Capability (C076):— assigning_product_properties Date: 2007/06/22 12:22:09
Revision: 1.58
CoverContentsIntro.Overview Info. modelTemplatesCapabilities.Ref. dataIssues

Issue raised against: assigning_product_properties

OTHER issues

Open issue Issue: TJT-5 by Tim Turner on behalf of UK MoD TES/ILS and Eng Pol under UK_Defence Development Programme. (06-12-05) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The core template for this capability is assigning_product_property, which is re-used throughout the remaining templates. Each subsequent template, however, does not absorb the parameters required to populate the former (re-used) one. It therefore, means that two templates are required each time, rather than a single template. It would seem logical to me, that these templates should be collapsed/condensed so that all the elements for a particular type of property can be defined using a single template. Each type of property is associated to an assigned_property through the property_representation. This entity is a relation between an entity representing the type of representation and the assigned_property entity (which identifies the item to which the property is assigned). Given that the relation must always point to an assigned_property entity, it would make sense to incorporate this into each template where only the type of property representation is varied. Hence only a single template would be required for each type of property, not two, as currently defined.

Open issue Issue: TJT-6 by Tim Turner on behalf of UK MoD TES/ILS and Eng Pol under UK_Defence Development Programme. (06-12-05) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Given that each type of property is associated to an assigned_property through the property_representation. This entity is a relation between an entity representing the type of representation and the assigned_property entity (which identifies the item to which the property is assigned). Given that the relation must always point to an assigned_property entity, it would make sense to incorporate this into each template where only the type of property representation is varied. Hence only a single template would be required for each type of property.

Open issue Issue: AMS-1 by Ann Meads (08-01-29) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

To comply with agreed guidance in the property templates, the role (determination) classification should be to the property_value_representation and not the property_representation.
Comment: ( )

GENERAL issues

Closed issue Issue: RBN-1 by Rob Bodington (04-02-24) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

In the section "Date and Time Assignment" - The date time should be the time when the property was assigned - not when it was created in the STEP file. Similarly - the section "Person and Organization Assignment" should say that the person who measured the property should be recorded.
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2003-03-29)
Words have been altered in line with Rob's comment

Closed issue Issue: GYL-1 by Leif Gyllstrom (04-03-11) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The usage of the "Representing_person_organization" should probably be replaced with the usage of "Referencing_person_organization".
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2003-03-29)
Reference has been changed

Closed issue Issue: TJT-1 by Tim Turner (04-03-22) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The attribute Independent_property is not brought into the model from PLCS through the usage section. This means that DEX1, for example, cannot compile a schema while this attribute is missing/undefined.
Comment: (Ian Bailey 04-03-29)
I was assuming that AP239 would not use independent_property as you are mandating reference data. It doesn't make much sense to define a standard property twice.
Comment: (Tom Hendrix 04-05-07)
In the pdm schema there is a notion of a "definitional" independent property. Perhaps something like a material specification. Is classification suitable for this sort of assignment?
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2004-05-10)
I think classification (reference data) is perfect for this. I spoke to Rob and he thought we weren't using independent property. One for the PLCS modellers to resolve, I think !
Comment: (Tim Turner 2004-06-17)
I certainly agree that we shouldn't have alternative ways to represent the same thing and there appears to be little push from Dex1 team to have this. I picked it up from the initial Dex 1 spec - not knowing that there was any agreement to abandone it for the Dexs. Another one of those "nuggets" no one knows about!

Closed issue Issue: TJT-2 by Tim Turner (04-03-22) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Property_representation has an attribute Representation, which is not brought into the model from PLCS through the usage section. This means that DEX1, for example, cannot compile a schema while this attribute is missing/undefined.
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2003-03-29)
The attribute you need is actually called "rep" and is imported as far as I can see in the usage section. Does this fix your problem ?
Comment: (Tim Turner 2004-06-17)
Yes fixed: - reps are now in the model!

