Attendees: Gerald Chan, Ric Dokken, Scott Franzen, Carey Garrenton, Greg Maston, Jim O'Reilly

Line and clause numbers if any are with regard to STIL.4 syntax document D02 dated October 24, 2016.

================================================================================
OLD BUSINESS:

1. Clause "32. TestType Definition":
    REPLACE: For each standard-defined test-type, STIL.4 or STIL.5 shall describe its function and how it uses its parameters to perform that function.
    WITH: Each standard-defined test-type shall be accompanied by a description of its function and how it uses its parameters to perform that function.
          That description should enable replicating test results across various ATE with identical electrical properties.

2. Insert in clause "21.1 Literal Values" after 2nd paragraph (rewritten from May 9, 2016 doc, Line 662):
    User-data AMPERES, CELSIUS, DECIBELS, DEGREES, FARADS, HENRIES, HERTZ, METERS, OHMS, SECONDS, VOLTS, and WATTS represent literal values with appropriate units, e.g., 100mA for AMPERES. PERCENT represents an integer or REAL followed by a percent sign, e.g., 5%. REAL represents a floating point number without units, e.g., 0.05.

3. Add "Node" to clause "3. Definitions":
    used to describe a node in a directed flow graph (flow-node) or an electrical node in a circuit

4. Syntax BNF inconsistently uses ::=, :=, and =, 7/5/2016 consensus: use ::= for BNF

5. Meta-type "next_stmt" is not defined in Syntax Document

6. Review Annex D: determine whether it's appropriate for this standard. Goal is to have ONLY informative Annexes.
================================================================================
CONSENSUS:

Scott, Carey, Greg, Ric, Gerald, Jim

Section 27.1 BinMap syntax.  BinMap uses SoftBins/HardBins keywords - block names are called SoftBinDefs and HardBinDefs - should we be consistent here?
Any reason to discuss changes here?
1. Use SoftBinDefs, HardBinDefs (rather than SoftBins/HardBins) in BinMap.  Constrain to FlowExtended mode only (Flow basic uses unnamed SoftBinDefs and HardBinDefs).
2. Update Table 3 - "Additional Context Sensitive STIL.4 Reserved Words" to remove HardBins/SoftBins.
3. Update Figure 59 —Diagram: STIL.4 Overview (section 28, Flow Conceptual model) to show SoftBinDefs and HardBinDefs as top-level blocks, rather than being part of BinMap.

Discussion (with no conclusions or consensus yet) regarding the Flow conceptual model (Tests/Flows are similar/identical, can Flows call tests directly,
or only from within the context of a flownode?)  Note that Fig. 59 supports this notion, but syntax and other figures/drawings have a different view.
To be discussed at next week's meeting.


================================================================================
ACTION ITEMS:

Jim: CONSENSUS item 1 - 3

================================================================================