[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [no subject]
While stricter rules may be enforceable within the PLCS community, and =
have
value by adding certainty to the interpretation of exchanges, these =
should be
enforced at DEX level. Note that enforcing them at capability level =
would be
inappropriate, since these will be inherited by every DEX, and this may =
drive
users to create additional capabilities which differ only by having =
weaker
global rules.
I would also observe that while we are currently using the reference =
data
library only as a source of classifications, it would be equally logical =
to use
it as a source of rules. In principle there is no difference between a =
rule
enforcing a particular value of a classification to that enforcing a =
particular
identifier format. Currently the latter are relegated to an exchange =
specific
agreement, involving manual comparison of rule sets. It should not be =
beyond the
wit of the community to provide a more general rule server, allowing
compatibility between PLCS environments to be computed directly.
Sean Barker
ATC Filton
0117 302 8184
-----Original Message-----
From: Per-=C5ke Ling [mailto:Per-Ake.Ling@eurostep.com]
Sent: 29 October 2004 09:07
To: john.dunford@eurostep.com; John Dunford
Cc: 'Per-=C5ke Ling'; 'Les Debenham'; 'Rob Bodington';
plcs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs] Global rules in the AP
*** WARNING ***
This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
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-=C5ke
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
>=20
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Per-=C5ke 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-=C5ke
>
> Les Debenham wrote:
> > Rob,
> >=20
> > The 2 example rules you give are exectly right. I reserve judgement
> on
> > the (many) unspoken global rules that may ensue.
> >=20
> > 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.
> >
> > =20
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > =20
> >
> > One of the ballot comments was about global rules enforcing what
> is
> > already documented in the mapping tables. This has been =
resolved.
> >
> > =20
> >
> > The other comment is about the lack of global rules in general.
> >
> > =20
> >
> > We have also had a discussion about the need to have some global
> > rules in capabilities.
> >
> > =20
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > =20
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > =20
> >
> > E.g.
> >
> > =20
> >
> > Any identification assignment must have an organization assigned
> > to it.
> >
> > =20
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > =20
> >
> > Note, I am not enforcing any classification or anything, just
> > enforcing an instantiation template.
> >
> > =20
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > =20
> >
> > Are there any other instantiation templates that we want to
> > enforce?
> >
> > =20
> >
> > Regards
> > Rob
> >
> > ------------------------------------------- =20
> > 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
> >
> > =20
> >
> >
> >
> > *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 *
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Per-=C5ke 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
>
>
>
--
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Per-=C5ke Ling email: per-ake.ling@eurostep.com
Eurostep AB mobile: +46 709 566 490
Vasagatan 38 http://www.eurostep.com
SE-111 20 Stockholm
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]