Closed issue Issue: TJT-3 by Tim Turner (04-03-22) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The select type property_assignment_select appearrs to be empty.
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2003-03-29)
Does it need to be specified in this capability ? Surely the dependent and related capabilities sections in the other capabilities define which entities the properties can be assigned to ?
Comment: (Tom Hendrix 04-05-07)
Since the scope is only products, why not show a Product_view_definition in the select. All others in the scope of this capability are subtypes of this.
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2004-05-10)
I've done as Tom suggested, but left this issue open - do we need to consider properties being assigned to view_definition_relationship instances also ?
Comment: (Tim Turner 2004-06-17)
The property_assignment_select type population is now resolved. I think it was a problem in the longform generator back in March. Not sure about properties being assigned to view_definition_relationship instances. Can only see a need if there's a requirement to place properties on relationships between products e.g. alternate_part_relationship may have some sort of property governing it's use - but I rather think that might be treading on the effectivity ground. I'll let you decide if you want to close this Ian.
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2004-07-28)
Sounds like we have agreement, issue is now closed.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 04-07-29)
The select gets populated by the long form generator - not by capabilities.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-2 by Rob Bodington (04-03-25) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The Introduction should contain an example of a property. This goes for all the property capabilities.
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2003-03-29)
Examples for parts and requirements now added.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-3 by Rob Bodington (04-03-25) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

In the business DEX section describe what a property first then explain the classification of them.
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2003-03-29)
Re-arranged text appropriately. Used definition from PDM Schema usage guide.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-4 by Rob Bodington (04-03-25) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Add a note to business DEX

NOTE    In addition to products, properties can be assigned to activities, described in C077: assigning_process_properties and resources, described in C078: assigning_resource_properties.

Comment: (Ian Bailey 2003-03-29)
Added note - also did this for process properties.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-5 by Rob Bodington (04-03-25) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

I think that we should assign identifiers to the assigned property.
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2003-03-29)
I disagree. This does not map onto any commercial systems I know. Nor does the PDM Schema usage guide mandate this.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 04-09-28)
Agreed.

Closed issue Issue: THX-1 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-07) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

replace *would be* with *are*
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2004-05-10)
Changed in line with Tom's comments

Closed issue Issue: THX-2 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-07) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Mention that products are things that can be configuration managed.
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2004-05-10)
Surely the products capability should do this ?
Comment: (Rob Bodington 04-09-28)
Added line in introduction.

Closed issue Issue: THX-3 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-07) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Why are required properties allowed here but not for Activity_properties. Is a required property the same a design specification?
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2004-05-10)
Because of the need to configuration manage requirements, requirement is a subtypes of product. If you wish to assign a required property to an activity, you must first assign a requirement and then represent that requirement with your property.

Closed issue Issue: THX-4 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-07) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Remove *Related standards This DEX is implements chapter 6 of the PDM Schema Usage guide.*
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2004-05-10)
Done

Closed issue Issue: THX-5 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-07) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

*this is usually the person who observed, measured or predicted the property. * Since required proerties are permitted, add a word to cover that activity - perhaps "specified".
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2004-05-10)
Well spotted !

Closed issue Issue: TJT-4 by Tim Turner (04-06-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Why is there no mention of properties of documents? Given the issue (THX-3) and comment in response, is it also possible to add the usage of applied_document_property - a subtype of assigned_property? Document is a subtype of product and also requires managing.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 04-07-29)
Agreed. This capability should mention the fact that properties can be assigned to documents as part of the introduction . However, the representation of document properties should be part of the document capability - or a separate capability. See Issue RBN-1 against representing_document.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 04-09-28)
The introduction has been updated. The capability "assigning_document_properties" has been implemented.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-6 by Rob Bodington (04-08-23) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The instance diagrams show classification_assignments having roles, such as 'Life cycle Classification'. A classification assignment should not have a role. If a role is required, this implies that sub classing is required in the reference data.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 04-09-28)
Diagrams updated.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-7 by Rob Bodington (04-08-23) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Is PLCS providing units via classification, or via EXPRESS units? The instance diagrams need to reflect this.
Comment: (Mike Ward 2004-12-23)
Diagrams amended accordingly.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-8 by Rob Bodington (04-08-23) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Has PLCS decided not use qualifiers such as "predicted" and instead use the explicit class representing
Comment: (Mike Ward 2004-01-25)
Diagrams amended to reflect current status of reference data.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-9 by Rob Bodington (04-11-25) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The RDL for properties comprises: properties quantified_property qualified_property The quantified properties are used to represent properties that require units. The qualified_properties are used to represent properties that are expressed as qualifications, such as "Green" or "Red" The various assigning property need to be updated to reflect this.
Comment: (Mike Ward 2004-01-25)
Diagrams amended to reflect current status of reference data.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-10 by Rob Bodington (04-11-25) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The capability should describe how to describe the use units. In particular the
Comment: (Mike Ward 2004-01-25)
New section added.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-11 by Rob Bodington (05-06-22) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

It is not clear from the capability how the name of a property is to be provided. The name attribute is set to /IGNORE, yet there is no corresponding classification or identification. We can either use the name attribute, use identification assignment, or use classification.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-04-16)
External classification is used through template assigning_reference_data, because we want the property name to be defined as reference data.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-12 by Rob Bodington (05-09-21) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

There should be a template assigning_product_property There will be an associated template: property_numerical_value in representing_properties_numerically and property_numerical_value
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-04-16)
fixed.

