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
Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Turner [mailto:tjt@lsc.co.uk]
Sent: 21 November 2005 15:47
To: 'plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Issues against Assigning Process Properties.

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,
Tim

NB I think Sean is correct about the complexing of the classification data. I thought we'd agreed not to do that.

-----Original Message-----
From: Barker, Sean (UK) [mailto:sean.barker@baesystems.com]
Sent: 21 November 2005 09:37
To: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [plcs-dex] Issues against Assigning Process Properties.

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.
It seems to be allowing for multiple classifications, and although it seems to backtrack at the end, the relation of the example "predicited_task_duration" to the basic classifications "Qualified property" and "Quantified property" is unclear.

<issue id="RBN-1" type="general" status="open"
category="minor_technical" by="Rob Bodington" date="05-09-21">
<description>
There should be a template assigning_process_property There will be an associated template: property_numerical_value in representing_properties_numerically and property_numerical_value

</description>
<comment by="Sean Barker" date="05-11-18">
<description>Such a template will need parameters for property-classification, value, unit (and whether by classification or using the Unit type), date value set and date assigned, organization setting value, organization assinging value and effectivity of assignment. This would make for a rather unwieldy graphical template, defeating the original intentions. I would suggest a restricted template of property-classification, value, unit and effectivity. In addition, I would suggest adding a reference to a text template, which can be populated off-graphics. It is also not clear from the text whether separate templates would be needed for "qualified properties" and "quantified propoerties"</description> </comment>

        </issue>
        <issue id="SB-1" type="general" status="open"
category="minor_technical" by="Sean barker" date="05-11-18">
                <description>
                The capability needs general copy editiing - there are a couple of references to Resource_property instead of activity property, and the text needs to be cognisant of the disctinction between an activity and an activity_method, and use the preferred term Task specification rather than task, </description>

</issue>

        <issue id="SB-2" type="general" status="open"
category="minor_technical" by="Sean barker" date="05-11-18">
                <description>
                The assignment of Effectivity to an activity_property needs to be described.
                </description>
        </issue>

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

plcs-dex message