Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2011-03-07

Meeting called to order: 11:07 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Eric Cormack Ian McIntosh Brad Van Treuren Patrick Au Peter Horwood Heiko Ehrenberg (left 11:43) Adam Ley (left 11:52) Carl Walker Richard Foster Brian Erickson (joined 11:30)

{Peter introduced Richard and Ian welcomed him to the Group.}

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

02/28/2011 minutes:

  • Draft circulated on 02/28/2011.
  • No amendments noted.
  • Eric moved to approve, seconded by Heiko, no objections or abstentions.

3. Review old action items

  • Adam proposed we cover the following at the next meeting:
    • Establish consensus on goals and constraints
    • What are we trying to achieve?
    • What restrictions are we faced with?
  • All: do we feel SJTAG is requiring a new test language to obtain the information needed for diagnostics or is STAPL/SVF sufficient? see also Gunnar's presentation, in particular the new information he'd be looking for in a test language
    (http://files.sjtag.org/Ericsson-Nov2006/STAPL-Ideas.pdf)
  • Ian/Brad: Condense gateway comments and queries into a concise set of questions. - Ongoing
  • All: Forward text file to Ian containing keywords from review of meeting minutes. - Ongoing.
  • Ian: Publish the Newsletter as soon as possible. - COMPLETE
  • Carl/Brad: Get annotated keyword worksheets to Ian by Wednesday Close of Business. - Ongoing
  • Ian: Recirculate collated keyword worksheet to group by Thursday Close of Business. - COMPLETE

4. Discussion Topics

  1. ITC 2011
    - Posters
    • [Ian] I could perhaps have mentioned this last week under AOB, since I had the information, but it slipped my mind.
    • [Ian] The call for posters for ITC has gone out. There's no immediate rush as the dates for submissions are April 1st to May 16th.
    • [Ian] In any case, from the discussions last year I believe it is still Bill Eklow's intent to run a joint poster for the Working Groups again this year, unless anyone can tell me any different.
    • [Brad] I haven't heard anything to the contrary.
    • [Ian] Bill seemed quite enthusiastic about how well it worked last time.
    • [Carl] I haven't heard anything either, but then I haven't spoken to Bill for some time.
  2. Identification of key "Take Away Points"
    - Progress on review of past minutes
    - Review of down-selected keywords
    • [Ian] I sent out the merged list on Thursday evening, so everyone should have had a chance to at least have a quick look over the list.
    • [Ian] What I propose to do is take the "toss" and "keep" suggestions as read unless there are specific objections. That way we can concentrate on a much smaller list. Does anyone object to that process?
    • [Patrick] No.
    • [Heiko] We can always add them back in later if we need to.
    • [Ian] Exactly.
    • {Ian shared his keyword spreadsheet}
    • [Ian] I've filtered this to the 'D's (Don't know).
       
    • DTIF
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Ian] Back in 2009, we discussed DTIF in one meeting - This was a discussion on diagnostic data formats.
    • [Brad] Yes, it's IEEE 1445.
    • [Ian] It look relevant. Do we include it?
    • [Brad] My concern is that if we include DTIF then we need to include all the other referenced standards.
    • [Eric] But maybe that's not a bad thing. I think it would make sense to include standard references.
    • [Brad] It will be difficult to pick a consistent search term format for standard references such as this (e.g. just the number, or with IEEE, or just the "also known as" term?)
    • [Heiko] Later on we have Dot 1, Dot 4, etc. I would prefer that we use "IEEE Std 1445" instead of DTIF or Dot 1.
    • [Brad] Perhaps we should generalize this more and use "format" as a keyword term that includes DTIF and other similar keywords.
    • [Ian] Does anyone have strong feelings about this?
    • [Heiko] I like the idea.
    • [Patrick] Works for me.
    • [Brad] Should I make a motion to that regard?
    • [Ian] I think so.
    • [Brad] I move to represent DTIF as part of the more general search term "data formats".
    • {Patrick seconds, no objections -> motion carried}
       
    • DTS
    • [Ian] OK, the next term is DTS, debug and test system.
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Adam] Can I just add that this should more properly be defined as "Debug and Test System" - This derives from 1149.7.
    • [Patrick] If this is a Asset term, is there maybe an IP problem?
    • [Adam] It's not an Asset term, it's from the standard.
    • [Brad] I would hope that this would be covered under a reference to IEEE 1149.7
    • {Brian joined}
    • [Ian] Any objections to covering DTS under IEEE 1149.7?
    • [Patrick] No.
       
