1496   private enumeration type with standard enum type member values

Created: 26 May 2016

Status: Not Applicable

Part: Part 7-4 (2010; Edition 2)



Clause: 7-2 Annex B/7-3 Annex D/tissue#686


Category: Issue for edition 2 of this part


Is it allowed to define a private enumeration with exactly the same enum member values however different enum id value, when this enumeration type is already defined in 7-2 Annex B/7-3 Annex D/tissue#686 (replacing 7-4 Annex H)
for example, as defined in tissue#686:
<EnumType id="HealthKind">
<EnumVal ord="1">Ok</EnumVal>
<EnumVal ord="2">Warning</EnumVal>
<EnumVal ord="3">Alarm</EnumVal>
vendor defines in icd file:
<EnumType id="Health_Private">
<EnumVal ord="1">Ok</EnumVal>
<EnumVal ord="2">Warning</EnumVal>
<EnumVal ord="3">Alarm</EnumVal>

Is this a non-conformance behavior or a behavior not encouraged but still with conformance to standard?


Please clarify.

Discussion Created Status
Yes, it is allowed. Even, for a mixed system with data models from different editions it is a must, as a newer edition might have extended an enumeration but still uses the 'old' standard ID name. Then for one of the editions you must use a modified (private?) ID. 01 Jun 16 Not Applicable
Wolfgang, thanks for the clarification.
For enum with full list (as in issue description), everything is exactly the same as standard enum except for enum id value, is it still conformant to use private id value (e.g. "Health_Private")?
Or the question would be: is it allowed to use private enum id value when the enum has a standard semantic (semantic defined by set of values)?
01 Jun 16 Not Applicable
Not agreed. One reason is that it is allowed to implement only subsets of an Enumeration. If this is indicated in e.g. an ICD file, then a private id shall be used for the subset - the standard name is always the full list. Thus, as already said below: the semantic of an Enum DO is defined by its set of values, and not by the name of the enum ID. 31 May 16 Not Applicable
It's true that enum id value never appears over communication however it appears in SCL files.
Considering the interoperability of config tools, we should at least standardize that:
Only private DO (not defined in -7-4) can use private enum type (enum defined with private enum id value),
while standard DO should ONLY use STANDARD enum type.

For instance:
a DO namely "Health_Private" under LLN0 with CDC=ENS can be defined by private enum with id="Health_Private",
however "Health" under LLN0 should NEVER be defined by "Health_Private", but always "HealthKind" as in tissue#686 (replacing 7-4 Annex H)

This is also required in ed.2 server TP1.0 TPCL1.2.1, sMdl9:
"Private ENUM types are only allowed for private DO".

Do you agree?
31 May 16 Not Applicable
This is a question only. Has answered. 30 May 16 Not Applicable
The semantic of Health is not given/deliver by the identifier of the enumeration but with the name of the DO.
Interoperability on Health (or other enumeration) is given by the standardized values of the enumerated values and not with the id of enumeration itself (which is not even available over the communication).
Therefore, this is a conformant behavior.
26 May 16 Discussion (red)


Privacy | Contact | Disclaimer

Tissue DB v.