OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

plcs-tog message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG me eting


Hi Mats,
 
Thank you for highlighting this again - current work has taken my eye off the issues raised before Christmas holidays.
 
I guess these issues might be best logged as an issue against the architecture &/or raised at the next TOG meeting - I have few resources to follow up on these at the moment.
 
The danger I see in creating some of these spcifications is that they shall, once defined, remain with little resemblance to any of the actual DEXs that they were originally intended to be conformant to, and will become nothing more than point to point interface specifications.
 
On the naming aspect, I can live with Business DEX, but personally I do not like the implication that it is a DEX. The DEXs have other attributes (at present) such as a long form & guidance material whereas the business side is generally more akin to a mapping from an Application to a particular DEX, rather than a DEX themselves.
 
Kind regards,
Tim


From: mats.nilsson@fmv.se [mailto:mats.nilsson@fmv.se]
Sent: 17 January 2006 02:42
To: tjt@lsc.co.uk
Cc: ils-de@a.dii.mod.uk; kreilerc@mantech-wva.com
Subject: SV: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG me eting

Tim,

You point out many important aspects with possible solutions which needs to be resolved, please make sure they aren't forgotten...

For now I only like to make a small (and it is small) comment on the terminology used by you. If you say "Business DEX Specification", to me that is read out like; "Business Data EXchange Specification Specification". I would prefere "Business DEX" instead of "Business DEX Specification".

Regards,
  Mats
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mats Nilsson, FMV

 


Från: Tim Turner [mailto:tjt@lsc.co.uk]
Skickat: den 19 december 2005 17:21
Till: Gibson, Martin; Tim Turner; 'kreilerc@mantech-wva.com'; Nilsson, Mats maxnn; plcs-tog@lists.oasis-open.org
Ämne: RE: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG me eting

Dear Martin,
 
I did not note the final conclusion on the naming (too busy talking I guess), but I am happy with it either way around. Some, however, may think of this as something closer to an implementation agreement or interface specification.
 
However, it is imperative that we DO agree on the format & structure of the "Business DEX Specification" (BDS), as we must be able to have a consistent view on what the spec looks like - without a definition, we will have many examples of BDS' - but no one will know which is the accepted style, format, or set of contents. Plus - what do we tell others outside of our Oasis group that are now starting to ask about these (and other aspects) when they want to develop their own? In my mind this is all part of the architecture that should have been defined years ago, but we are having to invent this as we progress. However, now the standard has been published there is greater urgency to have all this material available now.
 
 We spent some time examining what the difference was at the TOG meeting. The result was a mix of what has been generated for the Manufacturers_item under TLSS and examples produced under the NDLO. Fundamentally, a Business Dex Specification (BDS) will conform to a certain DEX. The conformance would be shown through the use of all or a subset of the entities defined within the DEX refered to. Unlike a DEX a BDS will use and refer to Business Concepts which are mapped to those entities defined by the DEX. (Current DEXs being generic in nature and applicable to more than one BDS). The Business Concepts may introduce new templates to define the concepts. These will be based upon the definitions (& templates) prescribed for the entities mapped to, through the capabilities used by the DEX. The BDS may define (textually) any constraints upon the business concepts.
 
Yes, a number of the section headings will look similar to that of a DEX but unlike a DEX, the BDS should provide the very real focus for which the interface is being defined, e.g. for LSC, and our work on UMMS, I'd like to develop an UMMS BDS which describes the business concepts used in UMMS, their mapping to PLCS concepts as defined within DEX 4, along with the context of such an exchange interface. In the future, if the UMMS data model changes, then I only need update the mapping, likewise if the DEX changes, I only need update the mapping. Ultimately, an UMMS BDS will not be the same specification as DEX 4 as DEX 4 will suppport other mappings from other systems.
 
Personally, I don't think these specifications will actually look that similar to a DEX - there is no need to duplicate the contents or guidence in a DEX, only references. I suspect that a better name might actually be something like ApplicationX DEX(N) Interface Specification (e.g. UMMS DEX4 Interface Specification) as this describes more accurately what it's purpose is. However, for something like a data wharehouse solution, which receives input from potentially many applications the term DEX4 Interface Specification would be better used (especially if using the DEX schema itself).
 
The question of conformance to a DEX has so far been largely ignored by everyone - assuming that it shall resolve itself. I disagree. Unless we state what we mean by this, we will not be able to carry the argument/logic forward to industry and others in SC4. By defining the concepts used in a business exchange we can identify and resolve all the PLCS entities required for that interface. As controversial as it might sound, this set of entities need to be either a subset (read conformance class) of the DEX refered to, or, the entire set according to the DEX. To achieve this, as discussed at the TOG, we may need to generate & resolve a longform of the Express for a BDS to be able to compare. Again, somewhat controversially, this then allows implementers to only code for those entities required for the interface. This was a solution to the problem faced by NDLO whose suppliers would not be interested in exchanging more information than say a parts list. However, others that have greater involvement who may need to exchange information according to more than one BDS may (if all the BDS's refer to the same DEX) encode an interface for the whole DEX, rather than one for each BDS. If the BDS's refer to more than one DEX, then there may need to be more than one interface. Note that usage of the DEX schema itself does not, however, mean that every entity within it requires populating for every exchange - the BDS should stipulate those.
 
