RE: [plcs-dex] date effectivity

If that information is available, yes you can use it.

The issue is that the only date information that I have, is the date when I remove a component.

Hence, I would like to set the end effectivity date and leave the start effectivity unknown

Regards
Rob

-------------------------------------------
Rob Bodington
Eurostep Limited
Web Page: http://www.eurostep.com http://www.share-a-space.com
Email: Rob.Bodington@eurostep.com
Phone: +44 (0)1452 810 960
Mobile: +44 (0)7796 176 401

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Kreiler [mailto:kreilerc@mantech-wva.com]
Sent: 08 February 2006 13:55
To: 'Gordon Robb'; rob.bodington@eurostep.com; plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] date effectivity

What about using the start date of the next higher assembly? This would make an assumption that the part was on the original assembly when put into service. Thoughts?

From: Gordon Robb [mailto:gor@lsc.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 7:17 AM
To: 'rob.bodington@eurostep.com'; plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] date effectivity

Hi,

I would suggest that your option in respect to a feedback activity classification is the CORRECT one. There could be thousands of components on a aircraft or any other product that the fitted date is not known. Zero filling or a dummy date is of little value.

Gordon

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com]
Sent: 08 February 2006 11:56
To: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [plcs-dex] date effectivity

Hi

I was wondering how to represent an end date effectivity when the start

date effectivity is not known. E.g. A feedback record is reporting the fact that a component is removed

from an aircraft, but I have no idea when it was installed, but I know when I took it off.

The EXPRESS forces a start effectivity

ENTITY Dated_effectivity

SUBTYPE OF (Effectivity);

start_bound : date_or_event;

end_bound : OPTIONAL date_or_event;

END_ENTITY;

I can get around the problem in a feedback activity by classifying the activity_actual as a removal or installation activity.

But this does not seem the safest approach.

One suggestion is to use a dummy date 1900-01-01

Another is to raise a SEDS against the Date_effectivity to allow start_bound to be optional - that will take some time

Any thoughts?

Regards
Rob

-------------------------------------------
Rob Bodington
Eurostep Limited
Web Page: http://www.eurostep.com http://www.share-a-space.com
Email: Rob.Bodington@eurostep.com
Phone: +44 (0)1452 810 960
Mobile: +44 (0)7796 176 401

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