RE: [plcs-dex] Requirements for annotation classes.

[Gordon Robb <gor@lsc.co.uk>]

Title: RE: [plcs-dex] Requirements for annotation classes.

Hi Sean,

I still think there is a very urgent requirement for a detailed OASIS PLCS TC OWL ontology programme to ascertain its impact on AP239 and OASIS PLCS TC DEX implementations.

 

Your example using the "Warton" CM system DPDS (Design Product Definition System) is incorrect when you call it a CM system, Change Management System (CMS) was (or still is on some mature programmes (Harrier)) is the CM system that manages DPDS. DPDS just holds the parent drg ID and manages the drg issue and updates from CMS authorities 

 

Drawings and drawing sheets are  (correctly) figures of speech depending on the drawing standard being utilised (Mil-Std 100G (superseded by ASME Y14-100) calls out 'sheet x of y sheets on the drg front, as does DS 05-10.

Ooops sorry for the diversion (deprecation).

 

regards

Gordon

 

 

 

 

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: Barker, Sean (UK) [mailto:sean.barker@baesystems.com]
Sent: 21 July 2004 09:48
To: Gordon Robb; David Price
Cc: Plcs-Dex Sub Group Oasis (E-mail) (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Requirements for annotation classes.

Thank you all for your enthusiastic comments on on the requirements.

 

1) Direct comments have been noted, and I will try and update the draft at the end of the week.

2) The correspondence on deprecate indicates the need to understand the process of semantic drift, particularly in Through Life Information Planning and Long Term Data Retention. Two major sources of semantic drift are Business Process Re-engineering and the introduction of new computer tools. These can cause substantial semantic drift in a matter of a few years. An example, for those of you familiar with the Warton CM system DPDS, the term "Drawing" came to mean the drawing control record held in DPDS. The bits of paper with pictures on were "drawing sheets", not "drawings".

3) The requirement to record IPR against individual definitions was suggested by the way definitions are taken over from existing standards. To assert that the IPR against the whole library is the same as IPR against individual definitions is likely to upset the owners of the original definitions.

4) Gordon, a number of these attribute properties are already provided by Dublin Core. The problem is as much to know how to use this as extended it. I have not considered the timescales and costs for implementing these - the first step is to see if there is consensus on what we want before considering how much we want it and when.

 

Sean Barker
ATC Filton
0117 302 8184

-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Robb [mailto:gor@lsc.co.uk]
Sent: 21 July 2004 09:33
To: Barker, Sean (UK); David Price
Cc: Plcs-Dex Sub Group Oasis (E-mail) (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Requirements for annotation classes.

*** WARNING *** This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an external partner or the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message.

Sean and all modellers,
Having read the current emails in respect to ontology requirements etc, did the Bath SC4 mtg on this subject come out with an implementation programme that will benefit the OASIS PLCS TC programme in the short term.

It seems you are generating a long term technology programme not an implementation programme.

regards
Gordon

-----Original Message-----
From: Barker, Sean (UK) [mailto:sean.barker@baesystems.com]
Sent: 20 July 2004 16:38
To: David Price
Cc: Plcs-Dex Sub Group Oasis (E-mail) (E-mail)
Subject: [plcs-dex] Requirements for annotation classes.

Attached is my initial set of requirements of annotation classes against an ontology. Feel free to add, subtract, multiply or divide.

Sean Barker
ATC Filton
0117 302 8184

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

DISCLAIMER: ***SECURITY LABEL: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED***   The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee.  Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised.  If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.  Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. This e-mail originates from LSC Group. Registered in England & Wales No 2275471 Registered Office: Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1 4SG

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

DISCLAIMER: ***SECURITY LABEL: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED*** The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. This e-mail originates from LSC Group. Registered in England & Wales No 2275471 Registered Office: Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1 4SG