These & other issues will come to light very quickly once any implementation forum (which is also being discussed now) starts, which is why we must have some discussion and agreement about this, even if it may require further refinement later. There is an added impact in whether or not we wish Dexlib to support the BDS and in resolving the longform Express to indicate (sub) conformance to the DEX.
 
In the interest of expediency, I would suggest to move these issues to a new (email) thread and at least allow agreement on the previous terms being discussed below.
 
regards,
Tim


From: Gibson, Martin [mailto:ils-de@a.dii.mod.uk]
Sent: 19 December 2005 09:29
To: 'Tim Turner'; 'kreilerc@mantech-wva.com'; mats.nilsson@fmv.se; plcs-tog@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG me eting

In terms of the 'business side of the equation', I thought that we had agreed on Business DEX (Specification) rather than the other way around (DEX Business Specification).
 
A Business DEX will be the same as a PLCS DEX but will also specify business context, business terms & concepts and will have references to the relevant capabilities, templates and reference data - or maybe someone can correct me, but I do think that we need to agree/decide on whether all this things are actually contained within a Business DEX or whether the Business DEX contains 'pointers' that refer out to these (and/ or other) things.
 
Regards,
Martin.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Turner [mailto:tjt@lsc.co.uk]
Sent: 16 December 2005 14:27
To: 'kreilerc@mantech-wva.com'; mats.nilsson@fmv.se; plcs-tog@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG meeting

I have added some details to the definitions to clarify (or confuse!)
 

   DEX = Data Exchange Specification = the definition in DEXlib

   DEX file = electronic file (P21/P28) with actual instance data conforming to (complete or sections of) a DEX

   Data Exchange Set = a term grouping all PLCS entities and attributes identified by a DEX

 
Do we also have any agreement on the business side of the equation? Some called it just a "DEX Business Specification".
 
To me the DBS is a specification describing the terms and business concepts of the domain which are then defined using the PLCS entities according to the DEX referenced.
 
Regards,
Tim
 

From: Chris Kreiler [mailto:kreilerc@mantech-wva.com]
Sent: 16 December 2005 08:54
To: mats.nilsson@fmv.se; plcs-tog@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG meeting

This offers the best compromise for describing what we are building.  I vote yes!

 


From: mats.nilsson@fmv.se [mailto:mats.nilsson@fmv.se]
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 7:38 AM
To: plcs-tog@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: VB: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG meeting

 

Nigel and I has reached a consensus.

 

   DEX = Data Exchange Specification = the definition in DEXlib

   DEX file = electronic file with actual data conforming to (complete or sections of) a DEX

   Data Exchange Set = a term grouping all PLCS entities and attributes identified by a DEX

 

Further comments?

 

Regards,
  Mats
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mats Nilsson, FMV

 


Från: Nigel Newling [mailto:nfn@lsc.co.uk]
Skickat: den 16 december 2005 12:40
Till: Nilsson, Mats maxnn
Ämne: RE: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG meeting

Now put it to the wider audience and stand back!

 

Nigel

-----Original Message-----
From: mats.nilsson@fmv.se [mailto:mats.nilsson@fmv.se]
Sent: 16 December 2005 10:54
To: nfn@lsc.co.uk
Subject: SV: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG meeting

Summary:

 

DEX = Data Exchange Specification = the definition in DEXlib

DEX file = electronic file with actual data conforming to (complete or sections of) a DEX

Data Exchange Set = a term grouping all PLCS entities and attributes identified by a DEX

 

Correct?

 

Regards,
  Mats
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mats Nilsson, FMV

 

 


Från: Nigel Newling [mailto:nfn@lsc.co.uk]
Skickat: den 15 december 2005 13:56
Till: Nilsson, Mats maxnn
Ämne: RE: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG meeting

The Information displayed, following the selection of a DEX through the menu in DEXLib, is the DEX 'specification'. The entities and attributes identified in that specification comprise the DEX data 'set'

 

Best I can do :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: mats.nilsson@fmv.se [mailto:mats.nilsson@fmv.se]
Sent: 15 December 2005 09:50
To: nfn@lsc.co.uk
Subject: SV: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG meeting

Set or Specification or both?

Howard did not specify...

What is your opinion?

 

Regards,

  Mats

 


Från: Nigel Newling [mailto:nfn@lsc.co.uk]
Skickat: den 15 december 2005 09:51
Till: plcs-tog@lists.oasis-open.org
Ämne: RE: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG meeting

The term 'Set' was introduced when we were discussing the scope of 'data set' that should be defined by the DEX specification. Howard's contribution has my vote - and we should not shy away from CCs either!

 

Nigel

-----Original Message-----
From: Mason, Howard (UK) [mailto:howard.mason@baesystems.com]
Sent: 14 December 2005 17:43
To: mats.nilsson@fmv.se; kreilerc@mantech-wva.com; ils-de@a.dii.mod.uk; rob.bodington@eurostep.com
Cc: plcs-tog@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG meeting

At the risk of being contentious, we tend to refer to a STEP AP and its conformance classes.  Without wishing to equate a PLCS DEX with a STEP conformance class in detail, they are at the same level.

