representing_product_as_individual

Capability (C045):— representing_product_as_individual

Date: 2009/08/05 21:08:21
Revision: 1.27

Cover Contents Intro.Overview Info. model Templates Capabilities.Ref. data Issues

Issue raised against: representing_product_as_individual

GENERAL issues

Issue: RBN-1 by Rob Bodington (2005-02-21) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

In Figure 6, The classification of the identification of a product_as_realized should be Version_identification_code not build modification code

Issue: RBN-2 by Rob Bodington (2005-02-21) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

In Figure 7: The view definition of a product_as_individual is a Product_as_individual_view not a Product_view_definition

Issue: RBN-3 by Rob Bodington (2005-02-21) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

In Figure 9 and in the text - it should be clear that both the Part and the version can be related to the Product-as_individual and Product-as_realized

Issue: RBN-4 by Rob Bodington (2005-02-21) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

In the characterization section, the dates and person are assigned to Product_design_to_individual. Surely they should be assigned to the product_as_individual?

Issue: RBN-5 by Rob Bodington (2005-02-21) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The product_version_relationship should be treated in the same way as in representing parts, and use the same classification. I propose: Derived_version_relationship Sequential_version_relationship Hierarchical_version_relationship See the section on "Version History Relationships" also refer to the PDM Schema usage guide.

Issue: RBN-6 by Rob Bodington (2005-02-21) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

In Figure 3 - there is a typo in "Individual to with serial number". Also need to comment "product_as_realized" Also "product_design to individual" should go to Part not product Same applies to Figure 4

Issue: RBN-7 by Rob Bodington (2005-02-21) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

In Figure 5 - #9 is selected - it should not be.

Issue: NN-1 by Nigel Newling (2005-11-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Make it clear in the text that the relation_type attribute on Product_version_relationship is not populated by the actual value but classified.

Issue: RBN-8 by Rob Bodington (05-11-23) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Add template: representing_product_as_realized

Issue: DNV-28b by Sylvia Schwab on behalf of DNV (07-03-07) major_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The template representing_product_as_realized is closer to a business object that shall represent the product than to a template which is reusable in many DEXes. We need a higher level of granularity for a template that references a product_as_realized (see also issue reported to the template).

Add NEW template Referencing_product_as_individual (ref_p_a_ind), containing Product_as_individual and Product_as_realized with identifiers.

Issue: RBN-9 by Rob Bodington (07-04-25) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The vn_id_class_name(Default=Version_identification_code,Type='CLASS') should be vn_id_class_name(Default=Product_as_individual_identification_code,Type='CLASS')