[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Questions regarding Next_assembly_usage
I agree with your conclusion Regards Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Bergström [mailto:peter.bergstrom@eurostep.com] > Sent: 30 March 2007 19:48 > To: David Price; plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Questions regarding Next_assembly_usage > > Thanks Dave, > > Regarding IDs I got a similar response in private today, saying that the > uniqueness can only be guaranteed in relations between the parent and the > child, not even within an exchange file. > > And in order to reference a next_assembly_usage, therefore, you need to > specify the parent ID and child ID (and maybe also their versions, i.e. > Part_version if you want to be specific), and furthermore the ID of the > next_assembly_usage if there are more than one (which there might be due > to occurrencies, e.g. left/right). > > To me, your reply and this other one indicates that we can never rely on > unique IDs for the Next_assembly_usage, and consequently there is no > reason in demanding it. If we do, we might get generated numbers with no > business meaning outside of the parent_child relationship. > > So I'll stay with an optional ID assignment. > > > Regarding location_indicator: > If this is just a hangover, what in PLCS is replacing it? > Assigning_location could be used, but that is really indicating where a > product is located, not where it is planned to be located or where it is > intended to be located. And it doesn't give us the option of providing a > simple location_indicator, which is required for circuit board placement > of components (e.g. 'C1'), or at least it makes it much more complicated - > those locations are not general, they are often very specific to the > product, and change between products, so a regional grid or something is > to complicated IMHO. > > Or did you think of some other means to provide an indication of location > in an assembly? > > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Price [mailto:david.price@eurostep.com] > Sent: den 30 mars 2007 13:54 > To: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org > Cc: Peter Bergström > Subject: Re: [plcs-dex] Questions regarding Next_assembly_usage > > 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]