[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] RE: Capability property value ranges
Thanks Tim, I think I have understood your
requirements, and propose to do the following: 1) In Cap00 Repr_value_with_unit I will include your template
repr_value_with_unit. I propose to change the in-parameter name unit_class_name
to unit (you need to change your figures accordingly). 2) In Cap079 Repr_properties_numerically I will leave the template
repr_properties_numerically (I never intended to remove it, but was not clear
earlier). 3) I will not use your template Repr_numerical_value_with_unit, since
I can’t find a need for it (since we have what’s needed for
properties in cap079). If an example is provided (same as above) I will instead
include the reference parameter in the template repr_properties_numerically,
and that will solve that. Regarding document_properties, I’m
terribly confused. I tried to include them in the full property-solution, but
was flabbergasted by the express where rule wr1: ENTITY
Assigned_document_property SUBTYPE
OF (Assigned_property); SELF\Assigned_property.described_element
: document_property_item; DERIVE
SELF\Assigned_property.name : STRING := 'document property'; UNIQUE UR1 :
SELF\Assigned_property.described_element; WHERE WR1 :
SIZEOF(['AP239_PRODUCT_LIFE_CYCLE_SUPPORT_ARM_LF.DOCUMENT_DEFINITION',
'AP239_PRODUCT_LIFE_CYCLE_SUPPORT_ARM_LF.FILE'] * TYPEOF(SELF\
Assigned_property.described_element)) = 1; END_ENTITY;
(* declared in: Document_properties_arm *) Hopefully I have misunderstood the rule,
but as far as I understand, a document must have ONE AND EXACTLY ONE property
!!! If this is true, the entire
document_property part of the model is crap, and we should just ignore it. A Document
is a subtype of Product, so why treat it differently – Use Product-properties!! And really, even if I have misunderstood
the document property rule above, why _would_
we treat document properties different from any other product properties? I
would just add to the confusion, IMHO. My proposal is to write in the cap076 that
it applies for all subtypes of Product (including Document), and remove Cap087. Peter From: Tim Turner
[mailto:tjt@lsc.co.uk] Hi Peter, I have made some observations below.
Hopefully, it clarifies your questions :-) regards, Tim From: Peter
Bergström [mailto: Hi Tim, Now I have looked at your templates, and
the way you use them, and I have a few questions: In your template
representing_numerical_value_with_unit you have included the
Property_value_representation entity, but as far as I understand from Cap
Representing_location you are not using it. The inclusion appears to have been
a copy-paste mistake. If so, I think I understand your requirements (i.e.
everything but Property_value_representation. The reason for including the
Property_value_representation is that for complex subtypes of Value_with_unit
e.g. Numerical_value_with_unit there is a rule which states that it
must be referenced by an instance of representation (as a .item if I remember).
The point is that you cannot just instantiate the NIWU by itself due to the
rule inherited by Measure_item. For locations, it is only required to use
Value_with_unit, which then removes the requirement for a separate
representation (it is not a subtype of Measure_item). The representation,
however, is useful for associating the values with a product, property or
process (for which there are the relevant hooks in those parts of the model) -
however, Location is (unfortunately) none of the above. I can see two resolutions here: 1) I change the
Representing_numerical_value in cap Representing_properties_numerically to
include a reference parameter ^item, in which case you would get exactly what
you have now, or 2) I edit your representing_numerical_value_with_unit
by deleting the Property_value_representation entity, and use that in
Representing_numerical_value. It would then have a reference parameter ^item,
and it would be located in Cap Representing_value_with_unit. The first choice is the easiest for me,
but kind of cludgy, so I think I go for the second choice. So I would keep your existing Representing_numerical_value in C079, but make the NVWU
referenceable. I also recommend adding the template for Value_with_unit to C00,
as is. I'm however not sure that I will include
the representing_value_with_unit template in Cap Representing_value_with_unit.
To me, I can't see the difference between a value with unit and a numerical
value with unit, and it seem to me that it will only confuse issues ('which one
is applicable where?'). Can you or someone else enlighten me regarding their
difference? Also, bear in mind that there is also the
document_property_representation which will need to re-use some of these
templates as this is not covered. Comments? Cheers, Peter From: Tim Turner
[mailto:tjt@lsc.co.uk] Hi Peter,
For your
info, I have just managed to get my sourcefoge account operational again &
have uploaded some work from last week during the outage. Inside
representing_location, you will see that there are 7 templates - 2 of which are
additional templates that were done during development of this capability.
These are; representing_value_with_unit (- the previous one in C00 - version
1.6 had many errors) & representing_numerical_value_with_unit. The first
should be moved to the appropriate place while the second was found not to be
necessary - but I have left it since it works & may serve a purpose
sometime. Kind
regards, NB - all
work without error in GI -----Original
Message----- Peter,
Regards,
Tom
Thomas E.
Hendrix -----Original
Message----- Tom,
I'm
editing the property capabilities in DEXlib now, and need three templates in
cap representing_property_value_ranges, one for range, one for limit and one
for value with tolerance. Can I
take over the editorship temporarily, or will you do it? Peter
Bergström 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 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 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]