RE: [plcs-dex] Representing parts Issue RBN-13

[Tim Turner <tjt@lsc.co.uk>]

Title: RE: [plcs-dex] Representing parts Issue RBN-13

There are other distinguishing features regarding the identification - your example simplifies it to just the id's.

In fact we should have for each part, the following (where such tracking is required);

part:           <------------+---- part_version
id: XYZ4711
orgn: SomeOrgn
org_id: e.g CageCode
date: 3/6/2005
                                   |     id: v1 + orgn, org_id, date
                               |     part_version
                               +---- id: v2 + orgn, org_id, date
                               |     part_version
                               +---- id: v3 + orgn, org_id, date

With respect to other Part id's; they are either issued by the same OEM & therefore have a versioned history (i.e. relations between the versions), or they exist as multiple id's referring to the same part (e.g. re-badging a suppliers id by an assembly manufacturer. In the latter case the orgn, org_id, & date would be used to match the id's across from the part to the part_versions & vice-versa. Hence where necessary (e.g. in circumstances like you point out), we would need to refer to the full context of each identifier.

This is not really an issue as far as I can see.

Cheers,
Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Per-Åke Ling [mailto:per-ake.ling@eurostep.com]
Sent: 12 August 2005 10:57
To: Tim Turner
Cc: DEXS-PLCS-OASIS (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [plcs-dex] Representing parts Issue RBN-13

There is a problem with the ids on part_version: Consider a part
identified with XYZ4711, an three part_versions connected to it: v1, v2
and v3:

part:  <----------------------+---- part_version
id: XYZ4711                   |     id: v1
                               |     part_version
                               +---- id: v2
                               |     part_version
                               +---- id: v3

However, in PLCS there is no way to relate the ids so we cannot
establish which version id goes with which part id:

Multiple ids:

part:  <--------------------------- part_version
id: XYZ4711                         id: v1
id: ABC13                           id: 1.0
id: 04517                           id: A1

There is no way to show that the complete id is XYZ4711 v1, ABC13 A1,
and 04517 1.0 as opposed to e.g. ABC13 v1. An obvious but annoying
solution is to write the full id for the part, e.g. 'XYZ4711 v1', but it
is not only redundant, it is also counterintuitive as the _part_ is
XYZ411 and the _version_ is v1, not 'XYZ4711 v1'.

Unfortunatey I cannot see a way around this.

Regards,
Per-Åke Ling

Tim Turner wrote:
> In the interest of visibility My response & comments to the issue are
> provided below
>
> *Issue: RBN-13 by Rob Bodington (05-07-27) minor_technical issue*
>
> Should the part_version and Part view definition have an assigned id or
> should the id attribute be used?
>
> *TJT Response:* As version code identifiers for a part and their
> respective view definitions may also change over time we should use an
> assigned id. This will then be consistent with how we treat identifiers
> as described in C001.
>
> Any additional comments welcome.
>
> regards,
> Tim
>
> *************************************************************************
> *
> * 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 *
>
>

--
========================================================
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                                        ^ ^

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