RE: Ballot comment NO 8

["Rob Bodington" <rob.bodington@eurostep.com>]

Well, document_assignment does not allow the explicit representation of the
text.

I really think that we should have created a module, "text_assignment", but that
is another discussion.

I still think that if you want to record the reason why you went from one
version to the next you should you the Directed_action stuff, not properties

What do you think?

Regards
Rob

-------------------------------------------   
Rob Bodington
Eurostep Limited
Web Page: http://www.eurostep.com http://www.share-a-space.com
Email: Rob.Bodington@eurostep.com
Phone: +44 (0)1454 270030
Mobile: +44 (0)7796 176 401



-----Original Message-----
From: Jochen Haenisch [mailto:Jochen.Haenisch@epmtech.jotne.com] 
Sent: 28 October 2004 14:08
To: 'Rob Bodington'; plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Tonning, Leif'
Cc: 'Trine Hansen'
Subject: RE: Ballot comment NO 8

see below

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Rob Bodington [SMTP:rob.bodington@eurostep.com]
> Sent:	28. oktober 2004 14:56
> To:	'Jochen Haenisch'; plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Tonning, Leif'
> Cc:	'Trine Hansen'
> Subject:	RE: Ballot comment NO 8
> 
> I would not have thought to use properties on product_version_relationsip.
> Instead, I would use the description attribute, or document assignment to
> document purpose. In fact, I would assign everything to the new version,
> not the
> relationship.
> 
	JH: What if there are several old versions leading to one new one?
There are probably considerations that are related to the individual
relationships.
	Does document_assignment allow the explicit representation of the
descriptions text? If so, this is ok. I just want to ensure that the text
becomes available as part of the product data population, not hidden in
other documents.

> Regarding the representation of sequences hierarchies etc - that is
> reference
> data on product_version_relationship.
> 
	JH: Of course. I did not intend to say something different. No
properties here.

> Also, when creating a new version, I would expect it all to be under
> configuration change management, and so would consider using Work_order
> and
> Directed activity etc to properly control and document the change, as
> described
> in the capability "representing work order" and related capabilities.
> 
	JH: That may be a route to be taken! I have not looked at this.

> The other observation, though not a reason for not doing it, is that this
> would
> make us incompatible with the rest of STEP at a MIM level, as the IR do
> not
> allow you to relate a property to a
> product_definition_formation_relationship -
> unless you create a new sub type.
> 
> So, I remain to be convinced that we should extend the model.
> 
> Regards
> Rob
> 
> -------------------------------------------   
> Rob Bodington
> Eurostep Limited
> Web Page: http://www.eurostep.com http://www.share-a-space.com
> Email: Rob.Bodington@eurostep.com
> Phone: +44 (0)1454 270030
> Mobile: +44 (0)7796 176 401
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jochen Haenisch [mailto:Jochen.Haenisch@epmtech.jotne.com] 
> Sent: 28 October 2004 13:40
> To: 'Rob Bodington'; plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org; Tonning, Leif
> Cc: 'Trine Hansen'
> Subject: RE: Ballot comment NO 8
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> the business requirement that we had in the frigates project disappeared
> due
> to remodelling.
> 
> Still, we would expect business cases that require properties for
> Product_version_relationships. Product_version_relationships may link
> Product_versions to indicate, e.g., sequence, derivation, hierarchy. There
> does not seem to be a restriction that the two Product_versions need to
> relate to the same Product, which is ok, I think.
> 
> With this relatively wide scope people may want to assign information on:
> 	- purpose,
> 	- list of modifications,
> 	- other types of descriptions.
> 
> May these be added otherwise than by properties?
> 
> Best regards,
> Jochen
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Rob Bodington [SMTP:rob.bodington@eurostep.com]
> > Sent:	27. oktober 2004 11:26
> > To:	plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org; Jochen Haenisch; Tonning, Leif
> > Subject:	Ballot comment NO 8
> > 
> > Hi
> > 
> > The following ballot comment was raised by Norway NO 18
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > What is the business requirement for wanting to assign properties to a
> > Product_version_relationship?
> > 
> > A Product_version_relationship should just be used to relate one version
> > to another. E.g. to represent a sequence of versions.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Why do you need  a property here?
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > SC4 part number:(2) Clause: ARM Express (3) Paragraph:
> > Assigned_property.described_element, Property_assignment_select (5)
> > Comment: According to the current model, Assigned_property can not be
> > assigned to Product_version_relationship. Instead a
> > View_definition_relationship shall be created and the Assigned_property
> > assigned to it.(6) Proposal: Update the documentation of the model
> > accordingly, that is, specifically for Product_version_relationship.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Regards
> > Rob
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------   
> > Rob Bodington
> > Eurostep Limited
> > Web Page: <http://www.eurostep.com> <http://www.share-a-space.com>
> > Email: Rob.Bodington@eurostep.com
> > Phone: +44 (0)1454 270030
> > Mobile: +44 (0)7796 176 401
> > 
> >  
> >