Minutes of DEX3Meeting 03, World trade Centre, Stockholm

21-22 June 2005

List of attendees

Phil RutlandUK MoD

Leif TonningDNV

Denny RaitzBoeing Company

Göran RydmanSaab

Rob BrownLSC Group

Sean BarkerBAE SYSTEMS

Leif GyllströmAerotech Telub (Wednesday)

Apologies

Tom MalloyPiper Group

Introduction & Aim

  1. To develop the detailed requirements to a point where the modellers can begin modelling.

21st& 22nd June

  1. The minutes of meeting 02 were read and accepted.After reviewing the actions it was agreed that action:-
  2. 2.1 is;‘on-going’;
  3. 2.2 is;‘complete’ as this can now be taken as normal business;
  4. 2.3is ‘complete’ as it has been overtaken by action 2.5;
  5. 2.4is;‘on-going’;
  6. 2.5 is:‘complete’ as this was discussed at this meeting.;
  7. 1.1a is ‘complete’ as this can now been taken as normal business;
  8. 1.4 is ‘complete’ as this can now been taken as normal business;
  9. 1.6 is ‘on-going’ as this was discussed at this meeting. The reference data requirements will be taken ‘off-line’ (see action 3.3)
  1. Phil presented a diagram that tried to show how he thought that DEX3 might be developed and accessed from different perspectives. Phil believed that we may have missed a step in our development of scope for DEX3. We identified a high level scope and then proceeded to produce detailed requirements; without seeming to consider the types of usage for the information. It is possible that any user/process analysis of task information needs might influence the design of the DEX.
  2. On the second day Denny presented a diagram that started to show the link between users and information within DEX3. Whilst both Phil’s and Denny’s diagrams were for discussion only, Denny agreed to take his user analysis forward.
  3. The bulk of the meeting was taken up with the continued development of requirements. We considered the comments provided by domain experts;
  4. Rob Brown – Rob presented his draft mapping between DEX3 and S100D. After discussing some of the items it was clear that the task of checking his mapping would be long and would require some detailed S1000D knowledge. It was agreed that Rob would check findings ‘off-line’ and consider how the potential users of the task information would be allocated.
  5. Tam Molloy – Phil presented Tam’s comments.Changes were made to the DEX3 requirements as appeared appropriate.
  6. John Lawless – Phil went through John Lawless’s comments.Changes were made to the DEX3 requirements as appeared appropriate.
  7. Denny Raitz – Denny went through the ‘Task Declaration part of Mil STD 87269 and changes were made to the DEX3 requirements as necessary.
  8. Def Stan 00-60 C Tables –The group went through all the task related elements of Def Stan 00-60and assigned these to the requirements where appropriate. The results from the UK MoD’s ILS experts’ analysis will be included when available.
  9. Norwegian Frigate project requirements – These were considered and changesto the DEX3 requirements were made as necessary.
  10. The group considered the Norwegian Frigate project’s reference data requirements. We started to annotate the document but decided that it would be best to take the discussion ‘off-line’ between the Frigate project and the DEX3 modellers. It was clear from the debate that we need to create a ‘reference data’ team under the TOG.
  11. Leif Tonning asked if the modellers could develop an example DEX3 based on the Norwegian Frigate data so that their actual implementation can match the DEX as close as possible. The modellers agreed that they should develop an example but probably from the Bike Data and the Frigate data is there was time prior to the next meeting.
  12. Because the Glasgow meeting was possibly the last chance to influence the contents of DEX3 it was agreed that we should encourage as many domain experts as possible to attend the next meeting in Glasgow.
  13. Leif Gyllstrom suggested that we should try and ‘sell’ DEX3 to the S1000D community. Denny suggested that we might be able to present our work to the next S1000D User Forum in Munich 5th – 7th Oct.
  14. Denny proposed that we should also present our work to the US DoD. It was proposed that the Nov meeting should be held in Washington to provide an opportunity to encourage US participation in PLCS.
  15. Leif Gyllstrom asked that we provide the introduction and scope material for the DEX.

AOB

  1. None.

Action No. / Description / Status
3.1 / Respond to Tam, John & Trine on results of comment review / Phil
3.2 / Undertake a user analysis of task information requirements / Denny
3.3 / Discuss set up of ‘reference data’ team within the TOG / Phil
3.4 / Consider the reference data requirements of the Norwegian Frigates data / Leif G, Leif T, Sean
3.5 / Find Glasgow venue and encourage maximum attendance / Phil
3.6 / Add PLCS presentation to S1000D User Forum / Denny
3.7 / Present DEX3 to US delegates (including Lou Kratz?) / Denny
3.8 / Create example DEX3 base on Bike Data prior to Glasgow meeting. Then consider Norwegian Frigate data / Leif G, Leif T, Sean
3.9 / Provide the introduction and scope material for the DEX. / Phil

Previous Actions

Action No. / Description / Status
2.1 / ‘map’ the scope of DEX3 to the approved AAM / Leif G
On-going
2.2 / Check current DEX3 detailed requirements for completeness (S1000D, LSAR, UK MoD WSA Task DB, etc…) / Complete
2.3 / Request relationship mapping between DEXs / Complete
2.4 / Detail reporting requirements / Denny
On-going
2.5 / Find and update DEX relationship diagram / Complete
1.1a / Identify anyone else who must be a cc addressees for correspondence / Complete
1.4 / Check the relationships between DEX3 and other standards and highlight issues resulting from this analysis / Complete
1.6 / Review the Frigate Project DEX3 reference data (also supplied by Trine) and consider potential sources for that data / Complete