Robert Shanbaum

DCS version 3.13 draft - PLEASE REVIEW

Recommended Posts

Hello, everyone.  I hope you are safe and well.

With any luck, you'll find a link on this message to a draft of the proposed version 3.13 of the Data Communications Standard. The first draft posted has a draft ID of 30; if any changes are made, and posted here, the draft ID will be incremented. 

Please download it, review it, and post any questions, comments, or objections on this forum, in this topic.

I do not expect task force meetings to take place at the next Vision Expo West.  We should try to discuss any issues that you may have with the draft on this forum; if it becomes necessary, we can arrange Zoom or GoToMeetings.

I would like to be able to approve this version prior to our next meeting, which I expect to occur at Vision Expo East.

DCS v3.13_DRAFT-030.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few comments, on draft ID 30. None I see as extremely critical, except for the last (which is therefore very much an objection rather than a comment/suggestion/question).

I'm basing this on the Revision History list, assuming anything changed in 3.13 so far is listed there, I did not read through all the document:

 

  • Regarding the Revision History itself - I think the revision order (newer on top) is the wrong choice here. This ordering makes sense for thing like blogs and web on-page-updates. But in a part of a closed document older to newer would make more sense to me.
  • Literal data - The updated definition (in 3.3 and 5.1.7.8) is a substantial improvement,  and much clearer. That said:
    - 1 - There is some difference between the more general definition in 3.3.2 and the more specific one in 5.1.7.8 . The one significant thing that was done in 5.1.7.8 and I think would be an important addition to 3.3.2 as well, is that all possible values are to be enumerated in the record definition. Maybe change 3.3.2 from "...having permissible values specified in the standard" to something like "...having permissible values enumerated in the standard" ?
    - 2 - Since the standard is now clearer that all values are enumerated, is there a point in specifying maximum length? Especially when 5.1.7.8 both specifies maximum length of 12 and allows the definition of each usage to go beyond 12? This is effectively no length limit when defining a Limited record field (since it is explicitly allowed to override 12), and there is no point in specifying maximum length as an issue for anyone using a Limited record field (if all values are enumerated then specifying length is meaningless, maximum length is always the length of the longest enumerated value).
  • Maximum length in the definition of Limited should either be waived completely, or be specified in a way that doesn't allow a record definition to override it. (I'd prefer the former, but either option is better, and internally consistent, compared to the current effectively "there is a maximum length and it can be ignored by everyone")
  • Reference Coordinate System for Backside Engraved Lenses - Previous issues with terminology and usage aside, just a quick note that 5.2.3.1 has an internal reference error, I assume to the related Figure 2 below the section, stating "Error! Reference source not found." in the middle of the paragraph.
  • Removed New DEFAULT label - The Revision History lists having added a new Label DEFAULT. Which is not actually added anyhwhere in the document. I see that it was there in an earlier draft, so I assume it was decided to drop the label, and it's just the Revision History which needs to be adjusted to match.
  • ENGMARK coordinate system - Talked about it in the past, the changed definition of the ENGMARK coordinate system origin is highly problematic. From the previous revision I see that the definition changed from trying to define it on black center to trying to define it on block center, this is irrelevant for the practical objections and has the exact same problem.
    Again, there are plenty of labs who, for quite a lot of years now, rely on the fact that the coordinate source for engraving (using ENGMARK or ENGMASK records) is ER, not SB. (The Reference point for an Engraving operation being the Engraving Reference).
    Engraving is being decentered/offset from the Block center in plenty of labs by using SBBC__ + BCER__ records.
    Using the exact same set of job records, a change from 3.12 to 3.13 should absolutely not cause the engraving to move. It even more certainly should not cause the engraving to move to where the lab does not expect, or want, it to be.
    This definition expansion isn't clarifying things, it's changing things. And in a way that will have clear and significant and unwanted impacts on labs. I absolutely don't see any benefit whatsoever to doing it, just many downsides. Why change the origin of an already widely-in-use label?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

  1. A small 'flaw' in my point of view is that the indicated page numbers does not correspond with the pdf page numbers. For example, the page where "1" is written on (FOREWORD) is page 4 of the pdf document.This is sometimes confusing when refferering a page to a colleague or customer.
  2. Point 5.12 POWER MAP DATASETS: We recently added the labels M/O/H for the fourth field (5.12.2.4). We may need to add them in DCS 3.13 Standard => @Thomas Zangerle?

I'm glad to see that my remarks about ENGLOC and TOLx/TOLVx have been accepted 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SJO - ENGLOC seems to have not been changed from previous versions, it's still type Literal rather than changed to Literal[;] as you suggested. Are you looking at the same document that has been posted here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SJO said:

Hi,

  1. A small 'flaw' in my point of view is that the indicated page numbers does not correspond with the pdf page numbers. For example, the page where "1" is written on (FOREWORD) is page 4 of the pdf document.This is sometimes confusing when refferering a page to a colleague or customer.

Unfortunately that is just the nature of things.  Typically title pages and tables of content are not numbered so you will end up with discrepancies between the PDF page numbering and the document and TOC page numbers.  As long as the TOC matches the page numbers on the document I hope people can find stuff.  I don't really think that is something we can fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.