All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Paul Wade

    Request for Agenda Topics for VEE 2018

    Thank you Thomas. This has been added to the agenda.
  3. Earlier
  4. Thomas Koerbe

    Request for Agenda Topics for VEE 2018

    Hi Paul, I would like to request one more label related to a blocking ring diameter for the Satisloh ART process. Currently we have the following labels being used: Alloy: BLKD RNGH ART: BLKD -->same as for Alloy BLKB BVAL As you can see BLKD is the same for both processes. In case a LMS wants to provide information for both processes ART and Alloy blocking, it would be good to have a separate label for the ART block diameter. Thank you! Thomas
  5. Paul Wade

    VEW 2018 Agenda Now Available

    Dear Colleagues, You can find the agenda for the LPDS Committee meeting at VEW 2018 posted here: https://thevisioncouncil.org/sites/default/files/2018-VEW-LPDS-Agenda-FINAL.pdf If you have any topics you would like added to the agenda please reply to this post or send them to Daniel Simonetta or myself directly. Thanks!
  6. Paul Wade

    Vision Expo West 2018 Agenda

    The synopsis would be very brief indeed. We have no such capability at the moment and without specifications it would be hard to predict what changes or additions would be necessary to support such a platform.
  7. DanielSimonetta

    Vision Expo West 2018 Agenda

    Hello Paul, Thank you for contributing to the discussion. I am sure that all of our members will be concerned with the security and access capability should TVC take on this type of responsibility. Would you be willing to prepare a short synopsis of TVC's current capability for this type of thing?
  8. Paul Wade

    Vision Expo West 2018 Agenda

    I don't know how helpful or relevant it would be, but since we have hinted at TVC hosting the lens data at some point it might be helpful to start specifying how that system might work. It will at least enable us (TVC) to start examining our infrastructure to see what would be needed to support such a platform. Perhaps an open discussion around that?
  9. DanielSimonetta

    Vision Expo West 2018 Agenda

    Hello LPDS committee members and industry professionals, It is my understanding that the working group is making good progress and several participants are testing the latest structure by trying to define one of their products. We will receive an update from Tony LeBlanc during our meeting so please plan to attend. Is there any needs from the community or items which should be added to our agenda for September 25th meeting? Currently we are scheduled to meet in Sands 401 from 10:15 AM to 12:15 PM. Look forward to seeing all you there.
  10. Paul Wade

    VEW 2018 Agenda Now Available

    Dear Colleagues, You can find the agenda for our meeting at VEW 2018 posted here: https://www.thevisioncouncil.org/sites/default/files/2018-VEW-DCS-Agenda-FINAL.pdf If you have any topics you would like added to the agenda please reply to this post or send them to Robert Shanbaum or myself directly. Thanks!
  11. Paul Wade

    DCS 3.12 Review & Poll

    The poll is closed.
  12. Paul Wade

    DCS 3.12 Review & Poll

    Hi Again, We have three days left in the poll. If you have not done so, now is the time to place your vote. Thanks, Paul
  13. Paul Wade

    DCS 3.12 Review & Poll

    Hi, I wanted to post a brief update. I've had some individuals email me some small changes privately so I wanted to keep the group informed. So far there have only been a few minor layout and grammatical changes. Nothing substantive. We're about half way through the voting period with a little over two weeks to go. If you haven't had a chance to peruse the document yet it will be greatly appreciated if you can find time to do so. Thanks, Paul
  14. Adrian

    Product definition after 2018-07-19 Working Session

    Thanks Steve, It seems you have done my portion of this latest example for me. The only change I would make is that the final treatment combination (commented with "Unknown puck set polycarbonate") was intended for when a lab is producing this product from an unknown blank set. As such in my original example it intentionally had no blank set listed, the processing parameters listed are the DCS fields we require to specify the blank geometry to be used in the calculation. This combination would appear as follows: { "_comment1": "Unknown puck set polycarbonate", "TreatmentTypesRequired": ["HC"], "Mandatory Processing Parameter Collection": ["PPC1"], }
  15. I took the CZV example and modified it to apply the changes we discussed during the working session. Namely, Having materials appear once with treatments owning the lenses used Adding processing parameter collections Having treatment reference IDs in three arrays to indicate Inherent/Required/Excluded treatments Moving the mandatory flag on the processing parameter to instead be implied in the name of the array the processing parameter appears in Including an example of region exclusivity, with a region override. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W9JL-d93RfKZwRp_2K1hBtD27-PhyVI6_-WZjZdrKF4/edit?usp=sharing The document should be valid JSON at this point - I changed the comments to a JSON-acceptable format, so that it would pass through jsonlint.
  16. Adrian

    LPDS Data Structure Sample - Carl Zeiss

    Regarding the points mentioned: 1) The first two material combinations are listed separately as the first is a hard coated clear product and the second is a hard coated photochromic product. The photochromic product has a different range on the sphere processing parameter. 2) The processing parameters chosen were primarily for illustration. I imaged the optional tag on the processing parameter to indicate if it must be included, ie optional=true implies it doesn't have to be provided in the LDS packet whereas optional=false implies it must be provided. 3) This is worth discussing in our meeting. Perhaps just the limits for each variation would be better to reduce duplication, though this would add complexity when no variations are offered (trade off). 4) Both treatments apply to both blank sets. The different between BLNK01 and BLNK02 is that the BLNK02 is wide version blank set of the same material treatment combination. Hope this helps
  17. tonyleblanc

    LPDS Data Structure Sample - Carl Zeiss

    Some questions for tomorrow from my reading of the document: 1) For design ZDES01, the first two material entries have a Treatment section in common - both contain TRT02, but with different blank collection IDs, and different Base Curve Chart references. it is unclear to me if these are two different design/material combinations, or if this is unnecessary duplication? 2) Understanding that the list of processing parameters may be for illustration only, note that CYL is given as an available parameter, but AX is not. I like the idea of allowing the LDS to include the list of labels required - do we need to specify that, if used, "all" labels should be provided (so as to provide a complete list of labels to be included in the LDS packet), or should we allow this to be all/some/none as desired? 3) Further to the processing parameters, should the limits on a particular label (for example, SPH), be set up as separate "processing parameters", or would it be better/clearer if SPH existed only once as a processing parameter, and the limits be included within the specific "product" or "design" sections? 4) I find the characteristic family and blank collection/family to be confusing. In characteristic family ZCHF01, does each of the TRT01 and TRT02 treatments apply to both the BLNK01 and BLNK02 blank families, or does TRT01 apply to BLNK01, and TRT02 to BLNK02? more to come
  18. Zeiss has sent a product data sample which has been uploaded to our Drive folder. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cReSPZb7uoeK3jtH3Q_LikEi3MMhCkGG/view?usp=sharing
  19. until
    Data Communications Standard Meeting @ VEW
  20. until
    Lens Product Description Standard @ VEW
  21. until
    Lens Technical Committee Meeting @ VEW
  22. Paul Wade

    DCS 3.12 Review & Poll

    Dear Committee Members, Please find attached to this post the review draft of DCS 3.12. Please keep in mind that this document is a major refactor of the Word document from version 3.11 so it will not be possible to use Word’s comparison tool between the two documents. Instead I have left Track Changes on in this document which should show all of the substantive changes made between 3.11 and 3.12. After reviewing the document please indicate your vote in the poll. If you select “Approve w/ Comments” or “Disapprove w/ Comments” please be sure to either post your comments to this topic or send them directly to myself or Robert Shanbaum. This review will remain open until 8/8/18. If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to reach out to me directly. Best Regards, Paul DCS v3.12_NEW Working_15.docx
  23. tonyleblanc

    OPCs for digital designs

    From an LMS perspective, we don't require OPC codes for digital products at all, unless they are required by the vendor for reporting purposes (as Shamir does). At the risk of speaking out of turn, I believe some LMS systems do (or did at one time) require an OPC for each combination of base/add that correspond to the digital product that is created. Hopefully other LMS vendors will weigh in on this discussion.
  24. Hi Everyone, Sebastien from Essilor has submitted their data sample using the new LPDS structure. I've copied it to our shared Google Drive folder: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vELgj5JPZ61Kq0hGueb1B46175UD9dmQlrzIi5PR_FQ/edit?usp=sharing
  25. Paul Wade

    OPCs for digital designs

    I'm fairly sure Signet is already doing it this way. If I recall correctly, they switched to a single OPC per design several years ago. There's no reason I can think of that a manufacturer must use multiple OPC's per design. I feel that is complete up to the manufacturer. I don't think anything in the standard forces a manufacturer to use left and right OPC's for freeform designs but perhaps I missed something.
  26. DanielSimonetta

    OPCs for digital designs

    Hello everyone, I believe that I have have initiated individual conversations with many of the LMS vendors regarding the topic of OPCs for digital designs. With Semi-Finished progressive lenses it made sense to have an OPC for each eye but I am curious if this logic still holds true today. I am sure to over-simplify this and get reprimanded by the smarter members but it seems that digital design products would need only a singular OPC that represents the specific design for reporting purposes and not a singular OPC for each eye. What other uses/scenarios require two OPCs for a job containing a right and left lens of a digital design product. Thanks for not being too harsh :-)
  27. Hi All, This isn't very timely and I apologize. I thought I had put up the DCS audio at the same time as the LPDS audio and only realized my mistake when I tried to find it again. Here is the recording of our meeting at VEE 2018: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15cIw4E75OUl2snvh7F5bWrIi22tcAYWk/view?usp=sharing If you have any issues accessing the file please let me know.
  1. Load more activity