Subject: MSC-News: From schieferdecker#fokus.gmd.de> (non member of list)
From: Rick Reed TSE (rickreed#tseng.co.uk)
Date: Thu Jan 31 2002 - 20:22:12 GMT
The originator of this message is responsible for its content.
----From Rick Reed TSE <rickreed#tseng.co.uk> to mscnews -----
> Schieferdecker" <schieferdecker#fokus.gmd.de>]
>
> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:22:19 +0100
> From: "I. Schieferdecker" <schieferdecker#fokus.gmd.de>
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> it depends. If you have just a simulation environment you can consider the
> events to be instantaneous, which is just the MSC assumption.
>
> If you consider a real implementation having events which consume time, you
> have to select an interpretation. It could be the start or the end of the
> event, i.e. as you describe without or with event duration. I do not think
> that there are other implementation strategies.
>
> Concerning common interpretation, I think there is none as not so many people
> do really implement MSC-2000.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Ina.
>
>> The originator of this message is responsible for its content.
>> ----From King David-BDK001 <David.King#motorola.com> to mscnews -----
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm interested in how people implement MSC timing constraints.
>>
>> Let's take an example MSC where two events e1 and e2 are constrainted
>> by the period of time (lo, hi) where e2 happens more than lo units of
>> time, but less than hi units of time after e1 has happened. In an
>> implementation, given that it takes time for events to happen, do
>> people think of the constraint being around the events (including
>> event duration), or between the events (excluding event duration), or
>> neither? Is there a common interpretation that people use?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> David.
>> --
----End text from Rick Reed TSE <rickreed#tseng.co.uk> to mscnews -----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Wed Jun 19 2013 - 13:16:38 GMT