Back to SISO Website
SISO Discussion Forums

Help for SAC-PDG-WEBLVC Discussion Forum List


SAC-PDG-WEBLVC Discussion Forum List

SAC-PDG-WEBLVC Discussion Forum List


SAC-PDG-WEBLVC@DISCUSSIONS.SISOSTDS.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

SISO Discussions Home

SISO Discussions Home

SAC-PDG-WEBLVC Home

SAC-PDG-WEBLVC Home

SAC-PDG-WEBLVC  March 2017

SAC-PDG-WEBLVC March 2017

Subject:

Re: questions regarding draft 0.5

From:

Brad Dillman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SAC-PDG-WebLVC <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 10 Mar 2017 09:42:48 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (55 lines)

>I've started developing a small prototype WebLVC server based on the draft_0.5.

Great!

>As I understand Filters apply to objects and interactions, however there is no "ObjectName" in
>the interaction messages, and so the "ObjectBounds" filter cannot be applied
>to interaction messages. This makes filtering interactions within a range of a designated object difficult.

Good point. The ObjectBounds filter implicitly assumes you're filtering an entity object of some kind. This filter could use a lot more definition, couldn't it? For example what exactly does "... Interaction messages outside this range..." mean, anyway?

Maybe this should be dropped from the specification, and left to be implemented as proprietary extensions?

Here's a problem I'm thinking of: suppose a WebLVC client decides to publish a new object or interaction of which the server is unaware. It would be nice to avoid having to re-write the server to understand the new object or interaction. So how do we write filter definitions which don't require implicit assumptions like the ObjectBounds filter?

We're still re-working the subscription and filtering stuff, so be warned we could be in for changes. The change between 0.4 and 0.5 was quite drastic, but we make no promises about changes until we get to a first full release.


>Given a client requesting the Configuration of CoordinateReferenceSystem to be ECEF, does that
>mean that all attributes updates and interactions will be sent by the server in
>ECEF and will therefore be subject to possible DeadReckonning.

Yes, that is the intention. It's quite a convenience for a client developer. However, this also has the implicit assumption that the object is an entity, or that the server "knows what to do" for other interactions and objects.

>With regards to StatusLogRequest messages, a client has no way of knowing
>how many StatusLog messages the server has, and
>so cannot meaningfully set an Offset and a Length values.
>Similarly, cannot ask for the last 100 StatusLog, for example.

Perhaps we should make negative offsets reference the most recent log object, such that length=10, offset=-10 would get the 10 most recent log objects.

>As part of the specifications, will there be an "official" mapping
>between DIS and the Standard WebLVC Object Model?

I'm not sure. There is definitely an implicit mapping, we're using DIS semantics but adapting to JSON format. Whenever there is a question about the nature of a data value, you should refer back to DIS standards whenever necessary.

An official mapping could be written
a) inline in the WebLVC object model
b) as an appendix or separate section in the WebLVC spec
c) as a separate companion document like the RPR GRIM

Thanks for your contribution!
And good luck, please keep us up with your progress.

>Regards,
>R Wathelet
>
>########################################################################
>
>To unsubscribe from the SAC-PDG-WEBLVC list, click the following link:
>https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-PDG-WEBLVC&A=1
########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the SAC-PDG-WEBLVC list, click the following link:
https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-PDG-WEBLVC&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

February 2019
September 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
January 2018
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
March 2017
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
November 2015
September 2015
June 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014

ATOM RSS1 RSS2