[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Issues against Assigning Process Properties.
Err … we already have one name for the capability: assigning_process_properties which is used consistently (I believe) Are you suggesting that we change the name of the capability "assigning_process_properties" to assigning_activity_properties"
It was named this way to reflect the model which talks about process properties.
Regards -----Original Message-----
Hi, I raise 4 - (sorry 5) issues on C077 - assigning process properties (or is it assigning activity properties)? 1. This capability depends upon C079 to provide the numerical value for the properties identified by this capability. Without C079, this capability could not provide the value shown in Fig 5. Date and time assignment is an optional characterization, yet it is listed as a dependent. I suggest that C079 be made a dependent capability for this one. There may be other dependents that are listed as related. 2. This capability refers to Task in an example - which is a DIS model entity. This example needs to be updated to AP239 IS model level. 3. Duration is an entity within PLCS. It is a subtype of value_with_unit which is brought in by C079. However, this is not used within the examples shown within C077 in assigning a duration to a task. Perhaps a note should explain why duration is not used? 4. The overview does not mention task, but task is refered to in an example involving duration. The text does not indicate if there is a difference between assigning a duration to a task or assigning one to an activity? Should there be some guidence regarding the use (interchangeability) of task with activity here? I suggest to include task in the overview & some notes to clarify usage with activity and task. I suspect that C077 is applicable to both. 5. Can we have one name to refer to this capability - assigning process properties or assigning activity properties - which is it? Personally, I think process involves more than just an activity.
Regards,
NB I think Sean is correct about the complexing of the classification data. I thought we'd agreed not to do that. -----Original
Message-----
I have raised two issues against assigning process properties, one on general editing, and one on effectivity. I have also raised an additional comment on Rob Bodington's issue for a template. In
addition, I do not think the discussion of classification is clear.
<issue
id="RBN-1" type="general" status="open"
</description>
</issue>
</issue>
<issue
id="SB-2" type="general" status="open"
Sean
Barker
********************************************************************
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
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]