[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: PLCS TC - the next edition ????
|
Hi Have I got this right …..
What you are saying is that there are NO TCs allowed on modular APs. Hence, if there any errors in the AP, then a new edition of the AP module must be created and as it is a new edition, it will have to go through all the ballot process etc..
What will be balloted? Just the AP module (TC) ? Or the whole AP again? People then have the opportunity to raise a whole bunch of issues against the AP which may have nothing to do with the TC.
I am just trying to understand this so that I can accurately estimate the time and effort taken to produce what is in effect a TC. So what we have to do is:
1) Extend the selects in the ARM in module 439 2) Map the extensions to the AIM in module 439 3) Rebuild the ARM / AIM long form 3) Produce checklists for module 439 4) Ballot module 439 5) Respond to ballot comments 6) repackage the AP using modules + AP doc used for ISO-10303-239 ed 1 7) Submit the whole package to ISO for republication 8) Make the inevitable changes requested by the ISO editor as no doubt things have changed since ap239 was published….. or will be allowed to forgo this as it supposed to be just a TC?
Seems a lot of work for a TC How does this compare with a traditional AP? Can they produce a TC without going through the ballot process?
Regards From:
pfAeroFW, ISOWG12 [mailto:ISOWG12@IMC7.EMS.LMCO.COM]
I concur that a new AP module and build need to be done.
Sorry for the late response.
Keith
From:
Mason, Howard (UK) [mailto:Howard.Mason@baesystems.com] Interesting question, which has not been addressed before.
It is SC4 policy not to do TCs on modules, but to issue new editions, in order to minimise the configuration management issues.
TCs can be created for modular APs, referencing particular versions of modules (not necessarily the latest)
My feeling is that the AP module should be regenerated in the updated form, to avoid ambiguity. I have copied this to Keith and Gerry to see if they have different opinions.
Howard
From:
Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] Hi Howard I am attempting to understand what is required to produce a TC for AP239 to fix some select omissions.
You indicate in the mail from July last year that there are no TCs on modules permitted. I am not sure how this will work. Does this mean that modular APs cannot have TCs? Does this mean that we need to produce a 2nd edition of at least the AP module? (That is where the express is)
If we do, does that mean that we need to use the latest editions of the modules?
The most straightforward approach for us would be modify the EXPRESS in the AP module as a TC. At some later date, these changes could then be rolled into the relevant modules.
The reason for asking is the TOG needs to make a policy decision here. We are busy writing templates and it would be good to do it once. Regards -------------------------------------------
From:
Mason, Howard (UK) [mailto:howard.mason@baesystems.com]
We agreed not to go through the administrative hassle of managing TCs on modules.
Howard
From:
Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] Thanks Howard One thought …. The changes are to the EXPRESS, so are therefore to the modules …. I heard that we were not allowed to do a TC on a module, it had to be a 2nd edition. Is that correct?
Regards -------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
I attach for your information the relevant extract from the SC4 Handbook on Change Management, which highlights the relevant options.
Either Amendment or Revision (to get a new edition) require the normal ballot cycle. TCs can be issued by the Working Groups. Minor revisions, resulting in a complete new document, require an FDIS ballot.
In response to Rob's questions:
This raise several questions about the TC process. 1) How long does it take to produce a TC? HGM> drafting time plus a couple of weeks to approve and process in ISO 2) What do we need to produce? A complete new AP package? HGM> Not for a TC - you might wish to generate a monor revision if htere are many changes 3) Does it require a ballot process? HGM> Not for a TC - just agreement in the WG 4) How many can we produce? I.e should we wait until we have a number of issues addressed then release the TC, or release a TC everytime we address an issue? HGM Wait- there is normally a maximum of two TC before you issue a new edition - sometimes can stretch to three. 5) Can we make major modifications in the TC? E.g. bring the Risk module, address the config management of tasks, or should we just address clear errors like missing select extensions HGM> This sounds like a new edition - we can hardly call it a minor revision.. Just fix errors in a TC.
From:
Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com]
Hi I was wondering what the process for producing a Technical Corrieganda PLCS would be.
As we are developing the capabilities, we are finding some selects that should have been extended. In a couple of cases, this is preventing us from completing the capabilities, or forcing us to represent something in a less optimal way.
I was thinking that we need a formal process for dealing with modifications to the AP that takes into account the short term requirements to make fixes to the AP for implementations and the requirement to ensure that these fixes are rolled back into the ISO document.
My proposal is that we: 1) Record the issues against AP239 in a single issue log in dexlib – i.e. dexlib/docs/issues/ap239_issues.xml
2) Raise the issue as SEDS so that they are registered against ISO 10303-239, recoding the seds number in the issue log
3) Copy the EXPRESS models for the AP to DEXLIb. Have two files. One a concatenation of all module ARMs, and the other being the long form derived from the ARMs. Fix the EXPRESS according to the issue.
4) Modify the capabilities to use the modified EXPRESS and include a note in the capability referring to the issue and SEDs and to say that it deviates from the standard, but that the issue has been raised against the standard.
5) At some point in time, raise a TC against PLCS.
This raise several questions about the TC process. 1) How long does it take to produce a TC? 2) What do we need to produce? A complete new AP package? 3) Does it require a ballot process? 4) How many can we produce? I.e should we wait until we have a number of issues addressed then release the TC, or release a TC everytime we address an issue? 5) Can we make major modifications in the TC? E.g. bring the Risk module, address the config management of tasks, or should we just address clear errors like missing select extensions
I realise that this opens a potential Pandora’s box of changes that we might be tempted to make, but given where we are with PLCS, I think that we should limit the TC to fixing errors.
What does everyone think?
In the mean time, I will create: 1) The issue log at: dexlib/docs/issues/ap239_issues.xml 2) The EXPRESS
files:
Regards -------------------------------------------
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. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]