Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

"Mark Davis" <[email protected]> · Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:27:35 -0400

While not explicitly stated, I assume the names we are talking about are
Channel names in the control system (?)
While including all that info in each channel name may help insure unique
names, it also makes them VERY long. We might want to consider a more
compressed version for the channel name itself, with an expanded version in
the DESC field (if there are record types without a DESC field, we can
always add it).
For example:
  Name:  DTL_D:BLM130:MTLR
  Name.DESC:  DTL_Diag : BLM130 : MPS Trip Limit Rad
Not ideal, of course, as you need to agree on (and hopefully enforce)
standard acronyms for use in the names to avoid overlap, but the idea how
long the names would be without something like this is a bit disconcerting.
Mark Davis
Control Systems Software Engineer, NSCL

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete R. Jemian" <[email protected]>

To: <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 12:54 PM

Subject: Re: Making a case for cases

Mathias:
Alexander's observation is important.  You seem to want to use "_" as a
context delimiter.  But you see it is /also/ popular as a word
separator.  Be careful how you pick and use context delimiters.
Pete

On 8/5/2010 11:29 AM, Zhukov, Alexander P. wrote:

I think mixed case is the best.
You want to ensure proper notation that is strict. E.g. what to use
instead of a space? Just skip it or use underscore?
If everyone follows it then there will be no ambiguities or problems
with search
Unfortunately we at SNS didn’t follow it very well and now we have PV
names like:
DTL_Diag:BLM130:MPS_Trip_limit_Rad
Instead of
DTL_Diag:BLM130:MPSTripLimitRad
or
DTL_Diag:BLM130:MPS_Trip_Limit_Rad
Alexander Zhukov
SNS/ORNL
Beam Instrumentation Group
*From:* [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Steiner, Mathias
*Sent:* Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:49 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Making a case for cases
Learned Friends,
The planned Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, a.k.a. FRIB, is looking to
finalize the naming convention.
The proposed system is an evolution of the SNS convention. I'll list the
format to give an idea of how many uninterrupted characters one might
encounter:
SSSS_BBBB:DDDD_QIIII:TTTTIIIIXXXX
System_subsystem:Devic_Qualifier:Signal Name
One of the remaining questions concerns letter case.
Option 1: Uppercase only.
It's simple; it's unambiguous; it's what we do now.
On the downside, it is hard to read.
Option 2: Lowercase only.
It's as simple as uppercase, but easier to read.
Option 3: Mixed case.
This is best option for legibility.
But it creates ambiguities and can make searching difficult.
Is there something like a community consensus on this?
Are there any pitfalls we should be aware of?
Thanks in advance,
-Mathias
Mathias Steiner
Staff Physicist
NSCL/Michigan State Cyclotron
East Lansing, MI
voice 517-908-7423

Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System