Proposal 8 - Open issue - Codeextension in Channel Filenames

[derpmann]

Is it allowed to use <testnumber>_<channelcode>.mmd for channel file names if only local transducer channels are exchanged?

In proposal 8 the following specification is used in RED A 1.3.4:

Allowed filenames are built by the <testnumber>, the <channelcode> defined in the related electronic document Channel Codes and the <codeextension>. The recommended <codeextension> (see 2.16) for transducer channel files with a local reference system according to SAEJ211 is “LOC_T”. If no other <codeextension> is used “_LOC_T” can be omitted.

Problems:

• 1) Channel filenames can occur in two different types.

• 2) Channel filenames have to be changed, if channels with other Codeextension (Reference Coordinate System or Origin) are added

• 3) If the Codeextension don't have to be ommitted, for most of the exchanges dispensable information has to be created.

Solutions:

• A) We ignore the problems 1 and 2 and accept the proposal 8

• B) We ignore the problem 3 and ommit the last sentence of the proposal 8 specification

• C) I describe another solution

My preference:
I prefer solution B

[Paul Wellicome]

Open issue – code extension in channel filenames

_LOC_T : local co-ordinates, transducer channel. This includes channels calculated from transducer. We revisited the option of omitting this for transducer-only data transfer. We decided to adopt solution A [We ignore the problems 1 and 2 and accept the proposal 8] with a change to RED-A. We decided that LOC_T will always be omitted and therefore will be deleted from the examples in table 2.16.