[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [plcs] Updated slides on AP239ed2
On the matter of afterthoughts, I think the real core entity for interoperbility is actually Product. However, I think this debate will end up in the discussion about ARM vs MIM/AIM & the integrated resources, which would probably not be productive. In general I would tend to agree with Peter on this issue. The criteria for picking which things in AP233 should go into AP239 is somewhat subjective, depending upon one's viewpoint. To me System & Behaviour should either be brought in together or not at all. Why would I want to use AP233 for Behaviour & not use System there? Regards, Tim >-----Original Message----- >From: David Price [mailto:david.price@eurostep.com] >Sent: 09 March 2009 04:39 >To: Peter Bergström >Cc: plcs@lists.oasis-open.org; Tim Turner; Rob Bodington >Subject: Re: [plcs] Updated slides on AP239ed2 > >On Monday 09 March 2009 08:18:51 Peter Bergström wrote: >> Dave, >> >> From where did you get the definition of a breakdown structure as >> being an "alternative structure of an original 'thing'"? I cannot >> recollect that as being the definition used in AP239. > >See "Breakdown_of" entity type and the statements in the >Introduction of the Product_breakdown module below: > >These views are complementary to the assembly structure and >bill of materials views that are the primary focus for >manufacturing (realization) of a product [2]. Product >breakdowns differ from such assembly structures in that the >relationships between the nodes are often specific to both the >particular breakdown and the product or products to which the >breakdown applies. In the case of an assembly structure the >meaning of the relationships between components is always a >variant of the idea of assembly and so any sub-tree can be >used in multiple assemblies. A similar sub-tree of a product >breakdown can only be applicable to the breakdown of the >product in which it is defined. The extent to which this is >the case depends on the rule set followed by the creator of >the breakdown. > >> >> I also think your comment about interop between AP233 and >AP239 (so if >> you need behaviour, use 233) deserves some afterthought: If that is >> true, whu do we need to include things into AP239 based only on the >> fact that it is part of AP233 and we want to be interoperable? >> Wouldn't that argument work for not including System as well? > >I don't think so. System is *the* core concept, Behaviour is >not. There will be almost zero interop with AP233 if AP239 >doesn't include System. > >> >> >> Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Price [mailto:david.price@eurostep.com] >> Sent: den 6 mars 2009 10:41 >> To: plcs@lists.oasis-open.org >> Cc: Tim Turner; Rob Bodington >> Subject: Re: [plcs] Updated slides on AP239ed2 >> >> The rationale for System in the modules themselves is based on the >> Systems Engineering discipline and its distinction between >Systems and >> other configuration controlled items (i.e. a System or System of >> Systems is not a Part). Here's a link to the biggest >industry group in >> the area and their definition of systems engineering: >> >> http://www.incose.org/practice/fellowsconsensus.aspx >> >> There are related ISO standards for SE processes: >> >> http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=27166 >> >> Using a breakdown for these requirements didn't make sense because a >> breakdown is an alternative structure of an original "thing" (i.e. a >> change controlled view), but what SEs are building is the original >> "thing", not a view of it. >> >> Cheers, >> David >> >> P.S. WRT behavior not in AP239, I think one reason is that asset >> maintenance people don't repair or maintain the behaviour of >a system >> so don't need that info or get it through a tech doc or similar. Not >> sure about that though. Either way, if you have a usage >scenario where >> behaviour information needs to be exchanged, just use AP233 in >> conjunction with AP239 as the aim is to support 100 percent >interop between the two. >> >> On Thursday 05 March 2009 20:51:02 Tim Turner wrote: >> > Rob, >> > >> > I appreciate the update to the slides. Since the telecon was >> > cancelled today I would like to raise two points; >> > >> > 1. Could I suggest that you add a slide to inform about the things >> > that have been discussed and rejected (or that remain as low >> > priority & hence unlikely to be included in AP239ed2). >> > >> > In particular I think it worth stating that explicit subtypes for >> > various concepts (e.g. Failure, Failure mode, Failure mode effect, >> > Fault, Symptom, Behaviour etc.). This gives visibility that they >> > have at least been discussed with the relevant (current) >conclusions >> > as presented. >> > >> > 2. On another note, I (& maybe others) could still do with >a better >> > understanding of the reasoning behind the need for System and its >> > relationship to System_breakdown. In my mind, its >inclusion would be >> > another reason to also include behaviour such that the >behaviour of >> > the system can be specified (under certain stimulus). >> > >> > Regards, >> > Tim >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > >> > From: Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] >> > Sent: 03 March 2009 11:59 >> > To: plcs@lists.oasis-open.org >> > Subject: [plcs] Updated slides on AP239ed2 >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi >> > >> > Here are an updated set of slides reporting on the status of >> > AP239 edition2 that were presented at the last PLCS TC telecom. >> > >> > These replace ISO 10303-239ed2_v005.ppt that was sent by Chris >> > >> > * From: "Kreiler, Christopher G" >> > <Chris.Kreiler@ManTech.com> >> > * To: <plcs@lists.oasis-open.org> >> > * Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:40:47 -0500 >> > >> > Regards >> > Rob >> > >> > >> > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > ---- >> > -------- >> > Rob Bodington >> > Eurostep Limited >> > Web Page: http://www.eurostep.com <http://www.eurostep.com/> >> > http://www.share-a-space.com <http://www.share-a-space.com/> >> > Email: Rob.Bodington@eurostep.com >> > <mailto:Rob.Bodington@eurostep.com> >> > Phone: +44 (0)1452 810 960 >> > Mobile: +44 (0)7796 176 401 >> > Skype: rbodington >> > >> > Eurostep Limited. Registered in England and Wales No.03049099 >> > >> > Registered Office: Cwttir Lane, St. Asaph, Denbighshire >LL17 0LQ. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 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 >> > Ltd. Registered in England & Wales No 2275471 Registered Office: >> > Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1 4SG, >having a place of >> > business at Lincoln House, Wellington Crescent, Fradley >Park, Lichfield, >> > Staffordshire WS13 8RZ and at Catherine House, 40a St >Thomas Street, >> > Weymouth, Dorset DT4 8EH. VAT number: GB 655 1330 55. >> > >> > Please consider whether it is necessary to print this e-mail > > > >-- >Mobile +44 7788 561308 UK +44 2087473900 Skype +1 336 283 0606 > >Eurostep Limited. Registered in England and Wales No.03049099 >Registered >Office: Cwttir Lane, St. Asaph, Denbighshire LL17 0LQ > 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 Ltd. Registered in England & Wales No 2275471 Registered Office: Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1 4SG, having a place of business at Lincoln House, Wellington Crescent, Fradley Park, Lichfield, Staffordshire WS13 8RZ and at Catherine House, 40a St Thomas Street, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 8EH. VAT number: GB 655 1330 55. Please consider whether it is necessary to print this e-mail
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]