Smart Transducers Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Smart Transducers — All Issues

  • Acronym: SMART
  • Issues Count: 3
  • Description: All Issues
Closed All
All Issues

Issues Summary

Issues Descriptions

Clarify description of OP-Codes

  • Key: SMART11-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5746
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Institut fuer Technische Informatik ( Thomas Losert)
  • Summary:

    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

  • Reported: SMART 1.0 — Mon, 4 Nov 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SMART 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Table 2-1 is changed as follows (changed items are bold):

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 09:10 GMT

replace "node name" with "logical name"

  • Key: SMART11-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6013
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Institut fuer Technische Informatik ( Thomas Losert)
  • Summary:

    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".

  • Reported: SMART 1.0 — Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SMART 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Section 2.2.1 is changed as follows (changes are bold):

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Conformance section

  • Key: SMART11-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5686
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Alcatel-Lucent ( Julien Maisonneuve)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: SMART 1.0 — Mon, 14 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SMART 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT