draft version of the MME 2.0 maindocument

that which may, or may not, be in version 2.0!
Locked
derpmann
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:32 am
Location: Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg - Germany

draft version of the MME 2.0 maindocument

Post by derpmann »

The result from the discussion within the MME TaskForce is the attached
draft version of the main document for the MME 2.0 data format:
ISO_TS13499_V2_draft_20110921.pdf
Attachments
ISO_TS13499_V2_Draft_20110921.pdf
draft version updated after TF netmeeting 23.09.2011
(260.85 KiB) Downloaded 601 times
2010-10-19_Changes_from_MME_2.0p8_to_2.0Draft.pdf
history information updated after TF netmeeting 08.09.2010
(22.16 KiB) Downloaded 547 times
ISO_TS13499_V2_Draft_20101019.pdf
draft version updated after TF netmeeting 08.09.2010
(53.32 KiB) Downloaded 599 times
2010-05-03_Changes_from_MME_2.0p8_to_2.0Draft.pdf
history information
(20.83 KiB) Downloaded 658 times
ISO_TS13499_V2_Draft_20100503.pdf
draft version
(53.32 KiB) Downloaded 659 times
Last edited by derpmann on Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:27 pm, edited 4 times in total.
ucarstensen
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:50 am
Company: Faurecia automotive seating GmbH
Location: Germany Hannover
Contact:

Re: draft version of the MME 2.0 maindocument

Post by ucarstensen »

Hello,

I have a question about the convention of testnumbers.
Point 4.4 (File convention) reserved the ASCII 95 for the seperation of filenames. Also it defines the testnumber is free.

We use testnumbers like xx_xxxx_xxxx , and I hope it's still allowed. Otherwise we get in trouble with our database.

Best regards


Uwe Carstensen
Uwe Carstensen

FAS R&D - Global Validation Services

Faurecia Automotive Seating
Garbsener Landstraße 7
30419 Hannover

Germany

uwe.carstensen@faurecia.com
DiVe
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:14 am
Company: IAT mbh
Location: IAT Berlin - Germany
Contact:

Re: draft version of the MME 2.0 maindocument

Post by DiVe »

Dear Uwe,
I expect your naming convention might get in conflict with the special naming convention we suggest to introduce in the V2.x. Here the full channel name will consist of the test name the channel code and optionally the reference system and the origin:
<testnumber>_<channelcode>_<refsystem>_<origin>.mmd

As you can see here: http://www.iso-mme.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=152
some parts can be omitted in the "standard case".

Also you will find this principle in other files like the comment files in the different subdirectories:
<testnumber>_<subdirectory-name>.txt

Therefore we implement a separator character and we opt for the "_". So we need to discuss if a software handling the 2.0 data can still identify the different parts may starting from the end of a filename. So that the "_" separator is still allowed in <testnumber> part.

I will discuss internally with my colleagues and come back later. May their are some other comments from software suppliers or users about this issue?

Bye,
Dirk
DiVe
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:14 am
Company: IAT mbh
Location: IAT Berlin - Germany
Contact:

Re: draft version of the MME 2.0 maindocument

Post by DiVe »

Dear Uwe,
We discussed you issue on the Task Force Metting and we will change the main document to allow also the "_" character in <testname> (respectively <testnumber>).

As the major test descriptor file (<testnumber>.mme ) always consists of the full test name a software algorithm can identify this part in all other files. So the "_" character will be allowed.

Kind regards,
Dirk
Locked

Return to “MME 2.0 discussion”