RE: [plcs-dex] Modelling Questions

["David Price" <david.price@eurostep.com>]

A comment on 2)...

In general I agree that standardization, generality and flexibility have to
be weighed against using the most efficient model possible for a particular
purpose when implementations decisions are made. However, unless the files
become huge or are tiny, the overhead of standardization, generality and
flexibility seldom make a big enough difference in real-world data exchange
for people to give up the standardization, etc. That often only leaves
complexity as the issue... and approaches like high level APIs/Business
Objects deal with that.

Note that the above point of view doesn't necessarily apply to internal
database design, real-time systems or transaction/messaging systems, I'm
only describing data exchange.

Cheers,
David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barker, Sean (UK) [mailto:sean.barker@baesystems.com]
> Sent: 23 April 2004 16:12
> To: Plcs-Dex Sub Group Oasis (E-mail) (E-mail); PLCS-COREMODEL-L (E-mail)
> Subject: [plcs-dex] Modelling Questions
> 
> 
> 1) Is there a published source for the semantics of the Capabilities XML?
> particularly the include/exclude?
> 
> 2) Concern has been expressed over the level of normalization of the
> EXPRESS model, and in particular, the degree of file bloat likely to be
> caused by the normalization, and the increase in application processing
> time to resolve references. For example, classification requires a
> classification assignment, a classification, and external library, all
> with entity cross references, in order to define the role of a relation.
> Any comments?
> 
> 3)Re Capability 49, location of product. This assigns a location directly
> to a location with start and end dates.
> 	- at minimum, classification needs to distinguish planned v. actual
> 	- for a mobile asset, such as a ship or aircraft, it would be better
> if the location was associated to an activity, and the activity to the
> asset. This would allow the application of multiple planned activities
> against the asset (each with a different location), allowing contingency
> planning. This approach is needed for the definition of a support
> opportunity, and it would be confusing if there were two different ways of
> doing the same thing.
> 
> Sean Barker
> ATC Filton
> 0117 302 8184
> 
> 
> ********************************************************************
> 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.
> ********************************************************************