Capability (C015):— representing_task Date: 2010/10/18 11:36:42
Revision: 1.31
CoverContentsIntro.Overview Info. modelTemplatesCapabilities.Ref. dataIssues

Issue raised against: representing_task

OTHER issues

Open issue Issue: TJT-1 by Tim Turner (2006-01-16) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The use of reference data is normally expected for attributes of entities which may change over time. Given that a version_identification_code is being propsed as id reference data for the Task_method_version entity, I fully expected to see that the version entity would have a .id attribute. However, there is no .id attribute, so I presume that this argument no longer applies. What is the agreed position regarding assignment of reference data to entities where no comparable attribute value exists? In theory this would normally require a change to the model (e.g. to add .id attribute), but PLCS reference data is designed to enhance the semantics of the model, (I read that in the help section!) so this may not be required. I think it is important though, to define the boundary of when reference data can and cannot / should not be applied, else we will perhaps not even require an EXPRESS model in the future!

Open issue Issue: TJT-2 by Tim Turner (2006-01-16) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

A task_method and task_method_version are not types of Product. When assigning an id to the task_method_version, the reference data used refers to identifiers for Products. E.g. "A Version_identifcation_code is a Progression_identifcation_code that identifies a particular version of a product from a sequence of versions of a product." Usage of this code would indicate (to me) that it is being applied to a product, but this is not the case here. Although I can see that a task method might be considered a product (output) from one perspective, should we be respectful of the model and define reference data which is more in keeping for this part of the model - or do we not have to take care for these things?

Open issue Issue: SB-1 by Sean Barker (2005-11-18) major_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

This issue records questions that are to be deferred to later versions of Representing_task 1) Property lifecycle. There need to be some discussion of property lifecycle, for example, when the estimated time taken to complete a task is updated.

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

Make entity references mixed case and links.

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

Provide reference data classes as links to standard reference data and reference data section.

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

Figure 1.4 and 1.5 to be updated with assigning_reference_data template notation.

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

When do use task to task_assignment to document and when do you use document to document_assignment to task? Same for Contract.

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

The following capabilities to be written/referenced:

  1. *REPRESENTING_REQUIREMENTS
  2. *REPRESNTING_ENVIRONMENT
  3. *REPRESENTING_CERTIFICATION
  4. *REPRESNTING_EXPERIENCE
  5. *REPRESENTING_INFORMATION_RIGHT
  6. *ASSIGNING_SECURITY_CLASSIFICATION
  7. *ASSIGNING_PROCESS_PROPERTIES

Open issue Issue: NN-6 by Nigel Newling (05-11-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Provide the corresponding reference data classes for the Task_assignment classifications of Preparatory Task, Consequential Task and Exclusive Pair.

Open issue Issue: NN-7 by Nigel Newling (05-11-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Empty entity list.