Activity for Maximilian Pilz
-
Maximilian Pilz posted a comment on ticket #5
Additionally the uniqueness is not a given, i.e. "its definition" in the original text would have to be replaced by "a definition" and "the private coding system" by "a private coding system" for it being remotely correct in the current way. Why not write something like Wherever an SDC BASE PARTICIPANT declares a private code as detailed in IEEE Std 11073-10101, the respective SDC BASE PARTICIPANT SHALL specify the semantics of the respective private code by providing a pm:Translation with a @CodingSystem...
-
For inserts and deletions the MdibVersion has to be incremented, thus it is just a matter of the MdibVersion being transmitted. In case it is transmitted, there can not be both i.e. deletion and insertion of an element with the same handle in a single Report with a fixed MdibVersion, and in case it is not transmitted then you get another issue, because insertions and deletions can be distributed over multiple Reports, not just ReportParts, whereas the Reports also do not necessarily have a specified...
-
R0886 uses different URI/IRI standard
-
Yes, it is a potential problem.
-
Could be fixed by changing the XML Schema links to link to the XML Schema version 1.1 and use RFC 3987. https://sourceforge.net/p/opensdc/ieee11073-10207/246/ https://sourceforge.net/p/opensdc/ieee11073-20701/47/
-
R0886 uses wrong URI/IRI standard
-
R0886 uses wrong URI standard
-
R0886 uses wrong URI standard
-
R0886 uses wrong URI standard
-
Could be fixed by changing the XML Schema links to link to the XML Schema version 1.1 and use RFC 3987.
-
No, XML Schema 1.1 uses RFC 3987 instead of RFC 3986 to replace RFC 2396.
-
Which XML Schema version?
-
Which XML Schema version?
-
Which XML Schema version?
-
SequenceId can not replace InstanceId
-
@schlich09 , unfortunately you have taken the sentence The Prefix provides the namespace prefix part of the qualified name, and must be associated with a namespace URI reference in a namespace declaration. out of context. It has to be seen as an additional information for [Definition:] In XML documents conforming to this specification, some names (constructs corresponding to the nonterminal Name) may be given as qualified names, defined as follows: ... This references the "Name" definition (to be...
-
@schlich09 , unfortunately you have taken the sentence The Prefix provides the namespace prefix part of the qualified name, and must be associated with a namespace URI reference in a namespace declaration. out of context. It has to be seen as an additional information for [Definition:] In XML documents conforming to this specification, some names (constructs corresponding to the nonterminal Name) may be given as qualified names, defined as follows: ... This references the "Name" definition, which...
-
I do not see this parser statement being true, for example "http:" is valid according to RFC 3986 and can be parsed by RFC 3986 parsers, but it is not allowed in RFC 2396 and thus may be rejected by an RFC 2396 parser. This is also stated in RFC 3986: "The ABNF has been corrected to allow the path component to be empty. This also allows an absolute-URI to consist of nothing after the "scheme:", as is present in practice with the "dav:" namespace [RFC2518] and with the "about:" scheme used internally...
-
I do not see this parser statement being true, for example "http:" is valid according to RFC 3986 and can be parsed by RFC 3986 parsers, but it is not allowed in RFC 2396 and thus may be rejected by an RFC 2396 parser. This is also stated in RFC 3986: "The ABNF has been corrected to allow the path component to be empty. This also allows an absolute-URI to consist of nothing after the "scheme:", as is present in practice with the "dav:" namespace [RFC2518] and with the "about:" scheme used internally...
-
so a CONTAINMENT TREE ENTRY was defined as a node or multiple nodes, but you make a single node into a subtree and thus a graph in case of no children? thus a node is a graph for you? by definition it is a pair of a node set and an edge set
-
so a CONTAINMENT TREE ENTRY was defined as a node or multiple nodes, but you make a single node into a subtree and thus a graph in case of no children? so nodes and graphs are the same for you? by definition it is a pair of a node set and an edge set
-
so a CONTAINMENT TREE ENTRY was defined as a node or multiple nodes, but you make it into a subtree and thus a graph in case of no children? so nodes and graphs are the same for you? by definition it is a pair of a node set and an edge set
-
what do you even mean by the note ? of course a node is always a single node and not multiple nodes, even by english grammar, you would otherwise at least use plural full descriptor i.e. including all element content? all states or only one state?
