[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [plcs-dex] Representing parts Issue RBN-14
I can see the value of having both descriptions attached to identification assigment as well as directly to a part. In the latter case, it would be an "intrinsic" description, in the former case it would be a contextual description: "the part known as <id> has the following description". However, we also have the multilingual stuff to consider, and since the multi_linguism stuff is broken we can either work around it or wait for that module to be revised. Regards, Per-Åke Nigel Newling wrote: > Leif, > > Before we set off creating an endless series of extra Capabilities, > should we not check what has already been identified as required by > specific DEXs. From your description of your proposed > 'assigning_descriptor', I see a significant overlap with Capability > (C025): assigning_observation, which was always intended to allow the > attachment of freeform notes. Can we settle on one or the other? > > I am leery of allowing multiple descriptions of equal status. It has the > potential to create trouble when using AP239 as an integration model. > Best practice is to define one as master and make the others subordinate > aliases, e.g. 'also known as.. '. > > Nigel > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Gyllström Leif [mailto:leif.gyllstrom@aerotechtelub.se] > *Sent:* 12 August 2005 09:24 > *To:* Tim Turner; DEXS-PLCS-OASIS (E-mail) > *Subject:* SV: [plcs-dex] Representing parts Issue RBN-14 > > All > > As Agreed, I'm working on the capability 'assigning_descriptor', > which among other things covers > the assignment ocf descriptions, notes, comments etc > > Regards > Leif > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > *Från:* Tim Turner [mailto:tjt@lsc.co.uk] > *Skickat:* den 12 augusti 2005 02:08 > *Till:* DEXS-PLCS-OASIS (E-mail) > *Ämne:* [plcs-dex] Representing parts Issue RBN-14 > > In the interest of visibility My response & comments to the > issue are provided below; > > *Issue: RBN-14 by Rob Bodington (05-07-27) minor_technical issue * > > Should assigning_description be used to capture the parts > description? > > > *TJT Response:* just as a name may change over time, so might > the description. In addition, multiple descriptions of the same > part may be applicable. > > I could not find a "assigning_description" capability or entity > in Dexlib/PLCS anywhere. However, there is a skeletal > representing_description capability (completely undeveloped) > which suggests to use "document/version and document_assignment > to represent descriptions that are assigned to items such as > part." I assume that the suggestion is to document the > description within the document to be referenced. However, this > means that the description is not available to a processor until > the document is opened and the contents extracted. A document (a > subtype of product) also has it's own description attribute > which would require another document to describe it. A document > needs a document_version and document_definition which also have > a description attribute, which makes for a potentially circular > & ambiguous usage. This makes me feel uncomfortable recommending > or accepting this route without clearer justification. > > In my mind that leaves 2 options; either > assigning_identification or attribute_classification. > > 1. The description can be specified through C001 - > assigning_identification where the > identification_assignment.name carries the product description, > and the corresponding external_class_library.class_name is set > to "Description". However, this is not so elegant a solution. > > 2. The description could also be specified through > attribute_classification where the > attribute_classification.attribute_name carries the product > description, and the corresponding > attribute_classification.allowed_value, which can be an instance > of external_class_library - whose .class_name attribute can be > set to "Description", whilst the classified_entity (a > classified_attribute_select type) has products (& most other > entities) in scope. > > *Questions* for consistency purposes: > > *1.* Is the Organization specifying the description required to > be identified (according to current C001 template, the > Organization assigning the name is also required to be specified)? > > *2.* Should attribute_classification also be used to represent > the name (see issue RBN-15)? > > *3.* Aside from this, if there are multiple names & descriptions > assigned (thru some means), how should should we know which is > the most relevant or intended for everday use? Is there a > relationship between a name and a description which should be > kept together somehow? > > regards, > Tim > > Note: attribute_classification has been suggested for other uses > in the past but has so far (to my knowledge) still not being > advocated for use in PLCS (in general). > > > ************************************************************************* > * > * Mr. Timothy J. Turner BSC(Hons) MSc, MBCS > * Executive Consultant, Enterprise Integration Technologies > * LSC Group, Lincoln House, Wellington Crescent, Fradley Park, > LICHFIELD, Staffordshire WS13 8RZ, ENGLAND > * UK Switchboard: +44-1543 446800 Fax: +44-1543 446900 > * US Direct telephone: +1-803-327 2829 (Rock Hill) > * Mobile (US) telephone: +1-843-4759179 > * Mobile (UK) telephone: +44-7885-393225 > * e-mail:_ __tjt@lsc.co.uk <mailto:tjt@lsc.co.uk>_ Internet:_ > <http://www.lsc.co.uk/>_ > * > ************************************************************************* > > > > > *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 * > > > > > *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 / v \ Vasagatan 38 http://www.eurostep.com /( _ )\ SE-111 20 Stockholm ^ ^
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]