909   Remove ANCR.ColOpR and ColOpL

Created: 24 Aug 2012

Status: In Force (green)

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



Clause: 5.4.2


Category: Issue may impact interoperability of implementations of Edition 2


The DO ColOpL and ColOpR (both SPS) in the LN ANCR are redundant to the DO RCol and LCol (both SPC).


Remove ColOpL and ColOpR because the functionality is included in the DO with CDC SPC.

Discussion Created Status
05 Dec 12 In Force (green)
The DO ColChg (BAC) (conditional to other control options) will replace the DO RCol and LCol in ANCR. In YEFN ColChg will be added (BAC, conditional). 05 Nov 12 Ballot Period
The control possibilities for YEFN and ANCR should be made consistent with regard to the four options:
- replace RCol / LCol with a DO ColChg of CDC BAC
- check consitency of conditions
- check if YEFN needs as well a DO TapChg
27 Sep 12 Discussion (red)
somebody needs to explain the backwards compatibility issue to me here.

- How many products have been developed in Edition 1 with ANCR?
- RCol, LCol are optional DOs in Edition 1
- ColPos does not exist in Edition 1
- and all our Namespace concepts are there to clearly support the differentiation between Ed 1 and Ed 2. A Ed 1 server still may be there supporting the optional Ed 1 RCol and LCol and that may coexist with an Ed 2 server supporting e.g. ColPos of a CDC BSC.

So I still do not support to keep RCol and LCol - we really should benefit from the UML modeling acivity to improve the standard not only as document, but as well as consistent specification
28 Aug 12 Discussion (red)
UML issue wg10-0413 proposed to use BSC, but resolution says: "Question on usage of BSC will be ignored, for the sake of backwards compatibility (for mandatory DOs)."
28 Aug 12 Discussion (red)
Instead of having two data objects for raise and lower of the coil, we should use one single data object of the CDC BAC.

Also, the relationship between ColPos and RCol/LCol is unclear. While ColPos is conditional as one of the options to control the coil either discret (with the options higehr/lower or the direct position) or continuous (with the option of direct position), the control of continuos with higher/lower seems to be a mandatory second option to control the coil.

Also note that in the table for ANCR class, the explanation of C1 is wrong (it refers to YEFN and only to two instead of three DOs that are C1)
24 Aug 12 Discussion (red)
According to the decision of the UML TF - accepted. Will be considered in the next version of 7-4. 24 Aug 12 Discussion (red)


Privacy | Contact | Disclaimer

Tissue DB v.