OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

plcs-dex message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Representing parts - Issue: RBN-11


Title: Representing parts - Issue: RBN-11

My motivation for writing the comment was that I want to represent the fact that a version of a part follows on the previous version.

Initially this has nothing to do with an assembly of parts – it is just about the part.

Similarly if a Part is derived from another part, I want to relate the two. Again, this has nothing to do with an assembly. Hence my suggestion that these representations should be in the rep_part capability.

 

Regards

Rob

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Turner [mailto:tjt@lsc.co.uk]
Sent: 12 August 2005 18:35
To: DEXS-PLCS-OASIS (E-mail)
Subject: [plcs-dex] Representing parts - Issue: RBN-11

 

In the interest of visibility My response & comments to the issue are provided below;

RBN-11 by Rob Bodington (05-02-21) minor_technical issue

The relationship between different version(s) should be described in this capability, not "representing_assembly_structure" (C003). The product_version_relationship should be treated in the same way as in representing product as individual, and use the same classification. I propose: Derived_version_relationship Sequential_version_relationship Hierarchical_version_relationship as defined in the PDM Schema usage guide.

 

TJT Response:  Relationships between parts, part versions and view_definitions are not currently described within Representing_parts. They are described within representing_assembly_structures as these relationships are used to define the assembly structures and how those structures might change if different versions of a part are used. However, it is possible to include product_version_relationship in this capability, but it would then exist in both. This is because supplied_part_relationship (a subtype) would & I believe should, stay within C003. Though I could be persauded.

I agree with the use of the classification and the ref data derived from the PDM schema.

Comments?

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

 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]