Re: [plcs-dex] Questions regarding Next_assembly_usage

[David Price <david.price@eurostep.com>]

Hi Peter - two comments below.

BTW, great work in forcing some decisions in these and other areas. I like how 
thorough you're being with this stuff!

On Friday 30 March 2007 08:32, Peter Bergström wrote:
> yes for #1, because the assembly is often referred to as an assembly (not
> the constituents), and everybody will have to be able to read and write it
> anyhow. It is easier to have a rule that requires it to be there at all
> times, than to supply it on a needs basis. Furthermore, different
> organizations will need the id, and if it is supplied from the beginning
> much hassle is over.

But lots of internal PDM tools don't have identifiers for relationships so 
this id attribute will be just a generated number in many cases -- not 
particularly useful as there will be no guarantee of uniqueness across 
exchange files.

>
>
>
> No for #2, since many assemblies will be fine just using
> Neaxt_assembly_usage without subclassing it to e.g. BOM or Spare Parts
> List. It should be possible to assign reference data to it in order to be
> explicit, but not a requirement.
>
>
>
> Use the attribute, for #3. The only thing that might not work with this
> approach is if different organizations require different strings for the
> location indicator, but I think it is a long shot. Why would a circuit
> board be re-labeled? Also, for really complicated installations (ships,
> power plants, etc) the breakdown structure is more fit to be used than the
> assembly structure, and there you have the possibility to talk about the
> 'slot' or location as a breakdown_element, while the equipment fitted in
> the location is a Part or Product_as_individual.
>
> I think it is incorrect to use the asg_id for the location, as is done in
> template repr_promissary_usage. I don't think the location is always an ID
> ('left wing' for example), and certainly not an ID of the assembly
> (Next_assembly_usage).

I thought location_indicator was just a hangover from the old PDM schema and 
was only there for interoperability reasons. Perhaps the recommendation 
should be for PLCS translators to consume, but never produce, it?

>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential
> and is the property of Eurostep Group. It is intended only for the person
> to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not
> authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use
> this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error,
> please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.

-- 
Mobile +44 7788 561308
UK +44 2072217307
Skype +1 336 283 0606
http://www.eurostep.com