Capability (C077):— assigning_process_properties Date: 2007/06/22 12:22:09
Revision: 1.46
CoverContentsIntro.Overview Info. modelTemplatesCapabilities.Ref. dataIssues

Issue raised against: assigning_process_properties

GENERAL issues

Open issue Issue: BNN-1 by Bill Nairn (07-06-19) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Figure 3 - Model for Assigning Process Properties. The amber box at the bottom of this diagram is named incorrectly. It should read "Cap 077 Assigning_process_properties" (rather than "Cap 076 Assigning_product_properties").
Comment: ( )

OTHER issues

Closed issue Issue: TJT-1 by Tim Turner (05-11-21) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

This capability depends upon C079 to provide the numerical value for the properties identified by this capability. Without C079, this capability could not provide the value shown in Fig 5. Date and time assignment is an optional characterization, yet it is listed as a dependent. I suggest that C079 be made a dependent capability for this one. There may be other dependents that are listed as related.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-05-18)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: TJT-1 by Tim Turner (05-11-21) major_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

This capability refers to Task in an example - which is a DIS model entity. This example needs to be updated to AP239 IS model level.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-05-18)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: TJT-3 by Tim Turner (05-11-21) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Duration is an entity within PLCS. It is a subtype of value_with_unit which is brought in by C079. However, this is not used within the examples shown within C077 in assigning a duration to a task. Perhaps a note should explain why duration is not used?
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-05-18)
I think this is true for many of the abundant subtypes of this part of the model... Will look into it.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-06-05)
The discussion regarding use of subtypes of Value_with_unit and Unit have now been moved to capability 096 Representing_value_with_unit. This issue have been addressed in that section. My standpoint in doing this was the following: The semantics of values should be given in the attribute name referring to them, or in the property class name which they represent. A value is a value. Therefore, the use of Duration and Uncertainty_with_unit have been deprecated, except when the schema explicitly refers to these.

Closed issue Issue: TJT-4 by Tim Turner (05-11-21) major_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The overview does not mention task, but task is refered to in an example involving duration. The text does not indicate if there is a difference between assigning a duration to a task or assigning one to an activity. Should there be some guidence regarding the use (interchangeability) of task with activity here? I suggest to include task in the overview and some notes to clarify usage with activity and task. I suspect that C077 is applicable to both.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-05-18)
Yes, C077 is applicable to both, hence its name: Assigning_process_properties. I do not know however if there is a real difference in usage with activity and task_method (I though not), can you provide some examples?
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-06-05)
The overview now mentions all 'super-entities' that can have process properties. It is assumed that the reader understands that process properties can be assigned also to their subtypes.
I do not think there is a difference between a duration property if it is assigned to a task_method rather than to an activity. A planned_activity is basically the same as its corresponding task_method, except that it is planned (scheduled, although not necessarily with a defined date/time) for a specific individual (or type). At least the (invented) property 'estimated duration' would be the same. There is however a difference that a task_method should not have an Actual_duration, since the task_method itself is a type - it is instantiated as an activity. But this is a difference between task_method and activity, not regarding their property assignments, and it should be discussed in other capabilities dealing with task_method and/or activities. Note that a planned_activity or a directed_activity should also not have properties classified as 'actual_xxx'. The only activity that should have 'actual_' properties is the activity_actual.

Closed issue Issue: TJT-5 by Tim Turner (05-11-21) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Can we have one name to refer to this capability - assigning process properties or assigning activity properties - which is it? Personally, I think process involves more than just an activity.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-05-03)
I have renamed the template assigning_process_properties, and changed wording in the capability to explain to what entity instances a process property can be assigned.

Closed issue Issue: THX-1 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-06) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

"STEP has traditionally only allowed properties to be assigned to products." may be a little misleading. Suggest change to something like: STEP has traditionally only assigned properties to products. The STEP capability to assign properties to activities has not been exploited before PLCS (THX: I dont really even know if this is true.)
Comment: (IanBailey 04-05-10)
Fixed in line with Tom's comments

Closed issue Issue: THX-2 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-06) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

mass, time, velocity, etc. *would be* examples of intrinsic classification Change to *are*
Comment: (IanBailey 04-05-10)
Fixed in line with Tom's comments

Closed issue Issue: THX-3 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-06) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

change *Note that ...* to a NOTE. Also xml not valid.
Comment: (Tom Hendrix 04-05-06)
fixed

Closed issue Issue: THX-4 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-06) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

*Recording the date and time at which a property was assigned is mandatory* SUggest a standard wording for all mandatory items - as in the next clause *It is mandatory to record the person...* seems better. Perhaps there should be a special syntax or fonting, kind of like a note that influences the layout.
Comment: (IanBailey 04-05-10)
Fixed in line with Tom's comments. In terms of having a standard notation, that's a question for Rob !

Closed issue Issue: THX-5 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-06) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

It is mandatory to record the person *(and their organization)*. If mandatory perhaps should not be in parentheses.
Comment: (IanBailey 04-05-10)
Fixed in line with Tom's comments

Closed issue Issue: THX-6 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-07) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Delete *Related standards This DEX is implements chapter 6 of the PDM Schema Usage guide.*
Comment: (IanBailey 04-05-10)
Fixed in line with Tom's comments

Closed issue Issue: RBN-1 by Rob Bodington (05-09-21) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

There should be a template assigning_process_property There will be an associated template: property_numerical_value in representing_properties_numerically and property_numerical_value
Comment: (Peter Bergstrom 2006-05-03)
Template has been added, and now renamed to assigning_process_property.

Closed issue Issue: SB-2 by Sean barker (05-11-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The assignment of Effectivity to an activity_property needs to be described.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-06-05)
Is this needed more than a description of how to assign a condition, an approval, an identification, a document, a language_indication, a justification or a task_method (just to mention a few) to an activity_property? Or shouldn't this be described in a capability for how to assign effectivities?
I think we might have a philosophical issue here: If something is not described in the capability, but the schema allows it, is it then not allowed (or deprecated) in the OASIS guidelines? Is it 'illegal'? Especially now with the templates, I can sense an unspoken conception that nothing except what's in the templates (or capabilities) is allowed. I would like this to be true, since life would be easier then, but I fear that we have forgotten to mention a lot of 'common sense' assignments to many entities in all of the capabilities in that case (just look at the list at the beginning of this paragraph!). Maybe we need to decide what 'conformance' to the OASIS PLCS DEXs or Capabilities really mean? And then possibly add all those assignments to all capabilities?
Or maybe I have just misunderstood this issue altogether...?
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-06-21)
The PLCS schema allows effectivity to be assigned to a property, not a value. Please provide some examples that show the business requirements for assigning an effectivity to a property.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2007-05-17)
No further info received. Closed.