Closed issue Issue: NN-1 by Nigel Newling (05-11-16) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Make reference to the figures 1, 2 and 3 for clarity.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-04-16)
Capability has been edited, and figures changed...

Closed issue Issue: NN-2 by Nigel Newling (05-11-16) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Refers to two instances of Activity_property_representation when only one in figure 5.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-04-16)
I think this issue is outdated, and do not understand what is meant. This capability does not have any Activity_property_representations.

Closed issue Issue: NN-3 by Nigel Newling (05-11-16) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Is it necessary for date/time and person/organization characterisations to be mandatory? If these are unknown, it gives rise to a lot of redundant instances.
Comment: (Peter Bergstr minor_techicalouml;m 2006-04-16)
The assignment of a property has no longer a date/time assignment, not even an optional one. Since the assignment of a property _may_ be done without giving any value, and since properties may have several representations which may be recoded at different times, it makes no sense. Instead The representation of the property can have a date/time assigned, which is recorded in capabilities C079: representing_properties_numerically, C080: representing_properties_textually, and C084: representing_property_value_ranges. This moves the date/time much closer to the actual value.

Closed issue Issue: NN-4 by Nigel Newling (05-11-16) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Predicted and Actual qualifications are discussed in the text but are not part of the reference data.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-04-16)
This has already been fixed, but the issue was not closed.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-13 by Rob Bodington (05-11-23) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Add the TEMPLATE: assigning_product_property
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-04-16)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-14 by Rob Bodington (06-05-15) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Provide some examples in Fig 1. E.g. Next to "Item that has property": E.g. A part - the wheel next to "Assigned property" The name of the property. E.g. A mass property next to "Property representation" The value of the property. E.g. 1 Kgs
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-04-16)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-15 by Rob Bodington (06-05-15) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The EXPRESS_G diagram in Fig 3 should show most of the property model and not be spread over modules. It should also be colored to show which part of the model correspond to which of the functionalities shown in Fig 1
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-04-16)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-16 by Rob Bodington (06-05-15) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The instance diagrams in Fig 4 to 6 should use templates. Also, I don't think that assigning a date and person to the property is mandatory
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-06-08)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-17 by Rob Bodington (06-05-15) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Template: assigning_product_property 3rd para of the description better reworded: A description of representing and relating multiple representations for a property, for example the values of a property changing over time, is provided in capability C056: representing_evolution_of_property_values.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-04-16)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-18 by Rob Bodington (06-05-15) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Fig 9 should be commented to show that the classification is providing the name of the property. The property assignment select should be annotated to show that it is assigned to a product
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-04-16)
Fixed. Although there are a lot of other things a property may be assigned to, so I selected a few as examples.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-19 by Rob Bodington (06-05-15) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Fig 11 should be annotated to show that the product_view_definition is the view definition of a part or product_as_realized. The diagram should not show a product_view_definition
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-04-16)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-20 by Rob Bodington (06-05-15) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Fig 13 in template: product_property_numeric should either use the template: assigning_product_property or comment in the diagram that the out of scope section is covered by the template: assigning_product_property. The figure should be annotated to show what is the value of the property and what is the property.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-04-16)
Annotated figure to show value, unit and property name.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-21 by Rob Bodington (06-05-15) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Fig 16. the assigned_property instance #119 is not instantiated by the template, but rather by the template assigning_product_property. So either make a comment to this affect or explicitly show the template assigning_product_property in the diagram. Similarly for Fig 17
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-06-27)
Hopefully this is now fixed, most graphics are new.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-22 by Rob Bodington (06-05-15) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

I am not sure about the benefit of the clssifying the properties as quntified or qualified. I think that the qualification should be explcit in the name of the of the property. For example: actual_weight and predicted-weight
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-06-08)
Neither am I, and I agree that this should preferrably be handled by the structure and classification of reference data. Until there is a place to move this section (if needed) I will keep the section inside a comment in this capability, so it can be inserted somewhere else, but it will not be a visible part of this capability.