The description of the NORTH_DOWN in coordinate_orientation_type says:

Valid for Polar Coordinate Kind
Azimuth has origin (0.0) at North, clockwise positive, measured in the horizontal plane
Elevation has origin (0.0) when pointing directly down, and 180.0 degrees when pointing directly up, measured in the vertical plane.

This would be fine except the elevation_coordinate_type specifically says units are radians with values from -PI/2 to +PI/2.

I suggest changing the maximum value of elevation in the description of NORTH_DOWN from 180.0 degrees to PI radians and change the maximum value of elevation_coordinate_type from +PI/2 to +PI.

The specification and the file Perform_Splash_Spotting.idl have multiple misspellings of spotting as "splotting". For example, confirm_reposition_splash_splotting_area, receive_splash_splotting_area_position, receive_splash_splotting_area_track.

The sensor orientation message reports the orientation of the sensor relative to a specified coordinate system. However, if a radar has multiple sensors there is no way to distinguish between them. I suggest adding an optional sensor_id field (type short) to distinguish between multiple sensors.

range_rate_type is used to quantify the rate of change of the range. The range of allowed values is 0.0 to 1e5, but this is too restrictive. Range rate is negative when an object is getting closer to the origin, i.e. the range is decreasing so range rate is negative. The lower bound of range rate should be -1e5, the negative of the maximum value.

The specification and Sensor_Assessment.idl have multiple misspellings of "equipment" as "equipement". All of the misspellings are in types and structs related to sensor_plot_equipement_assessment.

system_track_type does not contain identity or classification

The sensor orientation message reports the orientation of the sensor with two angles: azimuth and elevation. But to completely describe orientation, three angles are required. The missing angle is a rotation about the normal from the array. It can becalled a clocking angle. Using azimuth and elevation correspond to Cardan angles, which describe orientation as heading, elevation, and bank. The missing angle in this system is the bank angle. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_angles

These tags are meaningless in the specification.

An important aspect of sensor performance estimation is to understand bias particularly for atmospheric effects.

.

On page 95 the description of technical_state_type calls it a class while the diagrams stereotype it as an IDLEnum.

This is a useful mode of operation ...

Perform Offline test should be compliance level 3A not 3B

The DDS topic types for PIM operations acquire_mastership and release_mastership are both missing from the IDL. Additionally request_id is a missing parameter from these operations, as otherwise the receive_acknowledgement operations in the sequence diagrams have an undefined source of request_id.

There are two activities "Define Test Target Scenario" & "Control Test Target Facility" for one interface

to be elaborated ...

...

For example CORBA, ALMAS & AMSM

...

For Service Health Reporting and Subsystem Health Reporting the specification describes two scenarios one on subsystem initiative and another on request.
In both cases the subsystem calls a method on the CMS interface with a request_id. In the 'on subsystem initiative' case it is unclear what value the subsystem should use for the request_id. Any value chosen could potentially be misinterpreted as a value for an actual CMS request.

The Exchange Heartbeat use case supports assurance cases relating to runtime software integrity, in particular that critical functionality continues to be available and has not failed silently.
For the DDS PSM this is currently mapped to the built-in DDS API, but the on_requested_deadline_missed requires a suitable topic definition (which could/should be provided by the Exchange Heartbeat use case).

Attribute velocity in class sensor_track_type is mandatory but will not be defined / known for bearings tracks

Interface Manage_Physical_Configuration_CMS contains method receive_physical_configuration_success, which is used where receive_acknowledgement from common_use_case_interface would be expected

Method report_sim_mode_status does not contain the status of the session e.g. whether it is running, not started, frozen etc. The specification should also describe the overall state machine described by the interface.

Some passive sensors are unable to resolve a bearing around the line of symmetry through the sensor. The polar model for positions in the specifications does not allow this ambiguity to be clearly represented.

typedef sequence<org::omg::c4i::Domain_Model::Common_Types::subsystem_id_type, 256> sensor_track_based_on_id_type;

Has subsystem_id_type rather than plot_id_type as its value type.

(originally reported by Richard Smith - BAE Systems)

(Proivde_Health_State, page 194, para above table 7.185) contains the following description:

“Reason for health state
Each reported health state other than AVAILABLE is accompanied by the reason(s) for that health. In this way the CMS may for instance derive that although the technical state of the subsystem is STANDBY (and NOT AVAILABLE for that reason), there are also faults that would prevent the service to become AVAILABLE when the technical state would be switched to ONLINE.”

This appears perfectly reasonable to me, although it is then followed immediately by:
“Pre-condition: Subsystem technical state The subsystem is in technical state ONLINE or READY.”

This appears to imply, to me, that the report service health is only applicable to the ONLINE or READY technical state, even though the para above suggests it would be of use in the STANDBY state!

Within Subsystem_Control.idl the struct service_health_type (line 327) has the member health_state (line 330) declared with type health_state_reason_type. The specification states it should be health_state_type. Believe this is an error?