[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Issue RBN-1 dexlib/data/templates/representing_product_as_realized
A reply issued, as follows: <comment by="Peter Bergström" date="2007-08-15"> <description> This
template do not use the Part_version, only indirectly through the use of
template representing_part, which includes a version. All
values of the Part_version is set automatically in the path, therefore the
"unknown" version. I see
two alternative solutions to this, if you are not satisfied with the current
solution: <ol> <li>
replace the use of template representing_part with a simple instantioation of a
single entity Part. <br/> My
arguments against this is that we don't get the Product_category instantiated,
and if there is a template for representing a Part, why shouldn't we use it? </li> <li>
Omit the representation of Part all together in this template (as suggested as
a solution for issue DNV-28a) <br/> I'm
not fond of this solution either, since I believe the "type ID" (the
Part) is part of the identifier of a Product_as_individual. </li> </ol> </description> </comment> Peter From: Rob Bodington
[mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] I have reopened issue RBN-1 with this comment This template uses representing_part and defaults the
part verison to unknown. It is not clear why we need to mention the
part_version at all in this template. The relationship is between the product_as_individual
and the part. The relationship between the Part_version and the
product_as_realised is not in scope. Having an unknown version when we do not need to
refer to the version is confusing. We should either create a referencing_part template
and use that or instantiate a part and relate to that. Regards -------------------------------------------
Registered Office: |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]