relaton / relaton-3gpp

MIT License
2 stars 0 forks source link

Fix parsing of "editorial group" #6

Closed ronaldtse closed 2 years ago

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

From: https://github.com/ietf-ribose/relaton-data-3gpp/issues/5

@strogonoff:


Example items:


This is actually the meeting ID from the database, it is not THE editorial group itself, but it is editorial group information. It shouldn't be broken down, e.g. "C1-T2" is correct without splitting it.

Screenshot 2021-12-17 at 10 15 40 AM
andrew2net commented 2 years ago

@ronaldtse they have already split in DB:

{:Type=>"TR",
 :Number=>"33.879",
 :"For publication"=>"0",
 :Title=>"Study on security enhancements for Mission Critical Push To Talk (MCPTT) over LTE",
 :"former WG"=>nil,
 :"WG prime"=>"S3",
 :"WG other"=>nil,
...

{:Type=>"TS",
 :Number=>"29.163",
 :"For publication"=>"1",
 :Title=>"Interworking between the IP Multimedia (IM) Core Network (CN) subsystem and Circuit Switched (CS) networks",
 :"former WG"=>nil,
 :"WG prime"=>"C3",
 :"WG other"=>nil,
...

{:Type=>"TS",
 :Number=>"27.007",
 :"For publication"=>"1",
 :Title=>"AT command set for User Equipment (UE)",
 :"former WG"=>"T2",
 :"WG prime"=>"C1",
 :"WG other"=>"-",
...

Sope specs look like this:

{:Type=>"TS",
 :Number=>"01.02",
 :"For publication"=>"1",
 :Title=>"General Description of a GSM Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN)",
 :"former WG"=>"SMG01  /  SMG02  /  SMG03",
 :"WG prime"=>"S1",
 :"WG other"=>"GP / CP",
...

Therefore we can't just join them, can we?

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

@andrew2net sorry, yes you are right. These WG codes are split as "prime" and "other" components in the Specs_GSM+3G table.

It's just so strange the WG other can be just -...

Screenshot 2021-12-17 at 10 58 06 PM
ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

Maybe you should rename them:

  "editorialgroup": [
      {
          "name": "C1",
          "type": "wg-prime"
      },
      {
          "name": "-",
          "type": "wg-other"
      },
      {
          "name": "T2",
          "type": "wg-former"
      }
  ],
ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

For the content of "former WG" being S1 / SMG01 / T2 / SMG04, it should be something like:

"wg-former": [
[
      {
          "name": "S1",
          "type": "wg-prime"
      },
      {
          "name": "SMG01",
          "type": "wg-other"
      }
],
[
      {
          "name": "T2",
          "type": "wg-prime"
      },
      {
          "name": "SMG04",
          "type": "wg-other"
      }
],
]

But many of them don't have both components (e.g. SPAN3 / N4 / SMG03?).

It's too inconsistent, so we might as well not parse "former WG".

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

Maybe - just means NULL and we just drop that.

andrew2net commented 2 years ago

Yes, I think - should be dropped. Will do it. Concerning nested workgroups "wg-former": [{ "name": "S1", "type": "wg-prime" }] we don't have such a option in the Relaton model.

andrew2net commented 2 years ago

@ronaldtse I've removed workgroups with - names. Can we close this issue?

ronaldtse commented 2 years ago

Yes, thank you.