    • Edge
    • [Ian] Next is "edge".
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Ian] This appears quite a few times in search results, including as part of "knowledge". I think edge by itself isn’t very meaningful as a search term, it would be more useful as part of a more specific search term, such as "board edge".
    • [Brad] I think we should keep "edge" as a keyword. There's also the system edge; it is part of our domain, we are connecting things to the edges of our modules.
    • [Ian] Any objections to keeping "edge" as a search term?
    • {none}
    • [Ian] OK, "edge" is a keep.
       
    • File
    • [Ian] Next is "file", found in 22 instances.
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Brad] My first feeling was that it was unnecessary, but then I noticed that it appears quite often and wondered if there was something of value in context, so I marked it D for now, so we could take a look.
    • [Heiko] Perhaps "file" should be part of the broader search term "documentation"?
    • [Ian] File by itself seems too general to be useful as a search term. Things like "log file" or "BSDL file" are more useful.
    • [Carl] At which point "file" becomes superfluous.
    • [Ian] Sounds like we tend to agree that "file" is a toss, at least for now - we can always add it back in as part of a more specific search term later.
    • [Brad] File on it's own seems useless.
    • [Ian] So that becomes a "toss".
       
    • Firecron
    • [Ian] This may be of specific interest to a couple of people on the call!
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Brad] I think it can be valuable to keep some of the vendor names as search terms. They may useful as examples of particular things we were discussing.
    • [Ian] Looking at the search results, that seems to be borne out.
    • {Heiko left}
    • [Brad] I think these vendor names are useful; not referencing the products, but the vendor. But my concern is that we may miss somebody out, and so misrepresent them.
    • [Ian] Well, I think most vendor names that we've discussed, like Asset, Goepel, JTAG, TI, etc., will come up in the keyword list, so I don't think we'll miss anyone.
    • [Brad] OK, and we can review the list before finalizing it. I'll move that vendor names can be used as keywords.
    • {Seconded by Eric, no objections -> motion carried}
       
    • Flavors
    • [Ian] I have a feeling "flavors" isn't going to stay!
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Ian] In that context, "colors" would have worked equally.
    • [Brad] I'm inclined to say we remove it.
    • [Ian] Yes, toss.
       
    • Focus
    • [Ian] A large number of search engine hits for "focus".
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Brad] Looks like a toss.
    • [Ian] On the basis of those returns, I don't see much to warrant keeping it.
    • {Brad moves to toss "Focus", Eric seconds}
       
    • [Ian] That takes us on the the much larger list of 'Q's.
    • {Selection filter changed}
    • [Ian] I probably marked a number of entries as 'Q' where I would have merged then with another word that I was proposing to keep. That's not something that will be readily apparent here.
    • [Eric] Surely we don't need "dangerous"?
    • [Ian] I was thinking about dangerous conditions on a board.
    • [Eric] The "Dot" entries; we already said we'd cover those with full IEEE standard references.
    • [Ian] Yes, but I need to go through the list in a structured way, rather than just dipping into the easier bits, else we'll lose track of where we are.
    • [Eric] OK.
    • [Ian] Brad has a shorter list of 'Q's. Maybe we can start on that, and I'll need to revisit my list for next week. {ACTION}
    • [Brad] I had the advantage of doing my list after we decided on using only the singular form of words.
       
    • Elements
    • [Brad] This one was misspelt as "elments". Element and elements are also there.
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Ian] I'm seeing Bypass Element and Data Element. Those look like more useful terms than just "element".
    • [Eric] But what about item 14 there? The "1149.1 element"?
    • [Brad] Yes, I was just looking at that too.
    • [Ian] OK, I think we can dispense with elements and the misspelt version.
    • [Brad] I was wondering about whether we'd find the instance where the word is misspelt.
    • [Ian] We won't be searching on the original texts, but on the extracted key takeaway, so hopefully typos will be fixed in the extracts.
    • [Brad] OK toss "elements" and keep "element".
    • [Ian] Well, we're out of time there.

5. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

None.

6. Schedule next meeting

Next Meeting:
March 14th

Schedule for March 2011:
21st, 28th.

7. Any other business

None.

8. Review new action items

  • Ian: Revisit and rationalize the 'Q' markers in keyword list.

9. Adjourn

Eric moved to adjourn at 12:03 PM EST, seconded by Brian.

Thanks to Heiko for his additional notes.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh