Capability (C020):— representing_life_cycle_opportunity Date: 2007/07/11 16:32:00
Revision: 1.18
CoverContentsIntro.Overview Info. modelTemplatesCapabilities.Ref. dataIssues

Issue raised against: representing_life_cycle_opportunity

OTHER issues

Open issue Issue: TJT-1 by Nigel Newling (06-01-16) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The capability does not provide guidance on whether the subtypes of Activity (e.g. Directed_activity) are also permitted to be used to represent a life cycle opportunity, or if they are explicitly not to be used. The EXPRESS model permits it - thus creating ambiguity of a valid representation.

Open issue Issue: NN-1 by Nigel Newling (05-11-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

In lifecycle planning section, what are the reference data discussed?

Open issue Issue: NN-2 by Nigel Newling (05-11-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

In assigning date time section, reference data should map to standard reference data, Date_planned_start and Date_planned_end etc.

Open issue Issue: NN-3 by Nigel Newling (05-11-17) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Provide example reference data for person and organizations authorising the life cycle opportunity and the status of the activity in text not just in the diagrams.

Open issue Issue: NN-4 by Nigel Newling (05-11-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Requires a reference data section.

Open issue Issue: NN-5 by Nigel Newling (05-11-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The EXPRESS-G suggests only Activity and Applied_activity_assignment belong to this capability but the usage section also includes Activity_status and Activity_relationship. Remove Activity_status to be consistent with assigning_reference_data and using classification instead of the more specific entity. Consider the need for Activity_relationship.