-
what does a node contain ? this definition is missing how is it ordered ? if the xml order shall be used, the second note is wrong, because then it is not independent "of an SDC SERVICE PROVIDER" ? does not really match with allowing multiple MDS "maximum depth" can be interpreted as the "height" of the tree, instead of "maximum height" and thus would always require a node with depth four. the "containment tree" is "modelled as an ordered tree" ? not a tree itself ?
-
so a CONTAINMENT TREE ENTRY was defined as a node, but you make it into a subtree and thus a graph in case of no children? so nodes and graphs are the same for you? by definition it is a pair of a node set and an edge set
-
so a CONTAINMENT TREE ENTRY was defined as a node, but you make it into a subtree and thus a graph in case of no children? so nodes and graphs are the same for you?
-
the current definition is clear and includes only the children, but not necessarily children of children etc.
-
what do you even mean by the note ? of course a node is always a single node and not multiple nodes, even by english grammar, you would otherwise at least use plural full descriptor i.e. including all element content? all states or only one state?
-
what do you even mean by the note ? of course a node is always a single node and not multiple nodes, even by english grammar, you would otherwise at least use plural full descriptor i.e. including all element content, all states, only one state ?
-
what does a node contain ? this definition is missing how is it ordered ? if the xml order shall be used, the second note is wrong, because then it is not independent "of an SDC SERVICE PROVIDER" ? does not really match with allowing multiple MDS "maximum depth" can be interpreted as the "height" of the tree, instead of "maximum height" and thus would always require a node with depth four. the "containment tree" is "modelled as an ordered tree" ? not a tree itself ?
-
In that case it has to be made clear though, that "Medical Device System (MDS), Virtual Medical Device (VMD), Channel, and Metric" is just an example.
-
R0055: wrong type
-
R0877: "infer membership" may have another meaning
-
R0999: wrong "Mother" element reference
-
R0997: @type is wrong
-
Commas inside quotes change semantics
-
PKP abbreviation is defined twice
-
R0278: not clear
-
R0765: always in root node
-
R0998: has to be on MDS level or per ContextState
-
R0894 is obsolete due to R0886
-
R1150: not on provider level
-
R0132: time not defined
-
R0028: certificate possibly not unique
-
R1001: shall be in same MDS
-
R0242: enclosing entry is not unique
-
R0249: looking for ancestors is obsolete
-
R0034: does not include child attributes
-
I created this one, because [#6] was closed, but REFERENCE SDC PARTICIPANT was still occurring in the latest version. Now I requested a reopening of [#6] .
-
-
I created this one, because the other was closed, but REFERENCE SDC PARTICIPANT was still occurring in the latest version. Now I requested a reopening of the other ticket.
-
REFERENCE SDC PARTICIPANT is used, but not defined
-
has been fixed in another way
-
R0242 and R0850: unnecessary
-
R0851: useless
-
R0109
-
R1035: not field, but extension
-
R1035: unclear
-
R0845: not only children
-
R0251: MdsDescriptor is not unique
-
R0252: MdsDescriptor not unique
-
R0917: unclear scope
-
R0916: too complicated
-
R0912: MdsState is not unique
-
R0108: shall be done with a X.509 certificate
-
I might add that this requirement in its current state assumes a very trivial software architecture and some implementation details. And for this case it is useful. So maybe this should stay out of the standard as it strongly depends on implementation details and software architecture. You can still do it, even without having this requirement.
-
R0926: multiple problems
-
R0216: which handle
-
R1133: not possible
-
R1109: the manufacturer does not know
-
R1110: specify multicast routing
-
R1110 replace with IP multicast
-
R1168: change to manufacturer if manufacturer requirements are kept
-
General: requirement targets
-
R1098: changes definition
-
R1105: maximum load condition as defined is not useful
-
R1054: "assume" does not fit the purpose
-
6.2 Relation of the introduction and the requirements
-
R1213: no uniqueness and no data definition
-
Qualified names of attributes in biceps references
-
Maximum load condition definition is squishy
-
R5003 out of context
-
R0038 does not include child attributes
-
Qualified name is not unique
-
IEEE 11073-10101:2019 is used instead of 2004
-
R0236 merge orders
-
R0237 "the order" not defined
-
R0886 uses wrong URI standard
-
R0216 needs to differntiate between TLS 1.3 and prior versions
-
R1164 applies to WS-Discovery
-
Containment Tree definition limits MDS count
-
Manufactuer requirements out of scope
-
Identifier sets not well-defined
-
R0098 is not global in a MDIB
-
Containment Tree defintion collides with MDIB definition
1
