RE: [plcs-dex] Questions regarding Next_assembly_usage

["Rob Bodington" <rob.bodington@eurostep.com>]

I agree with your conclusion

Regards
Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Bergström [mailto:peter.bergstrom@eurostep.com]
> Sent: 30 March 2007 19:48
> To: David Price; plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Questions regarding Next_assembly_usage
> 
> Thanks Dave,
> 
> Regarding IDs I got a similar response in private today, saying that the
> uniqueness can only be guaranteed in relations between the parent and the
> child, not even within an exchange file.
> 
> And in order to reference a next_assembly_usage, therefore, you need to
> specify the parent ID and child ID (and maybe also their versions, i.e.
> Part_version if you want to be specific), and furthermore the ID of the
> next_assembly_usage if there are more than one (which there might be due
> to occurrencies, e.g. left/right).
> 
> To me, your reply and this other one indicates that we can never rely on
> unique IDs for the Next_assembly_usage, and consequently there is no
> reason in demanding it. If we do, we might get generated numbers with no
> business meaning outside of the parent_child relationship.
> 
> So I'll stay with an optional ID assignment.
> 
> 
> Regarding location_indicator:
> If this is just a hangover, what in PLCS is replacing it?
> Assigning_location could be used, but that is really indicating where a
> product is located, not where it is planned to be located or where it is
> intended to be located. And it doesn't give us the option of providing a
> simple location_indicator, which is required for circuit board placement
> of components (e.g. 'C1'), or at least it makes it much more complicated -
> those locations are not general, they are often very specific to the
> product, and change between products, so a regional grid or something is
> to complicated IMHO.
> 
> Or did you think of some other means to provide an indication of location
> in an assembly?
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Price [mailto:david.price@eurostep.com]
> Sent: den 30 mars 2007 13:54
> To: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: Peter Bergström
> Subject: Re: [plcs-dex] Questions regarding Next_assembly_usage
> 
> Hi Peter - two comments below.
> 
> BTW, great work in forcing some decisions in these and other areas. I like
> how
> thorough you're being with this stuff!
> 
> On Friday 30 March 2007 08:32, Peter Bergström wrote:
> > yes for #1, because the assembly is often referred to as an assembly
> (not
> > the constituents), and everybody will have to be able to read and write
> it
> > anyhow. It is easier to have a rule that requires it to be there at all
> > times, than to supply it on a needs basis. Furthermore, different
> > organizations will need the id, and if it is supplied from the beginning
> > much hassle is over.
> 
> But lots of internal PDM tools don't have identifiers for relationships so
> this id attribute will be just a generated number in many cases -- not
> particularly useful as there will be no guarantee of uniqueness across
> exchange files.
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > No for #2, since many assemblies will be fine just using
> > Neaxt_assembly_usage without subclassing it to e.g. BOM or Spare Parts
> > List. It should be possible to assign reference data to it in order to
> be
> > explicit, but not a requirement.
> >
> >
> >
> > Use the attribute, for #3. The only thing that might not work with this
> > approach is if different organizations require different strings for the
> > location indicator, but I think it is a long shot. Why would a circuit
> > board be re-labeled? Also, for really complicated installations (ships,
> > power plants, etc) the breakdown structure is more fit to be used than
> the
> > assembly structure, and there you have the possibility to talk about the
> > 'slot' or location as a breakdown_element, while the equipment fitted in
> > the location is a Part or Product_as_individual.
> >
> > I think it is incorrect to use the asg_id for the location, as is done
> in
> > template repr_promissary_usage. I don't think the location is always an
> ID
> > ('left wing' for example), and certainly not an ID of the assembly
> > (Next_assembly_usage).
> 
> I thought location_indicator was just a hangover from the old PDM schema
> and
> was only there for interoperability reasons. Perhaps the recommendation
> should be for PLCS translators to consume, but never produce, it?
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> > This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential
> > and is the property of Eurostep Group. It is intended only for the
> person
> > to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> not
> > authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use
> > this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error,
> > please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this
> message.
> 
> --
> Mobile +44 7788 561308
> UK +44 2072217307
> Skype +1 336 283 0606
> http://www.eurostep.com