RE: representing part

Hi Tim

I have had a quick look at representing part template.

Could you make the EXPRESS-G diagrams look like all the other diagrams (i.e. ones drawn by GraphicalExpress, so is it possible to change the font and the colour of the entities?).
[Tim Turner] Will be done - just want to concentrate on the template instantiations first.

Picky / subjective I know but perhaps we could adopt a convention for how to draw the product/versio/defitnion entities form top to bottom? Rather like has been done in product as realized? … just a suggestion
[Tim Turner] Time will dictate

I am not sure that I agree with passing in the detail as to whether the part is a part or assembly.

What is that supposed to tell the receiving system?

That the part is an assembly (just about every part is and assembly from someone's point of view)

Or is it telling me that there is assembly information in the file.
[Tim Turner] Best see the issue log on that - RBN-9 & the resolution which was posted. Essentially, the intent was that once the representation of the part has been setup (Part, Part_version & PV_definition) a reference to the Part (via a Part_version) will enable a receiver of (just the reference & related instances) to tell if the Part is composed of an assembly or a single item etc.. without having to exchange the entire assembly model or breakdown to dtermine this fact. This is useful in exchanges where the full product model is not known to all parties.

It does not imply whether the full assembly info is in the file or not, just that it either exists or does not.

The where rule (which is horrible and restrictive) is:

ENTITY Part
SUBTYPE OF (Product);
WHERE
WR1: SIZEOF(['part', 'raw material', 'tool']*types_of_product(SELF))=1;
END_ENTITY;



Why not just have a default product category which is the 
'part; to make the model valid.
[Tim Turner] Yes - there is a default 
product_category which is setup in this manner and connected to the Part 
through the product_category_assignment to make the model 
valid.

This should be reflected in the EXPRESS-G
[Tim Turner] Agreed

The instance of product_category is further classified with the detail/assembly info to distinguish between those which may have an assembly or breakdown model. By default, the classification is set to detail (i.e has no assembly/decomposition defined for it).

I am not sure that we need to identify the part_view_defnition – surely that is identified by the view definition context?
[Tim Turner] As I understand it, to fully represent a Part, the view definition is required, but you are correct a definition can be identified by one (or more) view_definition_contexts. However, this is only defining a view (which may not be unique). To uniquely identify the Part_view_definition within a design, which may have several assembly options for potentially many product representations and variants it would seem reasonable to associate an identifier to it as depicted in C001 - especially if this data needs to be maintained over time.

I am assuming from the instantiation path that the following parameters

part_creator_org_id(Type='STRING')

part_creator_org_id_class_name(Type='CLASS')

part_creator_org_id_ecl_id

are to identify the part – they are not necessarily the organization that created the part – more the organization that owns the identifier that is being provided. So perhaps they should not have creator in the name e.g:

part_org_id
[Tim Turner] Point taken.

You are also assuming that the same organization owns the id for the part and the version …. is that always going to be the case?
[Tim Turner] This can be separated out to take account of where this is not the case. I had been using my tunnel vision and thinking that where parts are getting "re-badged" within another setting, a supplied_part_relationship would be used between the supplied part and the new one created for reselling/after-market usage. Of course, this would assume that the original supplier info was available.

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)1452 810 960 (note new number)
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

plcs-dex message