1288   SBO/SBOw/Oper/Cancel definition in ed.2 data model and SCL

Created: 18 Jul 2014

Status: In Force (green)

Part: Part 8-1 (2011; Edition 2)


Page: 97

Clause: 20. Control class models


Category: No impact on this part


In Ed.1, SBO, SBOw, Oper, Cancel are defined as MMS specific control objects extensions and specified in 8-1 Annex E - Specialized CDCs for control services.

In Ed.2, SBO, SBOw, Oper, Cancel are redefined as control service parameters, and specified in respective control service mapping.

However, the ed.2 standard leaves a few unclear points:
a) do they still exist in data model?
1) if exist, where is the official type defitnion?
2) if exist, are they readable (by GetDataValues)?
3) if not, will there by "angry clients" which used to read CO values before issueing control requests?
Note that in ed.1 they exist in data model, by not readable (GetDataValues applies to all FC except CO)

b) do they exist in ed.2 SCL?
In ed.1 they have to be speficied in DataTypeTemplate section because they exist in CDCs which require instantiation.
In ed.2 they are service parameters, thus pretty much fixed. No instatiation needed.


either remove SBO/SBOw/Oper/Cancel from data model and SCL.
officially define their type and respective SCL.

Discussion Created Status
09 Dec 14 In Force (green)
I agree with Thierry's comment. No change is needed. 01 Aug 14 Ballot Period
8-1 Ed2 is quite clear as how the 7-2 service parameters are mapped:
See Table 81 - MMS Control components are DataAttributes: Oper, Cancel, SBO and SBOw.
They have the FC=CO as defined in 20.3
The annex G illustrates the SCL declaration of the SBOw, Oper and Cancel DataAttribute.

a1) they do exist in the 8-1 mapped data model - no change required
a2) as in Ed1 -what is a read of service parameter? 7-2 does not specify a GetDataValue of Oper parameter. GetDataValue of Oper, Cancel, SBO, SBOw - is not an ASCI valid request. 8-1 does not need to define a semantic associated to an MMS Read Oper, Cancel and SBOw.
Therefore - out of scope what are the result of a read - as it was in Ed1.
a3) as it is not defined by the standard, Client SHALL not do expected a standardized behavior when reading the CO.

b) Yes - See Part 6 Ed2 - ProtNs definition, and 8-1 Annex G.

I propose no change. What is not written by the standard, shall be considered as out of scope, and therefore to be used at its own risk.
Use of SCL is quite clear. Oper, Cancel, SBO and SBOw are even declared DA Names.

18 Jul 14 Discussion (red)


Privacy | Contact | Disclaimer

Tissue DB v.