product_property_range

Template:— product_property_range (prod_prp_range)
Capability:assigning_product_properties

Date: 2010/03/25 11:57:37
Revision: 1.25

Cover Contents Description Model diags.Input params.Ref. params.Instantiation path Instance diags.Characterizations Issues in situ

Issue raised against: product_property_range

OTHER issues

Issue: TJT-1 by Tim Turner on behalf of UK MoD TES/ILS and Eng Pol under UK_Defence Development Programme. (06-12-1) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The template has two sections entitled "The graphic for the template to be used in other EXPRESS-G diagrams is shown below." See figures 2 and 3. Hence it is unclear which is meant to be used. Either rename or remove one of the sections.

Comment: (Trisha Rollo 20070625)
Second instance commented out

Issue: TJT-2 by Tim Turner on behalf of UK MoD TES/ILS and Eng Pol under UK_Defence Development Programme. (06-12-1) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The template has two sections entitled "The graphic for the template to be used in other EXPRESS-G diagrams is shown below." The second template figure (fig 3) infers that other templates may be the subject of the application of the template "product_property_range". However, the PLCS model does not allow the property_representation to be related to anything else other than an instance of assigned_property, which is provided for in the generic template "assigning_product_property". Thus the inference is not valid.

Comment: (Trisha Rollo 20070625)
Second instance commented out

Issue: TJT-3 by Tim Turner on behalf of UK MoD TES/ILS and Eng Pol under UK_Defence Development Programme. (06-12-1) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The template instance diagram (fig 4 and 5) uses length_measurement as the context for representing_value_range and "centimetre" as the unit. Since a "centimetre" is a type of conversion_based_length_unit, the context is either invalid or superfluous.

Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-06-25)
The unit should be an SI unit. The context has nothing to do with the unit. The context is the Numerical_representation_context which is to do with the context in which the property value was derived - e.g. measured. It is how properties can be compared.

Issue: TJT-4 by Tim Turner on behalf of UK MoD TES/ILS and Eng Pol under UK_Defence Development Programme. (06-12-1) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The template instance diagram (fig 4 and 5) uses length_measurement as the context for representing_value_range and "centimetre" as the unit. Both of these are described as being defined within the 'urn:plcs:rdl:sample' reference data library which is not available. It would be useful if the reference data were either chosen from an existing reference data library (e.g. plcs-proposed), added to one, or that the reference data library file be made available. Examplees should (IMHO) always use publically available material.

Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-06-25)
There has been a convention that we use urn:plcs:rdl:sample where we have just made up reference data for the purposes of examples. The reference data does not exist. With hindsight it might have been a good idea to produce an example OWL file that contained all the sample reference data. The reason why the standard reference data is not used is that in a number of examples, the reference data is business data, e.g the name of a property, hence would not be in the standard reference data.

Issue: TJT-5 by Tim Turner on behalf of UK MoD TES/ILS and Eng Pol under UK_Defence Development Programme. (06-12-1) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The template instance diagram (fig 3) shows that reference data may be (optionally) applied to the property_representation. However, figure 4 - the instantiation - shows the reference data being applied to the assigned_property entity, which is apparently out of scope. The figures should be made consistent.

Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-06-25)
The diagram in Figure 4 is NOT attempting to show the optional characterizations of the property_representation. It is ONLY showing the entities and templates that are instantiated by the template product_property_range. The assigning_reference_data has been included to show the property name and have been greyed out to indicate that it is not instantiated by this template.

Issue: TJT-6 by Tim Turner on behalf of UK MoD TES/ILS and Eng Pol under UK_Defence Development Programme. (06-12-1) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The template instance diagram (fig 4) is within the section entitled "The instance diagram below shows an example of the EXPRESS entities that are instantiated by the template:". The figure shows the instantiation of two templates - one of which (assigning_reference_data) appears to be providing some context for the other (representing_value_range). However, the former is not within scope of this template and hence should either be removed or greyed out. Also, the data provided in the latter are not specified in the template call above. (Note, if the reference data IS required to provide the context (i.e. to make sense), then the former template is incomplete and should be extended. If the product_property_range template were collapsed/condensed including the assigning_product_property template, then the context provided by the latter could be added as shown.

Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-06-25)
The "former" template is representing_value_range - which IS instantiated by this template (product_property_range). The assigning_reference_data is part of the template "asigning_product_property". We have changed Figure 4 to indicate this.

Issue: TJT-7 by Tim Turner on behalf of UK MoD TES/ILS and Eng Pol under UK_Defence Development Programme. (06-12-1) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The template instance diagram (fig 5) is within the section entitled "The instance diagram below shows the graphic symbol for the template that is to be used in other instance diagrams. The example template is:". The figure shows the instantiation of two templates - not symbols. Also the last text regarding the symbol need not be followed by an example.

Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-06-25)
This is the convention of ALL the templates. The diagram is an instance diagram.

Issue: RBN-1 by Johan Nielsen (2007-03-26) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The reference parameter property is missing in some diagrams.

Comment: (Johan Nielsen 2007-03-26)
Fixed by editing the diagrams.

Issue: PBM-1 by Peter Bergström (2007-02-16) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The necessity of chosing a datatype for the input parameter 'value' is not made clear in the parameter definition. It appears that value can be "5" or similar, when in fact the datatype must be given as well, e.g. "ANY_NUMBER_VALUE(5)".

Comment: (Peter Bergström 2007-02-16)
Fixed by editing the parameter description. I also harmonized the description of parameter si_unit with other templates.

Issue: GYL-1 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 13: Reference parameters in model diagrams (1, 2) should be enlarged for better readability.

Comment: (Ann Meads 2007-12-13)
Fixed by enlarging reference parameter text to 9pt.

Issue: GYL-2 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 13: Figures under the Instance diagrams section needs to be enlarged. These are hard to read.

Comment: (Ann Meads 2007-12-13)
Enlarged the instance diagrams.

Issue: GYL-3 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 14: References within the characterization section does not comply with this rule. E.g. characterization assigning person or organization where person and organization is stated without hyperlinks to the respective entity.

Comment: (Ann Meads 2007-12-13)
Added hyerlinks where possible.

Issue: GYL-4 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 24: “This template describes how to represent a numerical value range for a process property” should be changed to “…. for a product property”.

Comment: (Ann Meads 2007-12-13)
Changed wording.

Issue: GYL-5 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 30: No explicit relation between input attributes and constructs in the diagram (e.g. by arrows).

Comment: (Ann Meads 2007-12-13)
Added explicit arrows.

Issue: GYL-6 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 51: Input parameter 'si_unit'. Do we need to bring in explanations on Part 21 and Part 28 representations ?

Comment: (Ann Meads 2007-12-17)
The view was that we should include this explanation. Unit is the only place in the model where this occurs.

Issue: GYL-7 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 51: Input parameter 'context'. Should we be able to reuse representation contexts that are being defined as subclasses of the class ‘Representation_context’ ?

Comment: (Ann Meads 2007-12-17)
Agreed. Changed numerical_representation_context to representation_context.

Issue: GYL-8 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 82: Change URN’s for property_ecl_id “urn:plcs:rdl:sample” in order to be consistent with the Express instance representation in the previous figure.

Comment: (Ann Meads 2007-12-13)
Changed text in figure.

Issue: GYL-9 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 90: Reference to template product_property_range are sometimes made within “”, sometimes not. Should be consistent.

Comment: (Ann Meads 2007-12-13)
Made figure 5 consistent with figures 6 through 8 i.e. template view.

Issue: GYL-10 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Characterization should comply with Peter Bergstrom paper on property characterization defined during the DEX3 harmonization workshops. See uploaded document : 'Properties in DEXlib meeting notes 2007-08-13.doc'.

Comment: (Ann Meads 2008-01-29)
Added general advice in a boxed note in the description section. The approach was decided to be multiple representations for one property for cases such as estimated and measured weight. General advice to separate the qualification from the name of the property has also been given. The qualification/determination classification was moved from property_representation to property_value_representation in line with the properties document. As a consequence, an issue has been raised in the corresponding capability.

Issue: GYL-11 by Leif Gyllstrom (08-01-24) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Declaration of input parameter value should be changed from:
< param_in name="lower_limit / upper_limit" type="SELECT" select_type="measure_value">
<description>
The value of the property.
The datatype must also be indicated in this parameter, e.g.
"ANY_NUMBER_VALUE(5)".
</description>
</param_in>
to something like:
<param_in name="lower_limit / upper_limit" type="TYPE" defined_type="any_number_value">
<description>
The value of the property. The datatype is always 'any_number_value'
and should not be registered together with the value, i.e. enter the
value as a number, without datatype.
</description>
</param_in>

Comment: (Ann Meads 2008-01-30)
Changed as suggested.

Issue: PBM-2 by Peter Bergström (2009-03-23) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Parameter @unit is incorrectly described, it is not a class of a unit, it is a name of a unit. The description of parameter @unit_ecl_id needs also changing.
A default value for @context would also be good, suggest Numerical_representation_context.

Comment: (Peter Bergström 2009-03-23)
Fixed both issues.