[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [plcs-tog] Publication of reference data
|
Tim I believe that there is only one maintenance agency proposed – I think that makes sense.
Does anyone in the TOG have a view? Can we put forward this position to the SC4 meeting as the PLCS position? Responses needed ASAP as the meeting is ongoing this week.
Regards -----Original Message-----
I think this sounds like the best approach.
The maintenance agency has to be sufficient for at least these two cases, if not more to cover other SC4 projects/initiatives. Hence it will need to support a number of formats.
However, it is not clear to me (at least) if it is the intention to have a single agency, or to allow for an multiple agencies - e.g. an agency specifically for each one, which would then sit under (so to speak) the SC4 agency. Also, how extensive is this list of formats?
Can anyone comment on this?
Cheers, Tim
From:
Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] Hi
To avoid any confusion .... ...
I am not suggesting that PLCS uses ISO 15926 for reference data (I don't think that Trine is either). At this stage PLCS is using OWL for reference data. The PLCS EXPRESS has been converted to OWL and the PLCS reference data is specified as classes that are subclasses of the PLCS EXPRESS/OWL classes. The intent is to continue with this approach.
The requirement is therefore that the maintenance agency: 1) allows the registration of the PLCS OWL files as reference data 2) does not enforce all reference data to be ISO 15926 (at some stage in the future, the PLCS reference data might be converted to ISO 15926 - but not at this stage) 3) allows multiple sets of reference data to be registered. In other words there is no requirement to have all reference data in one file/repository. We may have one set of reference data for Defence, one for commercial aircraft (these are just made up examples)
Regards -----Original Message-----
Hi. I fully agree with Rob's statements. My understanding from previous TOG meetings is that we (TOG) will support the SC4 Maintenance Agency work and are positive to use ISO15926 if (or when) the standard provide practical guidelines that is useful for DEX reference data needs. My understanding is also that TOG is positive to assess the use or need for the Reference Data System (RDS) that is under development (for support of development, management and maintenence of reference data classes in ISO15926. Configuration management included).
Best regards Trine
From:
Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] Hi I understand that there will be some discussion about establishing a maintenance agency for SC4 reference data at the next SC4 meeting.
I think it would be useful for the TOG to agree a PLCS position on this that can be put forward by which ever PLCS TOG member will be at the meeting.
My view is: 1) PLCS intends to develop and publish reference data as a standard. 2) PLCS recognizes that a number of industries and projects will develop extensions to the standard reference data for their own purposes. This does not need to be made into a normative standard. 3) PLCS intends to make the standard reference data freely available. This includes the development, standardization, publication and subsequent use of the reference data. 4) PLCS intends to use a standardization organization that supports this model. Currently, OASIS bests fits this. 5) If ISO change their approach to allow pojnt 3), then PLCS will standardize the reference data though SC4 and the maintenance agency.
Obviously there are other issues in terms of the business model to support the maintenance and development of the reference data. I don't have an answer to that. But I am believe that charging people to use reference data will not provide sufficient funding and will add another barrier to the take up of the standard.
As I said, this is my opinion. What does everyone else think? Can the TOG agree a position on this and can someone who is attending the meeting present it?
I also believe that we should continue to put pressure on ISO to allow the SC4 standards to be freely available - but that is another topic J Regards -------------------------------------------
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]