RE: [plcs-dex] Classification of type and individual

["Barker, Sean (UK)" <sean.barker@baesystems.com>]

Les,

    it would be worth checking with the Royal Engineers that only pre-defined configurations are allowed, and they do not modify their vehicles away from the manufacturer's specification - something I believe they have done in the past.

 

Sean Barker
ATC Filton
0117 302 8184

-----Original Message-----
From: Les Debenham [mailto:lad@lsc.co.uk]
Sent: 07 March 2005 14:57
To: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Classification of type and individual

*** 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.

Rob,

 

As a support engineer I object to what you did in your third paragraph. Under what circumstances in our work of "Supporting" a product are we going to allow you to modify your bicycle to a non-approved configuration.  At the first configuration audit you will be told to de-modify until your product_as_realized (bike) conforms to its correct configuration. You may apply a change to your configuration if that change (Souped Up) is allowable for your realized instance of the product design (effectivity).

 

To be more precise "Souped up" is a variant of the design. You are right it is not a classification.

 

Yours configuring for ever,

Les

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com]
Sent: 07 March 2005 13:38
To: 'Gyllström Leif'; plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Classification of type and individual

 

Thinking about this a bit more .....

I think that this approach will get really complicated.

 

Imagine I have a bike design classified as an "ordinary" bike.

I then build an individual bike from this design.

The individual bike will be classified as an "ordinary" bike.

 

I then make a modification to my individual bike, so it is now a "Souped up bike".

The change was not a change to a design, but to my individual bike so "Souped up bike"

is not a classification of the design, but a classification of my individual bike.

 

 

So can we be sure that:

a)       all classifications of the typical apply equally to the actual thing being classified.

b)       If we classify a typical will that classification apply to all of the actual things

 

I'm not convinced (yet)

 

Regards
Rob

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Gyllström Leif [mailto:leif.gyllstrom@aerotechtelub.se]
Sent: 07 March 2005 13:11
To: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: SV: [plcs-dex] Classification of type and individual

 

Rob

 

I would suggest that we only classify the typical due to the implications that the other approach will have on the reference data library.

 

We have agreed that refdata should be regarded as specializations (subclasses) of PLCS Entities. This would mean that an instance of

reference data would have to be defined for both the typical and the actual thing. Yes, OWL will allow for a class being a subclass of

several Entity classes. But I'm convinced that this will cause confusion and classes for typical will only appear as specializations of

the entity representing the actual etc.

 

I'm stongly in favor of keeping the separation of typical and actual,and exchange both instances, and have a consistent approach

throughout PLCS.

 

Regards

 

Leif

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com]
Skickat: den 18 februari 2005 17:27
Till: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Ämne: [plcs-dex] Classification of type and individual

Hi

In PLCS we make a distinction between a typical something and an actual something.

 

E.g

Part and product_as_realized

State_definition and State_observed

 

We are also able to classify things.

E.g.

A Part is classified as a Bicycle

A  State_definition is classified as a Fault state.

 

The question is, if I classify the typical things, do I need to classify the actual thing?

 

For example, if I classify a Part as being a bicycle, do I need to classify the Product as realised as representing my bike, as a being a bicycle, or do I just classify the Part?

 

Similarly for states.

 

If we impose a rule that you only classify the typical - not the actual, then you will always have to exchange both the typical and the actual.

Which may be overkill.

 

Any thoughts?

Regards
Rob

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

 

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

********************************************************************
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.
********************************************************************