ExchangeSet - S100_DatasetDiscoveryMetadata - EditionNumber

[RohdeBSH]

Hi All,

In S-102 is the "editionNumber" in S100_DatasetDiscoveryMetadata is mandatory. In S-100 ed. 5.2.0 it isn't. If there is a need for an "editionNumber", why it isn't in the HDF5-File itself? Obviously the "editionNumber" is not needed for all S-100 Products, that's the reason it is optional in S-100. We got an issue Date and an optional issue Time, that can be used in HDF5 directly and in S100_DatasetDiscoveryMetadata. I personally believe that issue date and time are sufficient for handling S-102 products. S-102 does not follow the same product life cycle like ENC (S-101). We have no updates and Reissues that justify the need of an edition number. If an S-102 product has a newer issue data and time as the already installed product, it replaces the installed product. So, the combination of issue date and time creates a unique identifier for die version (edition) of an S-102 product.

My proposal is to define "editionNumber" as optional, with a note to use issue time if products are released more than once a day.

https://github.com/iho-ohi/S-102-Product-Specification/blob/cffb0c33b6873d9a0ebcb61117a0e130c56d1c64/sources/3.0.0/sections/12-metadata.adoc?plain=1#L380C1-L387C1

[skjeves]

Although edition number is not needed for all S-100 products, service providers (like PRIMAR) currently implementing support for S-100 services are dependent on edition numbering for their licensing solutions. PRIMAR for example, offers products for a limited period of time, like 3, 6, 9 and 12 months subscription period. S-102 is one of the IHO defined Phase 1 products. If S-102 now, so close to the provision of an operational edition 3.0.0, would remove the provision of edition numbering, that would cause severe problems for existing implementation.

PRIMAR strongly recommend to NOT define editionNumber" as optional.

[RohdeBSH]

PRIMAR for example, offers products for a limited period of time, like 3, 6, 9 and 12 months subscription period.

You have often mentioned your subscription period as a reason for various things. By no stretch of the imagination do I see any connection between the subscription period and the edition number. Unfortunately, I have no knowledge of your processes. But I would think that the subscription would be even easier without an edition number. Because then you can simply compare the subscription end date with the issueDate and/or issueTime of the S-102 product.

[skjeves]

What I am trying to emphasize is that the edition numbering is crucial to certain part of our implementation of S-100 services. We are expecting S-100 compatible production software to be able building the Exchange Catalogue structure and populating the CATALOG.XML, and the CATALOG.XML contains information for service delivery/service discovery purposes. We make use of this information in our S-100 implementation.

I am not saying your suggested approach would not work, but so close to the operational version I think it would be unfortunate to go ahead with this suggested change, without having tested it properly and not having the time now to test it, (ref minutes from the last PT meeting stating: Final edition 3.0.0 to be ready at the end of June).

Also, for service providers in the process of developing support for several of the S-100 Phase 1 products, it would be unfortunate if one of them now suddenly, only weeks before completion, takes a different turn than the others on this topic. And it would also be an inconsistent approach compared to the other HDF5 specifications S-104/S-111.

[PaulAusHydro]

Australia supports the proposal for edition date to remain optional for S102 products and is an aspect of S109 production Australia envisages using.

Our considerations on this include:

• in house product management systems being configured to use Edition numbering (noting updates are not relevant for S102 products)
• edition numbering of products being an easy way for mariners to keep track of product versions, in a way that they are used to with the S-57/101 products. So there is a degree of familiarity in products that is likely to be beneficial to the users in a navigation context.

[hasel001]

1. In the published Ed. 2.2.0, according to Table S100_DatasetDiscoveryMetadata parameters, editionNumber and issueDate are both mandatory.
2. In the Developing branch of this repo (which represents the to-be-published Ed. 3.0.0), the values are again both mandatory.
3. The discussion at S-102PT18 resolved to take no further action on editionNumber for Ed. 3.0.0 and to take the matter up again when we begin work on the next version.

@PaulAusHydro Can you please clarify Australia's position? Thanks!

[PaulAusHydro]

Was just expressing our position that we find the edition number a useful descriptive attribute for products. If it is either mandatory or optional that is fine...current situation as you have summarized is fine. Thanks for the reply Lawrence.

[RohdeBSH]

S102PT19 requested a summary comment.

We have reached an agreement on this point that everything will remain as it is for S-102 ed. 3.0.0. However, the topic should be discussed again in the S100WG for the S-100 ed 6.0.0. The BSH will prepare a corresponding document for the S100WG.