SAC-SWG-ENUM Archives

January 2020

SAC-SWG-ENUM@DISCUSSIONS.SISOSTDS.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
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:
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2