Proposal 8 - Open issue - Codeextension in Channel Filenames

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

Proposal 8 - Open issue - Codeextension in Channel Filenames

Post by 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
User avatar
Paul Wellicome
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:20 pm
Company: HORIBA MIRA Ltd
Location: HORIBA MIRA Ltd, England

Re: Proposal 8 - Open issue - Codeextension in Channel Filenames

Post by 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.
Locked

Return to “MME 2.0 discussion”