Re:

[西岡靖之 <nishioka@hosei.ac.jp>]

Dear Carlos,

Good question! We think it is unnecessary to have interoperability

between UBL and PPS. However, we don't think that everything needs

to be integrated. PPS has a different scope and approach than UBL.

We are going to make more clear for the good features of PPS in order

to give developers their options to choose for the systems, especially,

that dealing with PDCA cycles within a manufacturing enterprise.

Anyway, we have started developing ver2.0 of PPS in January 2013.

The latest version would like to have simpler object models to avoid 

any conflict to UBL models. 

Yasu 

 

2013/4/4 Carlos Martin <cmfermdp@gmail.com>

Dear 

Yasu,

first of all, nice to meet you and thanks you for answer.

Referring your answers:

1)" Item defined by UBL is bigger than those of PPS, because

PPS's Item definition doesn't have services. "

  New question: Something that I can´t understand is:  if PPS and UBL belongs to  the same OASIS standards, why PPS doesn´t reuse, for example, the item entity, because I need to use a lot of subentities that nowadays UBL´s items has. For example. StandardItemIdentification or ItemInstance. And beyond if the UBL is bigger than PPS, why PPS doesn´t adopt the same item definition. Or why differents committes doesn´t adopt the same element definitions for the common concepts. Aspects like serial number, unit of measure aren´t in the pps item definitions.

2) Thanks. for your example.

By the way, do you have any extra documentation for pps schemas or functional flows.?

thanks for your help.

best regards.

Carlos

2013/4/3 西岡靖之 <nishioka@hosei.ac.jp>

Dear Carlos,

Thank you for your message. I would like to answer the questions.

1) Item defined by UBL is bigger than those of PPS, because

PPS's Item definition doesn't have services. 

2) A BOM can be represented by Item element and Compose

sub elements. e.g., 

<Item name="Computer-A">

  <Compose  item="Keybord-K1"><Qty value="1"/></Compose>

  <Compose  item="DVD Player-Z"><Qty value="1"/></Compose>

</Item>

On the other hand, if you need to express a manufacturing information,

it might be as follows:

<Process name="production-M1>

  <Produce item="Computer-A"><Qty value="1"/></Produce>

  <Consume item="Keybord-K1"><Qty value="1"/></Consume>

  <Consume item="DVD Player-Z"><Qty value="1"/></Consume>

</Process>

You can add manufacturing order as another top level element like:

<Order id="001" process="production-M1">

  <Start><Time value="2013-04-10T16:00:00"/></Start> 

  <End><Time value="2013-04-10T16:00:00"/></End> 

</Order>

Yasu / PPS chair

--------------------------

Hi,

My name is Carlos and IT Functional Consulting in Argentina.

I have been looking inside the pps-schema-1.0.xsd and I have some questions.

1) Why the element Item, it isn´t the same as the UBL element item?. Have I extend the pps-schema-1.0.xsd  with the UBL Item, if I want the same structure?

2) What Entity have I choose of pps-schema-1.0.xsd  If I want to represent a serial manufacturing or a production of a good, in which I want to express a BOM (bill of materials) for one item, like a computer. For example. I want to manufacture a Computer and a Computer has a 1 Keyword, 1 DVD player, 1 Monitor. Where I want to express that I want to produce a computer consuming  each part?

Do you have same xml examples or other documentation that can help me?

Thanks you very much.

Carlos.

--

Yasuyuki Nishioka, Hosei Univ.

--

西岡靖之　法政大学デザイン工学部