ETSI's Bug Tracker - Part 01: TTCN-3 Core Language
View Issue Details

ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update
0006585 | Part 01: TTCN-3 Core Language | Technical | public | 11-07-2013 10:18 | 11-07-2013 16:42

Reporter | Gyorgy Rethy |
Assigned To | Ina Schieferdecker |
Priority | high | Severity | major | Reproducibility | always
Status | closed | Resolution | fixed |
Platform |  | OS |  | OS Version |
Product Version |  |
Target Version | v4.6.1 (published 2014-06) | Fixed in Version | v4.6.1 (published 2014-06) |
Clause Reference(s) | 8.2.3.6
Source (company - Author) | STF460

Summary | 0006585: LanguageSpec handling of import statements shall support both implicit & explicit mappings

Description

issue was raised by 3GPP, see mail discussion with Shicheng Hu:
Hi Gyorgy and All
Thanks for the explanation. I understand better about the pros and cons.
As you all know, the 3GPP conformance test suites are globally used for the UE certification. There are two basic requirements
1. The test suites delivered by STF160 should be unique as the standardised test suites.
2. Copyrights of the test suites belong to ETSI and the other 3GPP organizational partners.
Now, because of the two mapping options I have the following problems.
1. The 3GPP test suites should be analysed by all existing tools. The import XSD statement in the 3GPP test suites must be slightly adapted for the mapping options, and the imported XSD modules must be replaced with the mapped TTCN modules. Therefore, STF160 is no more in the position to provide a "unique" delivery for the UE certifications. The high risk is what happens if the UE to be certified passes the test with one mapping option, but fails the test in another mapped option?
2. The explicit mapping option is relying on the tools and has introduced a Copyrights problem. The generated mapped TTCN modules by the tool (from the original XSD modules) is a piece of software. Its copyrights are owned by the tool makers. ETSI has no copyrights on this piece of TTCN codes. This is against the current copyrights principle for the ETSI standards once a 3GPP delivery includes the mapped TTCN modules generated by the tools. As you know, the copyrights have the commercial implications.
3. On the top, there is a big tool interoperability problem with the explicit mapping, supposing the Part 9 is correct. The mapped TTCN modules generated by one tool cannot ne accepted by the others.
My preference is to stick the explicit mapping, despite of the technical difficulties. Your comments are welcome.
Br
Shicheng
________________________________________
From: GyÃ¶rgy RÃ©thy [mailto:gyorgy.rethy@ericsson.com]
Sent: 08 July 2013 17:47
To: Shicheng Hu
Cc: STF460
Subject: RE: XSD import
Hi Shicheng,
It is not so straightforward. Both ways has their pros and cons. XSD differs from the TTCN-3 type system significantly both in philosophy, in concrete language components and ways of restricting and combining those components. So, for example, if importing an ASN.1 type, it is relatively straightforward how the equivalent TTCN-3 type would look like, i.e. how to define the TTCN-3 instances of that type. It is far not so easy for types, attributes and elements imported from XSD.
So, the clear benefit of the explicit mapping is that the user can SEE the generated TTCN-3 definitions that makes writing values and templates more easy. Another benefit is, that â€“ if needed â€“ the user may tweak the generated TTCN-3 types â€“ until the XML codec support the changes. Of course, it also has drawbacks, e.g. the user need to take an additional step to convert XSD to TTCN-3 modules, has to handle additional files in its project and in the version control system and shall not forget to re-generate the TTCN-3 modules if XSD is updated and a more difficult tool implementation.
And, if course, implicit mapping has its pros and cons. Pros are e.g. the simpler handling of projects, less files, no forgotten updates etc. and the list of cons are the missing features that were the benefits for the explicit mapping â€“ so, more or less pros and cons are the opposite as with the explicit mapping.
So, I think, there is no ideal solution, just different ones with different properties.
Regards, Gyorgy
From: Shicheng Hu [mailto:Shicheng.Hu@ETSI.ORG]
Sent: 2013. jÃºlius 5. 16:55
To: STF460@LIST.ETSI.ORG
Subject: XSD import
Hi Gyorgy and All
I have an issue on XSD import in Part 9. Why does the standard allow the implicit and explicitly import XSD modules as two options? An implicit mapping makes much more sense.
Br
Shicheng

Steps To Reproduce |
Additional Information |
Tags | No tags attached.
Relationships |
Attached Files | CR6585.doc (162,816) 11-07-2013 13:38 http://oldforge.etsi.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=2829&type=bug CR6585_v2.doc (166,912) 11-07-2013 14:52 http://oldforge.etsi.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=2830&type=bug CR6585_v3.doc (167,936) 11-07-2013 15:37 http://oldforge.etsi.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=2832&type=bug

Issue History
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change
11-07-2013 10:18 | Gyorgy Rethy | New Issue |
11-07-2013 10:18 | Gyorgy Rethy | Clause Reference(s) | => 8.2.3.6
11-07-2013 10:18 | Gyorgy Rethy | Source (company - Author) | => STF460
11-07-2013 10:20 | Gyorgy Rethy | Status | new => assigned
11-07-2013 10:20 | Gyorgy Rethy | Assigned To | => Jacob Wieland - Spirent
11-07-2013 11:15 | Gyorgy Rethy | Note Added: 0011535 |
11-07-2013 11:16 | Gyorgy Rethy | Project | TTCN-3 Change Requests => Part 01: TTCN-3 Core Language
11-07-2013 11:17 | Gyorgy Rethy | Target Version | => v4.6.1 (published 2014-06)
11-07-2013 13:38 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | File Added: CR6585.doc |
11-07-2013 13:39 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Note Added: 0011545 |
11-07-2013 13:39 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Assigned To | Jacob Wieland - Spirent => Ina Schieferdecker
11-07-2013 13:39 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Status | assigned => confirmed
11-07-2013 14:52 | Ina Schieferdecker | File Added: CR6585_v2.doc |
11-07-2013 14:52 | Ina Schieferdecker | Status | confirmed => assigned
11-07-2013 14:52 | Ina Schieferdecker | Assigned To | Ina Schieferdecker => Gyorgy Rethy
11-07-2013 14:52 | Ina Schieferdecker | Assigned To | Gyorgy Rethy => Jacob Wieland - Spirent
11-07-2013 15:37 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | File Added: CR6585_v3.doc |
11-07-2013 15:38 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Note Added: 0011551 |
11-07-2013 15:38 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Assigned To | Jacob Wieland - Spirent => Ina Schieferdecker
11-07-2013 15:38 | Jacob Wieland - Spirent | Status | assigned => confirmed
11-07-2013 16:42 | Ina Schieferdecker | Status | confirmed => resolved
11-07-2013 16:42 | Ina Schieferdecker | Fixed in Version | => v4.6.1 (published 2014-06)
11-07-2013 16:42 | Ina Schieferdecker | Resolution | open => fixed
11-07-2013 16:42 | Ina Schieferdecker | Status | resolved => closed

Notes

(0011535)
Gyorgy Rethy
11-07-2013 11:15

STF discussion 2013-07-11:
When the import statement contains a LanguageSpec string, this does not mandate importing from the original source files only, but means importing from the original (e.g. XSD) source file OR from an explicitly mapped TTCN-3 source file. This means that tools supporting explicit mapping, if the language string is present, shall accept only TTCN-3 modules complying with the mapping specification.

(0011545)
Jacob Wieland - Spirent
11-07-2013 13:39

please check

(0011551)
Jacob Wieland - Spirent
11-07-2013 15:38

please check again