(!-- -->

On behalf of René Verhage ...

Please find attached the merge of the contributions posted so far, including a PDF version.

There are a few things we should discuss within the DG:

- Does an HLA 1.3 attribute with cardinality 0+ equal HLA 1516 arrays with HLAlengthlessVarArray encoding?

In the contribution from Patrice he tagged these differences with a capital red D, indicating a data type encoding/decoding difference. Of course HLA 1.3 and 1516 cannot be assumed binary compatible on the wire. But at the FOM level, does this difference imply an encoding/decoding change, or merely a different specification of the same encoding according to the respective HLA standards?

- Comments: in the comments column and/or as Excel comments to the cells.

Mike and Åsa seem to have (mostly) commented in both ways. Maintaining both is extra effort, and error prone. Adding comments to the cells has the benefit that they are tighter associated to the subject (e.g. comment regarding data type to the data type cell). But the drawback is that these are not visible in a print-out (including PDF).

- Inclusion or exclusion of placeholders for non-existing classes/attributes.

Currently the sheets list all the modules explicitly, even if there are no object or interaction classes in a module. Also the scaffolding classes are listed. And the Attributes and Parameters sheets explicitly list all classes present in the modules, even when they are attributeless. Clearly for all these entries the 'Changes' columns are irrelevant, as are the third columns for attributeless classes and also the second column for (object or interaction) empty modules. Does this increase readability and traceability throughout the sheets, or is it regarded as superfluous and confusing entries?

- Content of cells for which an entry is not applicable or not necessary.

For the cells referred to above, Åsa and Mike, and Patrice partially, filled out "NA" in the 'Changes' columns when nothing is supposed to be entered and "None" when there is no change. Personally I found this too overwhelming and burring the intent of highlighting the differences between the FOM versions (I am a fan of the black cockpit principle). Hence I emptied the "None" cells and put a "-" instead of NA. Does anyone favor a certain format?

Unfortunately I did not find the time yet to finish the modules assigned to me (see Workshare tab). So please note that the attached version of the tracking sheet is not yet complete. With the agreement on the above (and possible other) topics, and (hopefully) the completion of the incomplete/failing modules, the next posting of this tracking sheet should provide a complete overview of the differences between RPR FOM v2draft17 and the current NETN RPR modules (still equivalent to the work-in-progress RPR FOM v2, assumed now to be designated draft19).

To unsubscribe from the SAC-PDG-RPR list, click the following link: