Paul Wade

Administrators
  • Content count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Paul Wade

  1. The audio from the DCS meeting at VEW 2018 has been uploaded to our Google Drive folder. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SapKukV1slmkNc3DEKaQQD0IGraaZreT/view?usp=sharing Please let me know if you have any trouble downloading it. Paul
  2. Hi Everyone, The audio from our working group meeting is now available: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wr30abo1Zib0v-dtwuONCzYBLw7pbRS0/view?usp=sharing Let me know if you have any trouble downloading it. Thanks, Paul
  3. Hi Everyone, The audio for our 2018 VEW meeting is now available: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jsTOINTa0IwKT9y-xKi0jIGtfqQqsaPI/view?usp=sharing Let me know if you have any trouble downloading it. Thanks, Paul
  4. Paul Wade

    2018 VEE Meeting Minutes

    I apologize for the delay in posting these. Steve provided them several weeks ago and I thought I had already sent them out. I just realized my mistake this morni ng. 2018 VEE - LPDS Meeting Minutes - Final.pdf
  5. Greetings Colleagues, We are soliciting input from the committee members regarding topics for discussion at VEE. Please reply to this post with a list of items you would like included on the agenda. Thanks! Paul
  6. Paul Wade

    Request for Agenda Topics for VEE 2018

    Thank you Thomas. This has been added to the agenda.
  7. 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!
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  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

    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
  12. Paul Wade

    DCS 3.12 Review & Poll

    The poll is closed.
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. until
    Data Communications Standard Meeting @ VEW
  17. until
    Lens Product Description Standard @ VEW
  18. until
    Lens Technical Committee Meeting @ VEW
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. Paul Wade

    PROCBLK new record + SDFMODE extension

    So then perhaps a call is not necessary. Please let me know if we have consensus on the following: 1. Modify the definition of PROC to explicitly describe the behavior of non-singleton records like ENGMARK. Namely, that it is additive or cumulative in nature and that if a distinct set of non-singleton records is desired to be sent to a specific device then they must be entirely contained in PROC records. Probably should include some examples. 2. Ensure that PROCBLK's definition matches the defintion of PROC with regards to non-singleton records. Agreed? Or am I still missing the plot?
  23. Paul Wade

    PROCBLK new record + SDFMODE extension

    I'm going to be setting up a conference call. I emailed a few of you to get a consensus on the time and then I'll send a poll to the committee.
  24. Paul Wade

    PROCBLK new record + SDFMODE extension

    In a contrived example, we have three engravers. Two high resolution laser and one lower resolution mechanical. We have a complicated lens feature which can only be engraved on the high resolution engravers. Which of the following is the way we'd want this handled if we used only PROC? Method 1 - Non-cumulative ========================= ENGMARK=Complicated feature ENGMARK=Plain feature 1 ENGMARK=Plain feature 2 PROC=ENGMARK;Dumb Engraver;Plain feature 1 PROC=ENGMARK;Dumb Engraver;Plain feature 2 Method 2 - Cumulative ===================== ENGMARK=Plain feature 1 ENGMARK=Plain feature 2 PROC=ENGMARK;Smart Engraver 1;Complicated feature PROC=ENGMARK;Smart Engraver 2;Complicated feature In both examples we want both plain ENGMARK records to get to the dumb engraver but to have the complicated ENGMARK only go to the smart engravers. The first method is non-additive so that we have to declare the features explicitly. The second is cumulative where we only include the additional features. In the first it would be easy to exclude non-singleton values but in the second it's more difficult and granular I think. I would prefer to work with the first method I think. Despite it's higher verbosity I like the explicit nature of seeing exactly what will go to "Dumb Engraver" without having to check the other records. It's how a singleton record behaves as well so it's consistent. This is a tough one.
  25. Paul Wade

    PROCBLK new record + SDFMODE extension

    I was thinking along the same lines. If using just PROC like this: ENGMARK=MASK;MainDesign;.... ENGMARK=TXT;A;.... ENGMARK=TXT;B;.... ENGMARK=DCS;ADD;.... ... PROC=ENGMARK;ENG;;;TXT;D.... PROC=ENGMARK;ENG;;;TXT;E.... Is that additive so that 6 ENGMARK records are sent to the engraver? Or is it replacing ENGMARK so only the two PROC ENGMARK records are sent? What was the intent? If we define that then the definition of PROCBLK needs to match, doesn't it?