 

A conformance class is a specification, and individual conforming blocks of data are files.

 

Also we never defined the silent "s" in DEX.

 

This kind of suggests to me that DEX is the specification (Data EXchange (set or specification)) and an instance is a DEX(-compliant) file.

 

Howard Mason

 


From: mats.nilsson@fmv.se [mailto:mats.nilsson@fmv.se]
Sent: 14 December 2005 15:43
To: kreilerc@mantech-wva.com; ils-de@a.dii.mod.uk; rob.bodington@eurostep.com
Cc: plcs-tog@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: SV: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG meeting

*** WARNING ***

This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.

Chris,

 

My opinion is that we still are at a point where terminology could be changed, if it is useful and brings clarity to our work. Still, more than 99.99998%* of the worlds population is unaware of PLCS and its terminology (poor creatures...) ;o)

 

More opinions wanted...

 

Regards,

 Mats

 

*) Calculated as; 1 000 / 6 300 000 000

 


Från: Chris Kreiler [mailto:kreilerc@mantech-wva.com]
Skickat: den 14 december 2005 13:57
Till: 'Gibson, Martin'; Nilsson, Mats maxnn; rob.bodington@eurostep.com
Kopia: plcs-tog@lists.oasis-open.org
Ämne: RE: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG meeting

Martin and Mats,

 

Although it is a minor point, I think we should be careful about changing the terminology at this point due to the recognition that Data Exchange Set enjoys among most of our customers.

 

Just my 2 cents before the snow storm here in West Virginia.

 

 


From: Gibson, Martin [mailto:ils-de@a.dii.mod.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:13 AM
To: 'mats.nilsson@fmv.se'; rob.bodington@eurostep.com
Cc: plcs-tog@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG meeting

 

Mats,

 

My view is that it should be 'Data Exchange Specification'

 

Regards,

Martin.

-----Original Message-----
From: mats.nilsson@fmv.se [mailto:mats.nilsson@fmv.se]
Sent: 14 December 2005 08:05
To: ils-de@a.dii.mod.uk; rob.bodington@eurostep.com
Cc: plcs-tog@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: SV: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG meeting

Another question: If I want to use the non-abbreviated term for 'DEX'. Should I then pronounce/write it "Data exchange set" (which for my swedish ears much sounds like file (file = a 'set' of data)) or "Data exchange specification"?

Regards - Mats

 

Martin,

Thanks for the clarification!

I'm ok with that. As long as everyone understands eachother! 'DEX' and 'DEX file' it is!

Regards,
  Mats
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mats Nilsson, FMV

 

 


Från: Gibson, Martin [mailto:ils-de@a.dii.mod.uk]
Skickat: den 7 december 2005 11:33
Till: Nilsson, Mats maxnn
Ämne: RE: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG meeting

Mats,

 

Hope you enjoyed yesterday's telecon/meeting (as much as I did!).

I'm not sure it was mentioned within the telecon, but , you are correct in your guess that the ToG Agreed that the term 'DEX' is synonymous with the term 'DEX Specification' and that a 'DEX file' is indeed that file which would be exchanged as part of a PLCS implementation.

 

Regards,

Martin.

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: mats.nilsson@fmv.se [mailto:mats.nilsson@fmv.se]
Sent: 06 December 2005 08:13
To: rob.bodington@eurostep.com; plcs-tog@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: SV: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG meeting

All,

 

Is the visio diagram a result of the review of the concept model draft?

 

It lacks some of the terms in the concept model (DEX file, Requirements, etc.) and it refers to 'DEX Specifications' as 'DEXs'.

I did not attend the meeting. Is this what was agreed?

 

I like the graphical layout though (except for the 'uses' arrow pointing to 'Business Reference Data' that has no source...).

Should I put it in the DEXlib information pages (new name for the help section...) and in that way prepare it for ballot?!

 

Maybe something for the meeting this afternoon?

Regards,
  Mats
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mats Nilsson, FMV

 

 

 


Från: Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com]
Skickat: den 6 december 2005 08:00
Till: plcs-tog@lists.oasis-open.org
Kopia: Sean Barker
Ämne: [plcs-tog] RE: Documents from the TOG meeting

Hi

I have had several requests for a non Visio version of the diagram.

 

 

Regards
Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com]
Sent: 30 November 2005 14:12
To: 'plcs-tog@lists.oasis-open.org'
Cc: Sean Barker (Sean.Barker@baesystems.com)
Subject: Documents from the TOG meeting

 

Hi

Here are the diagrams/spreadsheets that we developed in the TOG.

 

We went through all DEXs (apart from 5 and 9) and identified which capabilities were required. We then looked at who as editing it and whether they were funded. The spreadsheet reflects results of this.

 

We also reviewed the concept model and produced the attached Visio diagram.

 

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)1454 270030
Mobile: +44 (0)7796 176 401

 

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 



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





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





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]