Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2011-03-28

Meeting called to order: 11:05 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Adam Ley (left 11:58)
Ian McIntosh
Eric Cormack
Richard Foster
Brian Erickson
Carl Walker
Tim Pender (joined 11:07)
Heiko Ehrenberg (joined 11:10)
Brad Van Treuren (joined 11:24)

Apologies:
Patrick Au
Peter Horwood

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

03/07/2011 minutes:

  • Draft circulated on 03/07/2011.
  • No amendments noted.
  • Motion to accept by Heiko, seconded by Carl, no objections or abstentions.

03/14/2011 minutes:

  • Draft circulated on 03/14/2011.
  • No amendments noted.
  • Motion to accept by Tim, 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.
  • Carl/Brad: Get annotated keyword worksheets to Ian by Wednesday Close of Business. - Ongoing
  • Ian: Review first 1000 words on keyword list. - COMPLETE

4. Discussion Topics

  1. Identification of key "Take Away Points"
    - Progress on review of past minutes
    - Review of down-selected keywords
    • [Ian] I went through the first block of word - I guess it was really 998 words rather than a 1000.
    • {Ian shared the keyword spreadsheet}
    • [Ian] Since the review we did for the 'D's was much the same as for the 'Q's I only used 'Q' this time.
       
    • 2-wire, 4-wire
    • [Ian] You could also add 5-wire I suppose. Would we use these expression in a search? Or are we more likely to wrap these up in IEEE Std 1149.1 or .7 references?
    • [Adam] I would tend to think so. These seem more descriptors than actual keywords; they appear only once in search results, which seems to confirm this assertion.
    • [Ian] I agree. So, we'll toss these.
    • {Toss}
       
    • Abstraction
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Ian] Abstraction is being used in a variety of ways. Looking at the search results, 'abstraction' by itself doesn't seem to be very useful.
    • [Eric] I'd agree with that.
    • {Toss}
       
    • Alcatel-Lucent
    • [Ian] We previously said that company names such as for IC providers or tools providers would be useful keywords to be kept. There was a concern that some might be omitted.
    • [Eric] Either we leave them all in or we take them all out. We know that Asset has useful references as will Goepel and the others; Firecron will be in there, we just haven't got that far. Alcatel-Lucent is another name. It'll help with research.
    • [Ian] In the end, whether a term is used or not will depend on there being a useful Key point that requires it.
    • {Keep}
       
    • Ambiguity
    • [Ian] I marked some words with comments on what I thought may be more appropriate: Here I though 'ambiguity group' would be more useful than simply 'ambiguity'.
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Ian] Indeed, 'ambiguity group' seems to be the usage.
    • {Brad joined}
    • [Heiko] What would you actually be looking for with this?
    • [Ian] I think that's really my question here.
    • [Brad] I think this is aliasing of failures. It might show up in a search for Field Replaceable Unit, but that's just a gut feeling.
    • [Eric] Can we look at the youngest entry in the search?
    • [Ian] OK. It doesn't look particularly helpful.
    • [Eric] No.
    • {Toss}
       
    • Analysis
    • [Ian] It's more likely that 'Root Cause Analysis' or 'Failure Mode Analysis' would be used.
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Ian] RCA and FMA seem to about the only usage.
    • [Brad] I think you need to have another word around 'analysis' to make it useful.
    • {Toss}
       
    • API
    • [Brad] We had several discussion where an Application Programming Interface would have been important, especially in talking about the software stack.
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Ian] Not a lot of references, but they are probably meaningful.
    • [Brad] I think it's important, but needs to be expanded.
    • {Exchange Application Programming Interface for API}
       
    • Arbitration
    • [Tim] I think this must be where we discussed multiple hosts.
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Brad] That's what it looks like.
    • [Ian] The discussion seems to center on ATCA?
    • [Ian] This seems like it should be an important keyword, but there is only one hit for it in the search.
    • [Brad] It's a concept we have to be aware of: There is arbitration at gateways, arbitration at instrument registers. My inclination would be to keep this.
    • {Keep}
       
    • ASCII
    • [Ian] The next few search terms are all abbreviations we may or may not want to keep; ASCII for example - I don't think is should be a very important keyword.
    • [Brad] It is probably becoming less important, since more tools are using Unicode nowadays.
    • [Adam] It seems to me that 'ASCII' is being used as a proxy for something more general, that being 'text'.
    • [Ian] I'm inclined to agree.
    • [Brad] I move that we strike this.
    • {Toss}
       
    • ASIC
    • [Ian] This opens the doors to everything else, like CPLD, FPGA...
    • [Brad] ... soft cores, etc. I can see the issue for FPGAs where you need to note post configuration states, but I'm not convinced 'ASIC' is something we need to keep.
    • [Heiko] We can always add it later.
    • [Brad] I move to strike it.
    • {Toss}
       
    • ATCA
    • [Ian] Much of our early discussion was based around ATCA. Is that something we need to be pointing back to, given that ATCA never went down the SJTAG road?
    • [Brad] I'd rather we referred to microTCA instead, since it did adopt JTAG.
    • [Brad] Back in maybe 2005, Ben proposed that we look at ATCA as a benchmark of what systems were looking for.
    • [Ian] Is there any value in the more generic term 'TCA'?
    • [Brad] 'TCA' is probably overused.
    • {Exchange microTCA for ATCA}
       
    • ATE
    • [Ian] I'm guessing this will be too general.
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Ian] We're getting a lot of partial word matches here.
    • [Brad] I wonder why it would choose to do that?
    • [Ian] Hmm... Let's look at the page; maybe there's a full word match elsewhere on the page. Ah! There is. So once it knows the word is on the page, the extract might show partial matches.
    • [Ian] But neither of the search results seem very useful.
    • [Brad/Eric] I think we can strike it.
    • {Toss}
       
    • ATPG
    • [Ian] This may be slightly more useful.
    • {Queried in site search engine}
    • [Eric] You even get hits in the forum pages for 'ATPG' as a search term.
    • [Brad] I'd be fine with keeping it, given the number of hits we get for this. It does give a pointer to where there's discussion of automated generation of tests.
    • {Exchange Automated Test Program Generation for ATPG}
       
    • [Ian] We're out of time, but this is probably a good natural break point - we've reached the end of the 'a's, beginning of the 'b's. It's also around the 500 word point.
    • [Ian] I've now got Carl's block the merge in.
    • [Carl] I'll have another quick pass at it and fix one or two things I've noticed. It may save you a little time.
    • [Ian] OK, I'll wait until you've done that.

5. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • [Heiko] The site search engine may highlight partial word matches in the displayed extract, however there will be a full word match elsewhere on the page.

6. Schedule next meeting

Next Meeting:
April 4th (11:00 AM EDT, 4:00 PM BST)

Schedule for April 2011:
11th, 18th, 25th.

7. Any other business

None.

8. Review new action items

None.

9. Adjourn

Eric moved to adjourn at 12:02 PM EDT, seconded by Brian.

Thanks to Heiko for supplying his notes from this meeting.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh