[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [plcs] Global rules in the AP
Ok, agreed. It was a bad example... But I still believe the restrictions should be in DEX/capabilities, not in the model itself. I guess this has been beaten to death now. Regards, Per-Åke Quoting John Dunford <esukpc15@gotadsl.co.uk>: > As NKS has often observed a system can only be compliant with a STEP > standard at its boundary. You can break whatever rules you like > "inside"! > > John Dunford, > Eurostep Limited, > 25, Chaucer Road, BATH BA2 4QX, UK > Tel: +44 1225 789347 > Mobile: +44 0797 491 8202 > www.eurostep.com > www.share-a-space.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Per-Åke Ling [mailto:per-ake.ling@eurostep.com] > Sent: 28 October 2004 15:44 > To: Les Debenham > Cc: 'Rob Bodington'; plcs@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [plcs] Global rules in the AP > > > I tried but couldn't resist replying... > > Consider the following two cases: > > 1. I want to communicate with system/organisation, and do that by > specifying a DEX + whatever RDL data is appropriate. The DEX enforces > that all id_ass have organistions. Fine. > > 2. I am building an in-house system by implementing the PLCS model or a > > subset thereof. Since it is in-house for some specific purpose the > organisation is implicit and can be added when exporting DEX data. > However, if there is a global rule enforcing org, I will have to either > > implement useless stuff or intentionally break the PLCS model for my > implementation. Not so good. > > Once again: rules in capabilities/DEXes are good, even a mandated > feature. Rules and restrictions in the PLCS model is not a good idea. > > Please consider that there may be future potential users of PLCS with a > > different world-view, we should not exclude them at this point. > Instead, > > let them come up with a new set of DEXes. Remember that most of the > PLCS > > stuff right now is defense related, how about power plants (nuclear and > > others), fleets of trucks for transportation, shipping, and more > esoteric stuff such as considering insurance policies as items and the > individual insurances as individuals. They have to be maintained for > decades, after all, and have a complex structure... > > Regards, > Per-Åke > > Les Debenham wrote: > > Rob, > > > > The 2 example rules you give are exectly right. I reserve judgement > on > > the (many) unspoken global rules that may ensue. > > > > LesD > > > > -----Original Message----- > > *From:* Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] > > *Sent:* 28 October 2004 08:38 > > *To:* plcs@lists.oasis-open.org > > *Subject:* [plcs] Global rules in the AP > > > > Hi > > > > One of the issues in the recent debate about NSN and > identification > > was the need for global rules. > > > > > > > > AP239 had several major technical ballot comments against it > > complaining about the lack of global rules. > > > > This was one of the reasons for Germany initially voting NO. > > > > > > > > One of the ballot comments was about global rules enforcing what > is > > already documented in the mapping tables. This has been resolved. > > > > > > > > The other comment is about the lack of global rules in general. > > > > > > > > We have also had a discussion about the need to have some global > > rules in capabilities. > > > > > > > > I agree with Per-Ake, think that we need to be very careful about > > adding global rules as they can restrict the use of the AP. > > > > > > > > Having said that, I think that there are a few areas where we > will > > benefit from global rules in the AP as opposed to the > > DEXs/capabilities. > > > > > > > > E.g. > > > > > > > > Any identification assignment must have an organization assigned > > to it. > > > > > > > > Any product_as_individual, product_as_realised, > product_as_planned, > > part, part_version (note the model has changed!!!) must have at > > least one identification assigned to it. > > > > > > > > Note, I am not enforcing any classification or anything, just > > enforcing an instantiation template. > > > > > > > > What do people think to having such global rules in the AP as > > opposed to the capabilities? > > > > One reason at least is keeping the bargain on changing the German > No > > vote to a Yes. > > > > > > > > Are there any other instantiation templates that we want to > > enforce? > > > > > > > > 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)1454 270030 > > 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 * > > > > > > > > -- > ======================================================== > Per-Åke Ling email: per-ake.ling_AT_eurostep.com > Eurostep AB mobile: +46 709 566 490 > Vasagatan 38 http://www.eurostep.com > SE-111 20 Stockholm > > > -- ======================================================== Per-Åke Ling email: per-ake.ling@eurostep.com Eurostep AB mobile: +46 709 566 490 Vasagatan 38 http://www.eurostep.com SE-111 20 Stockholm
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]