[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: representing part
From: Tim Turner [mailto:timturner11@bellsouth.net] Sent: 04 January 2007 21:54 To: 'rob.bodington@eurostep.com' Cc: 'plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org' Subject: RE: representing part Hi Rob,
see below.
Regards,
Tim From: Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] Sent: 04 January 2007 12:01 To: Tim Turner Cc: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: representing part Hi Tim I have had a quick look at representing part template.
Could you
make the EXPRESS-G diagrams look like all the other diagrams (i.e. ones drawn by
GraphicalExpress, so is it possible to change the font and the colour of the
entities?).
Picky /
subjective I know but perhaps we could adopt a convention for how to draw the
product/versio/defitnion entities form top to bottom? Rather like has been done
in product as realized? … just a suggestion
I am not sure that I agree with passing in the detail as to whether the part is a part or assembly. What is that supposed to tell the receiving system? That the part is an assembly (just about every part is and assembly from someone's point of view) Or is it
telling me that there is assembly information in the file.
It does not imply whether the full assembly info is in the file or not, just that it either exists or does not.
The where rule (which is horrible and restrictive) is:
This should
be reflected in the EXPRESS-G
The instance of product_category is further classified with the detail/assembly info to distinguish between those which may have an assembly or breakdown model. By default, the classification is set to detail (i.e has no assembly/decomposition defined for it).
I am not
sure that we need to identify the part_view_defnition – surely that is
identified by the view definition context?
I am assuming from the instantiation path that the following parameters part_creator_org_id(Type='STRING') part_creator_org_id_class_name(Type='CLASS')
are to identify the part – they are not necessarily the organization that created the part – more the organization that owns the identifier that is being provided. So perhaps they should not have creator in the name e.g: part_org_id
You are
also assuming that the same organization owns the id for the part and the
version …. is that always going to be the case?
Regards -------------------------------------------
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]