the GEMS standard to generically support direct leaf value access (e.g. via standard "dot notation") - this approach is tracked in GEMS16-1.

Defer to GEMS 2.0 RFP

Deferring this ticket to the GEMS 2.0 RFP where we can discuss it in the context of an additional PSM, e.g. JSON over REST.
Also see the following ticket for details: https://issues.omg.org/browse/GEMS15-1

Section 7.5.1 states that there is an example GEMS Device Definition File on the OMG website, though Examples are not available. The example file on the Space Wiki also does not appear to include an example definition file. The website or reference should be updated.

Defer to GEMS 2.0 RFP

Deferring this ticket to the GEMS 2.0 RFP since there is no immediate need for this example file.