Back to SISO Website
SISO Discussion Forums

Help for SAC-SWG-ENUM Discussion Forum List


SAC-SWG-ENUM Discussion Forum List

SAC-SWG-ENUM Discussion Forum List


SAC-SWG-ENUM@DISCUSSIONS.SISOSTDS.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

SISO Discussions Home

SISO Discussions Home

SAC-SWG-ENUM Home

SAC-SWG-ENUM Home

SAC-SWG-ENUM  January 2020

SAC-SWG-ENUM January 2020

Subject:

Re: EXTERNAL: Point / Linear / Areal Object Type to Appearance Record mapping Question

From:

"Marrou, Lance R." <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SAC-SWG-ENUM <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:33:59 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Excellent question.  The answer to this question is the exact substance of the Action Item 253.  I had been planning on working on this, but it always falls to the bottom of my To Do list for some reason.



The main problem is that the object types are shorter than entity types and being restricted to just Cat/SCAT is really a difficult constraint.  In Entity Types, the appearance was based on Kind/Dom, but if we did that in object types (reverse it to Dom/Kind), it will be too generic.  And then we add in the case where there are similar Categories that should have the same appearance records.



The answer is that right now, there is nothing written down that clarifies your question.



The plan for the action item was to propose Applicability field designations for each of the specific object appearance records.  For example, for UID 230, " "Point Object Appearance-Building/Structure", the applicability would be 1.3.1.x, 1.3.7.x, 1.3.8.x, and so on, covering all the buildings under point objects.  The current implementation does not support the designation of the object type (point, linear, or areal) in the applicability field, but perhaps that could be added (e.g., "P1.3.1.x").



The main problem with this approach is that it will not be easy to ensure that we have full coverage.  That might be ok as some objects might not have an appearance definition yet.  The truth is that it's better to have no definition that to make one up before anyone has a use case with requirements.  The other problem is to somehow ensure that there's no overlap.  That would have to be a manual thing unless someone wants to update the toolset to ensure no overlap, or to write their own tool and run it after a draft of the XML is produced.



The secondary problem is whether this design approach is too complicated.  Are there going to be too many object appearance tables?  Where do we draw the line?  I'm ok with there being no line because the hope is that in DIS v8, the objects go away as we combine entities and objects.



Lance Marrou, Leidos, [log in to unmask]

12901 Science Drive, Orlando, Florida USA 32826, o: 407.243.3710





-----Original Message-----

From: SAC-SWG-ENUM <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Tom Gray

Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 10:58 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: EXTERNAL: Point / Linear / Areal Object Type to Appearance Record mapping Question



Hi there,

I’m working as part of the RPR FOM 3.0 product development group and have a question regarding the Object Type and Object Appearance enumerations.



I am analysing the differences between DIS 7 and RPR FOM 2.0, in particular understanding what changes may be required in the Synthetic Environment RPR FOM module.



Which brings me on to my question, I have got a bit stuck understanding the relationship between the Object Type enumerations (section 6) and Object Appearance (section 17.11.2).



Going back in time to SISO-REF-010-2011.1, the mapping seems to be clear. For each of the object state PDU appearance records (point, linear and areal) the following was stated: “The upper 32 bits of the < Type> Object Appearance field are defined specifically for each category”. This meant that each object type category had an associated appearance record, and this was even reflected in the naming of the appearance records (E.g. Building / structure, building rubble, stationary bridge, and AVLB Appearance Record and Air burst, Ground Burst Appearance Record).



Somewhere between SISO-REF-010-2011.1 and SISO-REF-010-00v20 some new Object Type enumerations were added and the text I referenced above was removed. The Object Appearance Record names were not updated to include the newly added Object Type categories, so to me, it is not clear which appearance records belong to which record types. As an example, I am unsure which specific Object Appearance Records should be associated with Object Type categories: Rock Drop, Pump, Utility Pole, Flood etc.



I have done some digging around in the latest Enumerations and 1278.1 documents, and even tried looking through some old PCR archives, but as yet haven’t found any guidance as to how this mapping should be done now.



So therefore I am reaching out to this group: is there someone that can explain how the mapping now works please?



Thanks in advance,

Tom Gray



########################################################################



To unsubscribe from the SAC-SWG-ENUM list, click the following link:

https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-SWG-ENUM&A=1



########################################################################



To unsubscribe from the SAC-SWG-ENUM list, click the following link:

https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-SWG-ENUM&A=1

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search SISO Discussions

Search SISO Discussions


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Discussion Forum List

October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015

ATOM RSS1 RSS2