From: owner-stds-1450-4@majordomo.ieee.org on behalf of dave_dowding@agilent.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 9:42 AM
To: stds-1450-4@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: stds-1450.4: Weekly P1450.4 Working Group Call

My thanks to Jim O'Reilly for the minutes of our last meeting.

I did not see if there were discussions on the figures of the diagram document. So I

will raise some here.

Figure 1 was redrawn per discussions from two weeks ago.

Regarding Figure 1: Is this diagrame clear enough for now? Is there something wrong

with it? Can we now fill in definitions for the numbered terms below the diagram?

Figure 2 was to show "What a Module Is". 2A shows a single entity, called/referenced/

pointed-to, etc. such as a TestMethod. 2B shows a Module whos contents is a set of

(pre-defined?) FlowNodes.

Regarding Figure 2: Are there corrections, clarifications?

Figure 3 was to show different FlowNode variations with respect to the "out-flow" behaviors

or configurations. 3A is where all ExitActions blocks and their Exit Paths point to one place.

(This configuration implies that if there is a Pass/Fail result to the actions in its own Module,

those are recorded/kept in some fashion for later arbitration.) 3B shows a out-flow that goes

to another point (at this point we have said things like "terminal flownode or bin".), or goes

on to the next FlowNode entity (speaking from bottom to top ExitActions block/ExitPath.)

3C shows where there is a chain of FlowNodes, and where in a FlowNode of the chain (FN3)

one ExitAction block/ExitPath (call it Pass) goes on to the next FlowNode of the chain. The

other ExitAction block/ExitPath (call it Fail) goes around the rest of the chain of FlowNodes

to some named point... (This could be a branch to a FlowNode that represents speedbinning

or something similar.)

Regarding Figure 3: Are these representation correct? Are there other configurations that our

extension constructs should be able to represent? What problems do these pose? What

issues do we raise?

I was unable to decypher if the question I had posed in the last diagram document was

answered.

In figure 4 I showed an example of re-using three existing flow nodes within the FlowNode

Module. The first FN1 has the behavior that if a fail result occurs then the exit path from

FN1 goes out to a terminal point, thus exiting the SubFlow Module directly to an outside

point. FN2 exit behavior as shown would not go to a point external to the SubFlowNode

but would exit to one of the SubFlowNode Post-points (i.e. PostActions, Arbitor, or ExitActions).

FN3 exit behavior is that of either PostAction's ExitPaths go to the same point that of exiting

the SubFlow Module to the PostActions->Arbitor->ExitAction->ExitPath. The question was:

"What of this Module is legal (where is consensus)?

Thanks, until the call,

Dave

Dave Dowding Office: (970)635-6928 Cell: (970) 231-0823
Agilent Technologies, 815 14th Str.SW, MS DL416, Loveland Colorado 80537