Feedback on NDLO Business Concepts

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

Title: Feedback on NDLO Business Concepts

Dear Trine & others,

I had a look thru the NDLO business concepts that were loaded up recently with the following comments..

For the business concept: product_breakdown_structure

1. Name of business concept should not be identical to capability (or template) names.

2. There is no Info Model Overview of the business concept(s)

3. There is no explicit definition of the business concept(s) or mapping of business concept to capability entities other than in the section provided on terms & in the tables defining the classifications assinged to the various entities. This makes the mapping entirely "implicit". This is not necessarily wrong - but different.

4. It has been written using phrases such as "This DEX specifies" under the Scope/Purpose/Usage headings. Is this really a definition of a business cocnept? It seems a mixture or both concept and Dex, but with sections missing from each!

5. Bullet 4 above Fig 1a, suggests that some inferences are able to be drawn from the figure. However, the figure is too devoid of attribute information that I find it hard to draw the same inference as suggested!

6. Same issue regarding bullet 4 above Figures 1b, 1c, 1d

7. The text above Fig1f states "Functional & Physical Breakdown", but there is little to indicate this except the fact that there a the use of hybrid breakdown - the contexts of which point to 2 instances of breakdown element definitions. However, we cannot tell from this that these definitions are linked in any way to a functional or physical breakdown. Indeed, searching for functional instances on other diagrams (to follow the line of thought) reveals the functional breakdown in Fig 1d - but the instances do not match up with those in Fig1f - e.g.instance #7 in Fig 1d is a view_definition_context, yet in Fig1f it has become a breakdown element definition. I would have expected to see a functional_element_definition and a physical_element_definition linked by a hybrid_breakdown_usage with a hybrid_breakdown_context (& version). In fact I think there is a local rule in the express that requires this (on hybrid_breakdown_context at least).

8. Figs 1b & 1c are identical

9. Fig 1e does not relate the document discussed in the text  above to the part, breakdown element or location entities. Should the use of the document also be classified wrt it's role (i.e. another business concept)?

10. The reference data used within the business concept (/Dex) is not listed at the end.

Observations:
1. Given the text in Fig 1G - I would assume that the use of product_version_relationship to link (relating_version) to the main product from the breakdown_element_definition (related_version) would target an instance of part_version as the relating_version - allowing access to the main part from there. Given that Fig 1G shows part & part_versions, why not show this? Note - I do not know that the model was intended for this usage but as long as this works...).

 
In fig 1f, the use of selected_item &SI_assignment indicates that both the parent & child breakdown elements should be replaced after an elapsed time/period (according to the entity descriptions in AP239). I wonder whether this should really be in Dex1?!

NB I've not had time to go thru the others as yet  

Regards,
Tim

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