View Issue Details

Jump to NotesJump to History
IDProjectCategoryView StatusDate SubmittedLast Update
000312010000-005: Information ModelSpecpublic2015-07-10 15:302016-02-19 17:57
ReporterJim Luth Assigned ToWolfgang Mahnke  
PrioritynormalSeverityminorReproducibilityhave not tried
Status closedResolutionfixed 
Product Version1.02 
Summary0003120: Handling of DictionaryFragments
Description

There are several open questions not covered by the spec regarding DictionaryFragments:

  • What is the exact content of the ByteString
  • What happens with nested structures, are the definitions of the nested structure included in the fragment
  • Are all fragments also in the dictionary?
TagsNo tags attached.
Commit Version
Fix Due Date

Relationships

related to 0003018 closedWolfgang Mahnke 10000-003: Address Space Handling of DictionaryFragments 
has duplicate 0002975 closedMatthias Damm 10000-005: Information Model Getting large dictionaries is very inefficient - request optimization 

Activities

Jim Luth

2015-07-10 15:30

administrator   ~0006217

Consider allowing server to expose only as subset of a dictionary with only the types exposed by the server and clients read, merge and cache the dictionaries from multiple servers with the same URI.

This mechanism may completely eliminate the need for DictionaryFragments as currently defined in the spec.

Add as Topic for Foxboro F2F.

Jim Luth

2015-07-10 15:30

administrator   ~0006218

Agreed in Foxboro meeting:

  • Servers do not have to expose the full dictionary (types they do not expose can be omitted).
  • If a dictionary references other dictionaries (except the base built-in UA dictionary) the dependent dictionaries need to also be exposed as dictionary nodes.
  • Dependent dictionaries will be referenced (by a new reference type)
  • Remove dictionary fragment support in UA
  • Updates to Part 3 & 5.

Wolfgang Mahnke

2016-02-18 14:12

developer   ~0006736

fixed in version 1.04.02

Change is different then described above. As discussed in Orlando, added Attribute to DataType NodeClass and moved old approach to annex Part 5

Jim Luth

2016-02-19 17:57

administrator   ~0006744

Agreed to edited changes in San Ramon meeting.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2015-07-10 15:30 Jim Luth New Issue
2015-07-10 15:30 Jim Luth Status new => assigned
2015-07-10 15:30 Jim Luth Assigned To => Wolfgang Mahnke
2015-07-10 15:30 Jim Luth Issue generated from: 0003018
2015-07-10 15:30 Jim Luth Relationship added related to 0003018
2015-07-10 15:30 Jim Luth Project 10000-003: Address Space => 10000-005: Information Model
2016-02-18 13:27 Wolfgang Mahnke Relationship added has duplicate 0002975
2016-02-18 14:12 Wolfgang Mahnke Note Added: 0006736
2016-02-18 14:12 Wolfgang Mahnke Status assigned => resolved
2016-02-18 14:12 Wolfgang Mahnke Resolution open => fixed
2016-02-19 17:57 Jim Luth Note Added: 0006744
2016-02-19 17:57 Jim Luth Status resolved => closed
2016-02-19 17:57 Jim Luth Fixed in Version => 1.04