OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

plcs-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: comments from JDurand (TAB member)

Overall a PLCS is very detailed, a bit overwhelming model that appears to cover all lifecycle areas

for complex products.

NOTE: It would be helpful to indicate in which areas of the model the "[needed] detailed application rules in order to be used uniformly by different users..." are expected to be defined by users. More detailed comments:


[1]: It is not always easy to sort out the overloading of some modeling terms:

- there is a Part template, but at the same time there are "parts" in each template that have nothing to do with Part. (BTW, the "context" reference in the Part template properties

is under "Parts" but should be under "References")

Wouldn't it be clearer to avoid using such common terms as Part or Name for templates, e.g. ProductName or ObjectName instead of "Name", and ProductPart or ObjectPart instead of "Part"?


[2]: Couldn't the Identifier template be merged with the Name template ? e.g. one be a part of the other. Or at least "related to" each other?


[3]: On the page about Concept model:

( http://docs.oasis-open.org/plcs/plcslib/v1.0/csprd01/data/PLCS/concept_model/model_base.html)

It says "The model can be accessed by clicking on the image below."

But when I click on it, I only get the same figure just bigger - no links seem to lead anywhere it.


[4]: The Conformance section should have more clearer Conformance Clause(s)

(see http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html):

- In 2.1: what constitutes an "implementation" should be more clearly defined.

Some representation of the PLCS PSM appears to be the target implementation here,

and that representation should be given a name - e.g. a "PSM instance", or "PSM data exchange file"?

- Conformance rule: should I infer neither the EXPRESS or SysML but only the

derived XML schema is necessary to validate an implementation?

Does the sentence "The following models are provided for explanatory purposes" mean that these models

are NOT normative i.e. any form of representations of these (models) are NOT conformance targets? should be clarified.

Also in last paragraph of 2.1, appears Schematron: now is it sufficient for an implementation to validate

against the XML schema above, or should it also satisfy Schematron rules? Not clearly stated.

- In 2.2: "implementations shall conform to them (to OWL ontologies)": can you be more specific where such ontologies are supposed / required to be used in the implementation?

- in 2.3: COnforming to Templates: isn't that implied by validating against the XML schema? Or is there more precise and additional requirements? Is there a minimal set of Templates that must always be present? Or groups of templates that must always be used together?



Jacques D.

TAB member


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]