Template:— location (locn)
Context:— UK_Defence		 Date: 2009/04/17 10:01:11
Revision: 1.2
CoverContentsDescriptionBus. obj.Model diags.Input params.Ref. params.Instantiation pathInstance diags.CharacterizationsIssuesin situ

Issue raised against: location

GENERAL issues

Open issue Issue: MWD-2 by Mike Ward (2008-10-22) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Figure 6 shows dotted arrows from location to representing_address_location and to representing_geographical_location. These should be replaced with the actual underlying EXPRESS-G otherwise the implementer will have no indication of what these lines represent.

GENERAL issues

Closed issue Issue: MWD-1 by Mike Ward (2008-08-22) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

This template won't work because representing address- and geographical- location need to be options and this template makes them mandatory. These should become characterizations.
Comment: (Tim Turner Cmnt 01 2008-09-22)
V1.16 of this template 'works' but does not conform to the ideal method of documentation. The input params to hold the values for the attributes are optional, but the template does not make it optional to instantiate the express to hold the values whether they are given in the input parameters or not. The end result in fixing this template to the current 'ideal' will be a dumbing down of this template's usefulness.
Comment: (Tim Turner Cmnt 02 2008-09-24)
Currently V 1.16 of this template combines 3-4 templates into one which reflects the CBIS object called 'Location' very closely. Applying the revised UK_Defence guidelines to force template paths to be completely synchronized with the optionality of input parameters means that this template will be broken down into its constituent parts related together only in the characterization section. To this author that breaks the initial concept of UK_Defence to mirror a CBIS business object because the tools do not provide the functionality to also distinguish between mandatory and optional relationships.
Comment: (Tim Turner Cmnt 03 2008-10-02)
V1.17 now released which removes the alternate locations to the characterization section.

Closed issue Issue: TR-1 by Trisha Rollo (2008-09-24) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Some input parameters missing from figure 2, also I don't think it is good practice to name a parameter the same name as the existing template's parameter for completely different meaning. e.g. address_id=@location_id, street_number=@address_id, I found this confusing and think others will also; especially as a street number is not an identifier without other attributes.
Comment: (Tim Turner Cmnt 01 2008-09-25)
Some specific details would be appreciated regarding missing params - e.g. which ones are missing?
Comment: (Tim Turner Cmnt 02 2008-10-02)
Template revised.

Closed issue Issue: TR-02 by TrishaRollo (2008-10-10) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Figure 2 does not contain label location_for which is displayed in figure 3
Comment: (TJT 2008-10-15)
Fixed
Comment: (TJT 2008-10-15)
I think Mike and I were looking at everything else - but this issue, which is correct. The problem arises when you consider the use of Location, the original intention to have a single, usuable UK_Defence template (the so called 1:1 mapping approach) and the re-use of an existing PLCS template that instantiates both the Location entity and the assignment. The result of this will require splitting the two entities which means the PLCS template will not be able to be used. Thus we are reinventing the wheel rather than building upon it. No doubt we shall either need another template such as location_assignment to relate the Location to another object, This split will most likely then require use of the assignment entity in most templates where Location is required. This means that each business template will need to add the assignment entity rather than having it provided once in a single reusable template.

Closed issue Issue: SBH-01 by Brad (2008-10-14) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Requirement for a Location.Type. The description states that this is the categorization of a location wrt something else (role). It therefore cannot be an attribute of Location itself, especially not a 1:1 attribute. Strongly suggest that the requirement be re-examined. I suspect that the context of the location will always be defined, or can be inferred from the attribute/object that refers to it.
Comment: (TJT 2008-10-15)
The Type would be applied to the location assignment not the location itself. However, if the template is to be split up, as per issue TRO-02, then it can be deleted as we have no UK_Defence businesss object for the assignment itself unless I missed it.
Comment: (TJT 2008-10-15)
Removed type

Closed issue Issue: TR-1 by Trisha Rollo (2008-09-24) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Some input parameters missing from figure 2, also I don't think it is good practice to name a parameter the same name as the existing template's parameter for completely different meaning. e.g. address_id=@location_id, street_number=@address_id, I found this confusing and think others will also; especially as a street number is not an identifier without other attributes.
Comment: (Tim Turner Cmnt 01 2008-09-25)
Some specific details would be appreciated regarding missing params - e.g. which ones are missing?
Comment: (Tim Turner Cmnt 02 2008-10-02)
Template revised.