[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [plcs-tog] Publication of reference data
At the risk of being contentious, we need to be able to
pick up 15926 reference data where it is relevant.
Within PLCS a consistent aprroach to our own reference data
make sense.
At the end of the line we need to be able to take a known
set of reference data and represent it in multiple ways to meet user
needs/expectations.
Howard Mason From: Chris Kreiler [mailto:kreilerc@mantech-wva.com] Sent: 07 March 2006 18:36 To: rob.bodington@eurostep.com; 'Tim Turner'; Trine.Hansen@dnv.com; plcs-tog@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: Mason, Howard (UK); torbjorn.holm@eurostep.com; jerry.smith@disa.mil Subject: RE: [plcs-tog] Publication of reference data
I don’t see a problem
with anything that was proposed and I will take that as input to the
requirements for PLCS Maintenance Data. Each set of reference
data will be its own entity. For example, 15926 will have its own set and
PLCS will have its own set. Formats and requirements may be different for
each standard (AP239 and 15926-4). The Maintenance Agency must support
multiple formats to meet the requirements of different standards and parts.
However, there should be a format consistency within each standard or
part. I don’t think we want to mix apples and oranges under the same
standard/part. Thus, all PLCS
reference data should conform to the same format. There may be different
formats and requirements for 15926-3 and 15926-4. However, since PLCS is
one standard, AP239, in my opinion, all the reference data should be in the same
format. If anyone has a different requirement, please advise.
We should be able to
publish it in as many parts or pieces as we like, i.e. defense, automotive,
aircraft, etc. as long as each part/piece is uniquely identified and
unambiguous. Each part (set of reference data) would be maintained
separately under the PLCS area of the Maintenance Agency. The customer can
pick and choose the set or sets of reference data they would like to
use. Please advise if this
approach will meet PLCS requirements. Thanks. From: Rob
Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] 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]