RE: [plcs-dex] Assigning identifiers with no organization

[Gordon Robb <gor@lsc.co.uk>]

Title: Message

Gentlefolk,

Within the context of AP 239 the Assured Product and Support Information (APSI) provides the level of assurance and identification that should enable clarity of  what a person is viewing.

Version management in the context in which you are using it is only a permeable view of an allowed configuration to a Contractor/Customer agreement. The Information management rules dictates how and when a new configuration is established and everyone is the 'food chain' will  be aware of this. It is the lack of configuration management rules[subset of IM rules] that allows everything go 'belly-up'.

In respect to allowable configuration ids there are enough external standards that dictate the methodology for marking/identification (FOR EXAMPLE BS 8888 // ASME Y14 SERIES) - these are usually contracted against.

 

In the context of Sean's example I don't think I have met such a situation and I don't think it possible.

 

When referring to versions of a part, the original discussions (as Sean stated) centred on part numbers and there can be different version of the same part in service by different organisations

 

Basic version of a Harrier II vertical stabilizer (Rudder in UK)   75A210000 - 1001; AV-8B version 75A210000-1003; GR5 75A210000 -1005, Spanish version /Italian version etc etc. As the product life cycle evolves thru change [modifications] the variant dash numbers (1000 series) will incrementally increase.

 

Gordon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Barker, Sean (UK) [mailto:sean.barker@baesystems.com]
Sent: 07 November 2005 11:25
To: nigel.shaw@eurostep.com; plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Assigning identifiers with no organization

Nigel,

    Thanks for you comment. This then next raises the next question:

 

      Does it happen that every organization applies its own version numbering convention (and therefore version number) when it applies an organization specific number to an item? If not, we might have the following:

    Org 1 creates part 123 version 1 and gives it version id=1

    Org 2 buys part 123, and renumbers it A123, but uses Org 1's version number     

    Org 1 up issues 123 to version 2, and gives it version id=2 (Org 2 does nothing)

    Org 3 buys part 123, and calls it part X987, version id = 2                         

 

Now, when Org 2 refers to part A123 version id=1, someone looking at the data will see version id=2 where identifier owner = Org 1, and version id =1 where identifier owner = Org 3. This is clearly a mess.

 

Potential solutions:

1) Every organization that applies its own item id must also apply its own version id

2) Every organization that applies its own item id must also apply an organization_relationship identifying the organization that supplies the version identifier

3) Only one version identifier is allowed

4) *the version identifier for an organization is shown by an *identifier_relationship (which entity does not exist) from the primary identifier to the version id.

 

Opinions please.

Sean Barker

0117 302 8184

 

---

From: Nigel Shaw [mailto:nigel.shaw@eurostep.com]
Sent: 07 November 2005 10:49
To: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Assigning identifiers with no organization

I believe you will find in most organizations there is a policy for version numbers which determines the form and ordering convention. Thus there is a context in which they should be interpreted which may be organization specific. Thus the relationship to organization is along the lines of "according to convention established by" rather than owned by. To be really explicit the document concerned (in which the conventions are set down) could itself be assigned to the identification_assignment.  (one notes that over a 30 year life cycle the possibility of change to the conventions)

 

Different versions for the same design could arise if supplier and customer use different versioning conventions.

 

My 2-small-currency-units worth.

 

    Nigel

-----Original Message-----
From: Barker, Sean (UK) [mailto:sean.barker@baesystems.com]
Sent: 07 November 2005 10:02
To: Tim King; plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Assigning identifiers with no organization

Tim,

 

1) Items have multiple identifiers, such as original manufacturer number and customer stock number

2) The data model allows versions to have multiple version numbers - does this ever happen in practice?

3) If it does not happen, do we therefore need an organization against the version number?

 

My memory of the discussion was that it centred on part numbers, where an organization is definitely needed, rather than on version numbers.

 

Sean Barker

0117 302 8184

 

---

From: Tim King [mailto:tmk@lsc.co.uk]
Sent: 07 November 2005 08:18
To: Barker, Sean (UK); 'plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Assigning identifiers with no organization

*** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.

Apologies if I have misunderstood but I am uncomfortable with this.  I thought PLCS had firmly established the principle of requiring the assigning organization in all situations.  If truly "the item being versioned provides the context information" then surely this would be the purpose of the ".id" attribute on Product_version?  Unless you are trying to say that multiple identifiers of version are possible in the context of the item and the identification assignment requires further context specification through classification (I can not think of a real example, I was going to suggest "design" versus "manufacturing" but that seems to be another example of different organizational contexts).

Cheers,
Tim.

-----Original Message-----
From: Barker, Sean (UK) [mailto:sean.barker@baesystems.com]
Sent: 05 November 2005 08:46
To: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [plcs-dex] Assigning identifiers with no organization

In assigning a version number, it is normally assumed that the item being versioned provides the context information (i.e. that the version number is effectively the second part of a compound key, the first part of which is the item number). Assigning version numbers should therefore use the template for assigning an identifier without an organization, and logically this template should be migrated to the assigning identifiers capability, rather than be in the assigning organization capability. Comments?

Additional Observations

Question to Business users: I have made the assumption that where multiple identifiers are applied to the same item, these do not independently define version numbers. Is this true?

Sean Barker
0117 302 8184

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.

You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

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

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

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