View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0009616Part 81: UAFX Connecting Devices and Information ModelSpecpublic2024-07-09 21:03
ReporterBrian Batke Assigned To 
PrioritynormalSeveritymajorReproducibilityhave not tried
Status newResolutionopen 
Summary0009616: Not clear how to link preconfigured published & subscribed data sets as required pairs

A controller or a device might have preconfigured published and subscribed data sets that it wants to have paired together, so that you must connect to an input/output pair. And there could be multiple pairs that the user could select from. This would be common for the device case, but also could be used for controllers where you have a defined in/out interface to some element of functionality in the controller application.

In that case, it is not clear how would such a pairing be represented in the information model. One way to do it might be to have a FunctionalEntity or Sub-FunctionalEntity with only those preconfigured publish and subscribed data sets listed in the Publisher and SubscriberCapabilities. The InputData and OutputData folders also have Publisher/SubscriberCapabilities, but there doesn’t seem to be a way to link published & subscribed DataSets that would be in Input/Output folders.

Creating many FEs in order to provide input/output pairings would seem to be a lot of overhead. In any case, the spec should have some guidance on this.

TagsNo tags attached.


Paul Hunkar

2024-07-09 01:59

manager   ~0021423

Is this really an Information Model issue - I would think it is more of a descriptor issue, since the ConnectionManager is who create the connection (and the pairings). You could probably specify this in more then one manner and I don't think we should mandate any specific manner. in addition to sub-FunctionalEntities as you described. A very simple manner which would easy for a engineer to understand is a naming convention for the preconfigured sets. The naming conventions could also apply to sub-folders in the input/output groups. Another option could be to have ControlGroups (which is what they were defined for - grouping of inputs and outputs that should go together - Along with any configuration that also is part of the group).

we could add an examples in one of the Annexes for this type of configuration.

Brian Batke

2024-07-09 21:03

developer   ~0021436

Yes, we should discuss further. Since the descriptor is supposed to reflect the information model, I don't think it's strictly a descriptor issue. I don't see how ControlGroups would solve this, as it really has no notion of inputs and outputs. What the application engineer would want to see is the engineering tool presenting a list of input/output pairs for selection, from which the associated application data structures can be created, and from which the EstablishConnections method can be created with the correct inputs & outputs. Relying on a naming convention seems undesirable b/c the tool may have no knowledge of that being used, and the AC would reject a connection that asked for the wrong pairings.

There may be more than one way to solve it, but it needs to be solved in a way that a tool can be driven off of the descriptor and present allowable options to the user to select.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2024-06-20 21:00 Brian Batke New Issue
2024-07-09 01:59 Paul Hunkar Note Added: 0021423
2024-07-09 21:03 Brian Batke Note Added: 0021436