Tracker: PLCS PSMmodel  :—Open Issues not reminded or considered

[Index] [Process] [All issues] [CCB issues]

Export date: 2012-11-02 06:32:16

Row Id Category Summary Details Priority Status Resolution Release Submitter Assignee Closer Date Raised Date Closed
1 3540414 PLCS PSM XSD Check config files The XSL that generates the XSD should check that all the relationships and assignments are listed in the config file 5 Open None robbod robbod nobody 2012-07-05 10:11:09 1970-01-01 12:00:00
2 3511960 PLCS PSM Model Optional Identifications everywhere in the PSM? All (except Organization) ENTITY having the identifications attribute have been defined with OPTIONAL SET OF Identification. While this might be true for all Relationship/Assignment Object, this can't be correct for other object like Product / ProductVersion / Activity / ActivityMethod / etc ... Why not mandating at least 1 identification for all of these objects directly in the PSM? 5 Open None phoubaux philsp nobody 2012-03-27 03:29:17 1970-01-01 12:00:00
3 3514619 PLCS PSM Model Errors in model definitions The class_definitions.xml file must conform to the schema and all definitions should be complete 5 Open None robbod steve_yates nobody 2012-04-03 03:27:05 1970-01-01 12:00:00
4 3522500 PLCS PSM Model Express WHERE rules The PSM has none of the WHERE rules that we in the ARM. Some of these are useful, such as those on relationship preventing a relationship relating the same thing ENTITY Alternate_product_relationship; name : OPTIONAL STRING; description : OPTIONAL STRING; alternate_product : Product; base_product : Product; criteria : OPTIONAL STRING; UNIQUE UR1: alternate_product, base_product; WHERE WR1: alternate_product :<>: base_product; WR2: EXISTS(criteria) OR (TYPEOF(SELF\Alternate_product_relationship) <> TYPEOF(SELF)); END_ENTITY; 5 Open None robbod philsp nobody 2012-04-30 07:03:07 1970-01-01 12:00:00
5 3524259 PLCS PSM Model IdentifcationContext - add more than Organization Right now Organization is the only context allowed for an identification. We should add project, product, document, into the select. That way we can - identify notes in the context of a drawing. - treat a project as the context 5 Open None robbod nobody nobody 2012-05-07 05:59:09 1970-01-01 12:00:00
6 3528773 PLCS PSM Model Add uniqueness constraints There are a number of blocks that should have uniqueness constraints added. These should be determined by the dexlib templates, the ap239ed2 model. E.g. NumericalContext ExternalAnalysisModel 5 Open None robbod nobody nobody 2012-05-22 07:59:33 1970-01-01 12:00:00
7 3530041 PLCS PSM Model ExchangeContextClassLibrary limit to one per file There should a rule stating that there is one an only one ExchangeContextClassLibrary in an exchange file 5 Open None robbod nobody nobody 2012-05-27 05:09:36 1970-01-01 12:00:00
8 3530047 PLCS PSM Model Should PLCS have: PartVersionRelationship Should PLCS have: ENTITY PartVersionRelationship SUBTYPE OF (ProductVersionRelationship); SELF\ProductVersionRelationship.relating : PartVersion; SELF\ProductVersionRelationship.related : PartVersion; END_ENTITY; There is already a SystemVersionRelationship 5 Open None robbod nobody nobody 2012-05-27 06:04:30 1970-01-01 12:00:00
9 3530552 PLCS PSM Model Breakdown reuse At present a breakdown structure can be applied to more that one product via productOf the realization of the elements is done via BreakdownElementRealization however these two relationships are not related. This means that I can have a simple breakdown of an aircraft say into elements fuselage, port wing and starboard wing. This could be applied to both an A380 and a 1:100 scale model A380. I can have port wing realised by a wing many metres long and a port wing realized by the model part (less than a mtre long). My issue comes how do I know which port wing realization is in the context of the model aircraft breakdown and which in the actual aircraft. My suggested solution to this is to have a relationship between BreakdownElementRealization and BreakdownOf to indicate that this realization is in the context of this application of the breakdown. This could either be as an optional attribute in BreakdownRealization or a relationship object between them. 5 Open None philsp nobody nobody 2012-05-29 03:00:55 1970-01-01 12:00:00
10 3531063 PLCS PSM Model Should IdentificationContext on Identifier be mandatory Should IdentificationContext on Identifier be mandatory? In other words should EVERY id have a context? If this is enforced, then the id of an organization would have to have a context. To avoid infinite references the context of the id of an organization could be the organization. 5 Open None robbod nobody nobody 2012-05-31 12:21:17 1970-01-01 12:00:00
11 3531263 PLCS PSM Model AssemblyComponentRelationship locationIndicator AssemblyComponentRelationship locationIndicator should be an Identifier - not a Multilingual string. The AP239 module definition is: location_indicator: the text that identifies this usage of the component in the assembly in a diagram, list, chart, or on a physical piece of equipment. The value of this attribute need not be specified. 5 Open None robbod nobody nobody 2012-06-01 07:18:24 1970-01-01 12:00:00
12 3532575 PLCS PSM Model InZone composition The InZone relationship can only exist with a ZoneElementDefinition, hence it should be encapsulated in ZoneElementDefinition 5 Open None robbod nobody nobody 2012-06-06 09:41:45 1970-01-01 12:00:00
13 3534082 PLCS PSM Model Task and states AP239ed2 has the following state relationships. TaskElementStateRelationship TaskMethodStateRelationship TaskObjectiveStateRelationship Are they really needed or would it be more consistent to use state assignment ... as we do everywhere else in the model 5 Open None robbod nobody nobody 2012-06-10 06:18:31 1970-01-01 12:00:00
14 3548224 PLCS PSM Model WorkOrderAssignment missing There is no possibility to assign a WorkOrder without having to define a DirectedActivity in it. We should have the same capability of assigning a WorkRequest to things for a WorkOrder without defining a DirectedActivity in it. 5 Open None phoubaux nobody nobody 2012-07-25 07:40:37 1970-01-01 12:00:00
15 3569477 PLCS PSM Model DateTimeString Format should be documented DateTimeString is a type in the PSM (a STRING). The format to be used for that string should be documented. For instance for compatibility with XSD dateTime simpleType, DateTimeString data should be of the format: Gregorian calendar dates: [-]CCYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss[Z|(+|-)hh:mm] Examples "2006-06-23T15:59:23", "2006-02-23T15:59:23+02:00" 5 Open None phoubaux robbod nobody 2012-09-19 01:18:05 1970-01-01 12:00:00
16 3582423 PLCS PSM Model Block definition diagrams naming needs to be aligned The PSM block definition diagrams (BDD:s) are not named consistent. Some are in plural and some (the majority) are in singular. Also some uses Camel-Case style and others (the majority) ordinary writing style. The attached file lists of all BDD:s and the suggested new names for some of them. Out of the current 56 BDD:s, 13 names should be adjusted. 3 Open None matsn nobody nobody 2012-11-01 09:51:27 1970-01-01 12:00:00
17 3525113 PLCS PSM Model BreakdownContext - is it necessary? In PLCS PSM BreakdownContext relates the breakdown to the elements in the breakdown. It is not clear which is the top level element in the breakdown. ENTITY BreakdownContext SUPERTYPE OF (ONEOF (FunctionalBreakdownContext, PhysicalBreakdownContext, SystemBreakdownContext, ZoneBreakdownContext)); descriptions : OPTIONAL SET OF Description; classifiedAs: OPTIONAL SET[1:?] OF ClassSelect; sameAs : OPTIONAL SET[1:?] OF ProxySelect; breakdown : BreakdownVersion; breakdownElement : BreakdownElementDefinition; END_ENTITY; 242 BOM does not use BreakdownContext . Instead the BreakdownVersion has two attributes that perform the role of the BreakdownContext . BreakdownVersion .topElement relates the BreakdownVersion to the top breakdown element. Optional BreakdownVersion.additonalElements relates to other breakdown elements in the breakdown. E.g. ENTITY Breakdown_version;   additional_elements : OPTIONAL SET[1:?] OF Breakdown_element;   additional_ids : OPTIONAL SET[1:?] OF Id_with_context;   breakdown_of : OPTIONAL root_element_select;   description : OPTIONAL STRING;   id : Id_with_context;   top_element : Breakdown_element; INVERSE   breakdown : SET[1:1] OF Breakdown FOR versions; END_ENTITY; Do we "need" to have BreakdownContext ? Do we ever characterize it? 5 Open None R2.0 robbod nobody nobody 2012-05-09 01:40:03 1970-01-01 12:00:00
18 3529692 PLCS PSM Model BreakdownElement Version / View Do we really need exploit blocks for BreakdownElement Version and View? 242 treat the BreakdownElement as a single block with a versionid and no views What business reason do we have for having a view on a BreakdownElement version? 5 Open None R2.0 robbod nobody nobody 2012-05-25 08:12:46 1970-01-01 12:00:00
19 3536612 PLCS PSM Model GeometricCoordinateSpace Missing attributes Id and Kind have been dropped. Suggest id : IdentifierSelect; classifiedAs : SET [1;?] OF ClassifierSelect; 5 Open None R2.0 philsp nobody nobody 2012-06-20 02:08:53 1970-01-01 12:00:00
20 3534771 EXPRESS to XMI Redeclaration of properties There are a number of EXPRESS entities that have attributes redeclared in their subtypes. E.g. ENTITY Product SUPERTYPE OF (ONEOF (...., Collection,)); ... versions : OPTIONAL SET[1:?] OF ProductVersion; END_ENTITY; ENTITY Collection SUBTYPE OF (Product); SELF\Product.versions : OPTIONAL SET[1:?] OF CollectionVersion; END_ENTITY; When drawing the parametric diagrams, both "versions" properties are available as private parts of Collection Collection has multiple "Versions" attributes, with different types. Should both be visible? Is a bug in the conversion from EXPRESS to XMI? OR Is this just a feature of the Parametric diagrams? If yes ..... then perhaps we should seriously consider doing away with the product/versions supertypes ..... and provided usage guidance Note - I think that this is a feature of the parametric diagram which shows both the supertype and the redeclared subtype property. Looking at the Block in a Block Defn Diagram, it is clear that the Collection just has the inherited/redeclared property 7 Open None robbod philsp nobody 2012-06-13 06:30:51 1970-01-01 12:00:00