[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] RE: Capability property value ranges
Tim, I have now moved the template
representing_value_with_unit from Cap Representing_location into Cap Representing_unit_with_value,
and removed the template representing_numerical_value_with_unit from
Representing_location (not used anywhere, and I do not see it being used. I
actually stored it temporarily inside Representing_value_with_unit, but
commented it out, just to be sure). I have not changed anything else in your
capability, so figures and references may have to be updated now… But first, please have a look at the
resulting template representing_value_with_unit (I changed names of
parameters). Peter From: Tim Turner
[mailto:tjt@lsc.co.uk] Hi Peter, For the issue about document
properties, I think the rule is saying that for each instance of assigned_document_property,
it must point to one item in the described_element select list
(document_definition/file etc..), which I think is fair; if you're going to
bother to define a property you might as well assign it to the document it is
defined for. This only reinforces the fact that each property must be
represented separately (rather than a list/set etc..). There can be many
descriptive_document_property or numerical_document_property instances assigned
to each described_element (e.g. no of pages, weight, size etc.). The 30 rules on
assigned_property.described_element select type basically serve to limit the 32
choices in the select type referenced down to 2
(document_definition/file)... which is an odd way of achieving the requirement,
but legal from what I can tell (note this is done elsewhere within PLCS also). I raised the subject of why documents had
to be dealt with differently around 1.5 yrs ago & after a long discussion
had to create another capability for this purpose. It is still foggy in my mind
what the reasons were, but I guess we could trawl the archive. If C076 can
cover the template requirements for document properties then I think that would
be useful, but we then would need to move the contents of C087 somewhere which
I'm not certain would make others so happy & may complicate what we have.
So we might need to keep C087, however, the template could easily be referenced
from C076 for the purposes of properties though we have to ensure that
whichever template is used doesn't allow illegal associations to be made. I
suspect that the template for docs will need to be based upon that for products
but may need to prune out the unecessary items & include those specific for
docs. Other points below accepted regards, Tim From: Peter
Bergström [mailto:peter.bergstrom@eurostep.com] 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 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]