Subject: Re: MSC-News: Future of Z.120
From: Rick Reed TSE (rickreed#tseng.co.uk)
Date: Sun Jul 11 2004 - 14:47:34 GMT
The originator of this message is responsible for its content.
----From Rick Reed TSE <rickreed#tseng.co.uk> to mscnews -----
Non-member submission from [Jervis Clive-CCJ011 <Clive.Jervis#motorola.com>]
Now added to the list.
To: mscnews#sdl-forum.org forwarded by Rick Reed
Subject: RE: Future of Z.120
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:22:47 +0100
I think that MSC Connectors is something worth pursuing - particularly as a
means of removing gates.
I think that timing constraints can be extended to incorporate "jitter"
I would be against changing the MSC semantics, but having a new formalism
would be good so long as it is complete, although I think having an approach
common with other languages, particularly SDL, would be most preferred. The
problem with published alternative representations is that they only
consider the core of the language, and in my opinion cannot be reasonable
extended to cover the complete language. The devil is in the details.
UML profiles are on the plan!
I think that the standard would benefit from being re-organised, as new
chapters have been added as new concepts have been added. I think that a
more logical presentation of the language can be given, which could also
result in a cleaner grammar.
On the whole, since tool vendors have not really adopted MSC 2000, I would
think that changes to the language should be kept small.
I would be willing to review contributions and make modest contributions to
----End text from Rick Reed TSE <rickreed#tseng.co.uk> to mscnews -----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Wed Jun 19 2013 - 13:16:38 GMT