plcs message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: [PLCS] Some model issues arising from DEX capabilities work
- From: "Ian Bailey" <ian.bailey@eurostep.com>
- To: <plcs@lists.oasis-open.org>, <plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:23:46 +0100
Title: Message
Hi
Folks,
I've been working on
some of the property capabilities, and a couple of issues have arisen with
resource properties.
The first, and
simplest to fix is that is not possible to assign a person and organization to a
resource_property - the entity is missing from person org select in the longform
ARM schema. As I say, this should be pretty easy to
fix.
The second is more
debatable and rather more complex. For required resources we sometimes have
required properties (see example in the
assigning_required_resources capability with the test equipment
with a required accuracy). For every other case in PLCS we assign requirements
when we want to have required properties - i.e. we create instances of
requirement_assignment, requirement, requirement_version, etc. Requirement is a
subtype of product because there is a need to configuration control
requirements. In the case of required resources however, we cannot do this as
the requirement_assignment select does not have
required_resource_by_resource_item in it.
Hence I have just
shown properties being assigned in this capability. However, I am not
comfortable with this, as those properties will be requirements and will
effectively slip through the configuration control net. It also provides endless
possibilities for data inconsistency through the product lifecycle. For example,
imagine a system requirements document that defines supportability requirements
- one of which is an inspection ramp that can lift a 2 tonne road vehicle. This
would be modelled as a system_element (qualified as "required" and e.g.
assembled into a system breakdown called "support solution"). However, when we
get into the support phase, the required_resource_by_resource_item isntance will
be used to duplicate the same information originally defined in the
requirements.
My recommendation is
to go for a consistent approach, where requirement, requirement_version, etc.
are always used to represent required properties - chances are these properties
originated in a requirements management tool, anyway. But, to do this we need a
change to the model to extend the requirement_assignment select to inclide
required_resource_by_resource_item (and any other resource entities the PLCS
modellers deem fit to include).
Regards
--
Ian Bailey
Eurostep Limited - www.eurostep.com
t&f:
+44 (0) 20 7378 1894
m: +44 (0) 7768 892362
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]