This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "OO CR080 - TimeStamps"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Hbuitendijk (talk | contribs) |
Hbuitendijk (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
== Discussion == | == Discussion == | ||
| + | *19-Jun-2012 - After discussion we agreed that DTM_1 through DTM_6 would be more accurate, without changing the actual format, but that it would require a bit of work with cross-checking, while it also puts the information in multiple places. Consequently we agreed to consider this for future use. | ||
== Recommended Action Items == | == Recommended Action Items == | ||
Revision as of 16:38, 23 July 2012
Return to OO Change Requests page.
| Submitted by: | Revision date: <<Revision Date>> |
| Submitted date: | Change request ID: |
| Standard/IG: Implementation Guide | Artifact ID, Name: |
Contents
Issue
Recommendation
Rationale
Discussion
Recommended Action Items
Resolution
Return to OO Change Requests page.
| Submitted by: David Burgess | Revision date: <<Revision Date>> |
| Submitted date: Mar-2012 | Change request ID: OO CR080 |
| Standard/IG: Implementation Guide | Artifact ID, Name: <<Artifact ID, Name>> |
Issue
TS-1 through TS-6 have the same data type definition, we are simply defining the behavior of the DTM data type in each of these cases.
Recommendation
Would it not be more appropriate to define DTM-1 through DTM-6, and then have TS-1 through TS-6 reference the proper DTM-x?
Rationale
Discussion
- 19-Jun-2012 - After discussion we agreed that DTM_1 through DTM_6 would be more accurate, without changing the actual format, but that it would require a bit of work with cross-checking, while it also puts the information in multiple places. Consequently we agreed to consider this for future use.
