[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [plcs-dex] Classification of type and individual
Ah. there is a time-lag om the list. Rob adresses (in other or better) words what I brought up in a separate mail. Regards, Per-Åke Rob Bodington wrote: > I knew that I should have worked harder on the example !!! > > > > I was trying to make the point that I do not believe that the only way > in which an individual can be classified is by classifying the type of > which it is an individual. > > > > I think that there may well be classifications of individuals that are > not classifications of the type, and vice versa. Or the type at this > instance in time. > > > > I also think that two individuals of the same type may have different > classifications to the classification given to the type. It will be > confusing to read a Part21 file if the type is where you go to get the > classifications. > > > > This initially arose from the classification of State_defnition / State > and Condition / Condition_evaluated. > > (type / individual) > > > > The argument is that in these circumstances you only need to classify > the typical, i.e. State_defnition and Condition. > > > > This is probably true, (well I can’t think of a counter example). > > > > However, I am not convinced tat it is true for Part and > Product_as_individual. > > > > 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:* Les Debenham [mailto:lad@lsc.co.uk] > *Sent:* 07 March 2005 14:57 > *To:* plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* RE: [plcs-dex] Classification of type and individual > > > > Rob, > > > > As a support engineer I object to what you did in your third paragraph. > Under what circumstances in our work of "Supporting" a product are we > going to allow you to modify your bicycle to a non-approved > configuration. At the first configuration audit you will be told to > de-modify until your product_as_realized (bike) conforms to its correct > configuration. You may apply a change to your configuration if that > change (Souped Up) is allowable for your realized instance of the > product design (effectivity). > > > > To be more precise "Souped up" is a variant of the design. You are right > it is not a classification. > > > > Yours configuring for ever, > > Les > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] > *Sent:* 07 March 2005 13:38 > *To:* 'Gyllström Leif'; plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* RE: [plcs-dex] Classification of type and individual > > > > Thinking about this a bit more ..... > > I think that this approach will get really complicated. > > > > Imagine I have a bike design classified as an "ordinary" bike. > > I then build an individual bike from this design. > > The individual bike will be classified as an "ordinary" bike. > > > > I then make a modification to my individual bike, so it is now a > "Souped up bike". > > The change was not a change to a design, but to my individual bike > so "Souped up bike" > > is not a classification of the design, but a classification of my > individual bike. > > > > > > So can we be sure that: > > a) all classifications of the typical apply equally to the > actual thing being classified. > > b) If we classify a typical will that classification apply to > all of the actual things > > > > I'm not convinced (yet) > > > > 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:* Gyllström Leif [mailto:leif.gyllstrom@aerotechtelub.se] > *Sent:* 07 March 2005 13:11 > *To:* plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* SV: [plcs-dex] Classification of type and individual > > > > Rob > > > > I would suggest that we only classify the typical due to the > implications that the other approach will have on the reference data > library. > > > > We have agreed that refdata should be regarded as specializations > (subclasses) of PLCS Entities. This would mean that an instance of > > reference data would have to be defined for both the typical and the > actual thing. Yes, OWL will allow for a class being a subclass of > > several Entity classes. But I'm convinced that this will cause > confusion and classes for typical will only appear as specializations of > > the entity representing the actual etc. > > > > I'm stongly in favor of keeping the separation of typical and > actual,and exchange both instances, and have a consistent approach > > throughout PLCS. > > > > Regards > > > > Leif > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > *Från:* Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] > *Skickat:* den 18 februari 2005 17:27 > *Till:* plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org > *Ämne:* [plcs-dex] Classification of type and individual > > Hi > > In PLCS we make a distinction between a typical something and an > actual something. > > > > E.g > > Part and product_as_realized > > State_definition and State_observed > > > > We are also able to classify things. > > E.g. > > A Part is classified as a Bicycle > > A State_definition is classified as a Fault state. > > > > The question is, if I classify the typical things, do I need to > classify the actual thing? > > > > For example, if I classify a Part as being a bicycle, do I need > to classify the Product as realised as representing my bike, as > a being a bicycle, or do I just classify the Part? > > > > Similarly for states. > > > > If we impose a rule that you only classify the typical - not the > actual, then you will always have to exchange both the typical > and the actual. > > Which may be overkill. > > > > Any thoughts? > > 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 > > > > > > *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 * > > > -- ======================================================== Per-Åke Ling email: per-ake.ling_AT_eurostep.com Eurostep AB mobile: +46 709 566 490 Vasagatan 38 http://www.eurostep.com SE-111 20 Stockholm
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]