The Vision Council

Administrators
  • Content Count

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by The Vision Council

  1. It's too small of a change to trigger a major revision in my opinion but this isn't my decision, it's the committee's decision upon which they have already voted. This was not pegged for 4.0, which we have already started discussing. I don't really have anything further to say on the subject myself as I'm just moving forward with the committee's decision. You are free to vote against approval and present your case for why this deserves to be delayed until 4.0 to the committee when the draft is sent out for voting.
  2. Binary data is not limited to 80 chars. In any event, this is really dragging out for what should be a very simple change. We are simply trying to extend the max line length because some implementations are already doing so by necessity, which I believe is Mark's point. The committee discussed this at two different meetings and voted on it. Until now no one has said they felt this would be a protocol breaking change that would require a major revision. Because the scope of the change was already discussed and voted on during the meeting, we will be moving forward with the new line lengths and limits as part of 3.13. The new line length will be the sum of 16 characters for the record label, 1 character for the label separator, and 255 characters for whatever is on the right side of the label separator (no matter what we end up calling it). Naturally, any other references that refer to maximum lengths of normal data (i.e. not binary data or some other data which already has an exception) will also be updated as necessary.
  3. Good point. I had originally referred to what turned out to be an imaginary "record value" in the pre-distribution draft. I was told the correct term is actually field value but you're right. Our goal is to limit the overall record length so we cannot set a limit on the "field value" itself. We need a term that refers to everything after the label separator. I'm proposing "record value" which is what I've used for years in my own documentation and code. I was actually surprised it wasn't an official term when Robert pointed it out. In any event, I've sent that proposal to Robert so I'll work it into the draft. We're still working on one or two other items anyway and this is an easy clarification.
  4. Label length is limited to 16 chars and field length to 255 chars. Max line length is 16 + 255 + 1 (equal sign).
  5. Dear Colleagues, Please find attached to this post the draft of the new Lens Product Description Standard. Please post all comments, questions, suggestions and critiques in this thread so that we can keep the process transparent. If you have specific concerns you are not comfortable addressing publicly please feel free to email them directly to me. Regards, Paul TVC Lens Product Description Standard 0.78-DRAFT.pdf
  6. Hi Everyone, Find attached to this post the shape data presentation given by Sebastien Peña-Feldmann at our meeting during VEW. Paul VCA_BSHAPE_2.pptx
  7. Hi All, I've uploaded the DCS meeting audio to Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GHcSJUumB0_hTXO1meQtm59OOi2UM1Bs/view?usp=sharing Please let me know if you have any issues accessing the audio. Please note that the recording does start during introductions. Thanks, Paul
  8. Hi All, I've uploaded the LPDS meeting audio to Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RGV09RFv4FxxT1zToohDaefSTsi_tdiL/view?usp=sharing Please let me know if you have any issues accessing the audio. Please note that the recording does start a minute or two into the meeting. Thanks, Paul
  9. until
    Location: Sands Expo & Convention Center, Las Vegas, NV Meeting Room: 307
  10. until
    Location: Sands Expo & Convention Center, Las Vegas, NV Meeting Room: 307
  11. Hi Nick, First, just to be clear, this is for the new standard still under development, not the existing LDS. The problem is that we do not have a standardized, universally unique way of identifying things outside of physical lenses. OPC's work for that and while expanding the use of OPC was discussed it's not really feasible for this purpose. So it's really about more than packages. No user of the standard would be forced to create packages in their LPDS catalogs but if they want to we would like to have a single ID methodology that can be applied to those as well. I think your last bullet is on point... I believe that is exactly what the group is trying to develop. Regards, Paul
  12. During the LPDS Committee meeting the working group presented their proposed implementation for concise base cure and range chart definitions. This proposal is outlined in this thread: During discussions at the meeting representatives from Shamir pointed out that this method does not allow the specification of an allowable base curve range for a specific power combination. The group requested this topic be started so further discussion could take place between now and our next meeting at Vision Expo West.
  13. Starter topic for discussion of product ID's to be used in LPDS to include identification of "packages" which may include lenses and various treatments. Please post your thoughts, questions, concerns, etc. If you have any specific proposals on the creation of product identifiers please feel free to share those as well.
  14. Agenda for our 2019 VEE meeting. 2019 VEE - DCS Agenda - FINAL.pdf
  15. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JJjTVyaq626b9ggYyBP90m8Q4d0o-U8f/view?usp=sharing
  16. Hi there. My name is Paul Wade and I'm a liaison for The Vision Council. I'd like to see if I can help you with this but it might be better if you contact me directly. You can email me at pwade@thevisioncouncil.org. If you could include some more detail about the system you are trying to design I can try and provide you with some documentation that might help with your goal.
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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!
  22. 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.
  23. 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?
  24. 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!