representing_independent_property

Template:— representing_independent_property (rep_indpt_prp)
Capability:representing_independent_property

Date: 2008/03/07 23:26:57
Revision: 1.7

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

Issue raised against: representing_independent_property

GENERAL issues

Issue: DNV-35 by David Skogan, DNV (2007-12-3) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Comment: (Johan Nielsen 2008-02-26)
Fixed.

Issue: DNV-36 by David Skogan, DNV (2007-12-3) editorial issue
Resolution: Reject. Status: closed

Comment: (Johan Nielsen 2008-02-26)
Not an issue.

Issue: DNV-37 by David Skogan, DNV (2007-12-3) editorial issue
Resolution: Reject. Status: closed

Comment: (Johan Nielsen 2008-02-26)
No reference needed.

Issue: DNV-38 by David Skogan, DNV (2007-12-3) editorial issue
Resolution: Reject. Status: closed

Comment: (Johan Nielsen 2008-02-26)
No reference needed.

Issue: DNV-39 by David Skogan, DNV (2007-12-3) major_technical issue
Resolution: Reject. Status: closed

Issue file: D:\users\rbn\projects\010937_DNV_dexlib\docs\review\checklists_12_07\all_template_issues.xls Template: representing_independent_property Check list clause: 17 Why is it necessary to have multiple mechanisms for representing properties? There are different mechanisms for process properties, product properties and resource properties. This is highly confusing and should be avoided

Comment: (Johan Nielsen 2008-02-26)
Not a template issue.

Issue: DNV-40 by David Skogan, DNV (2007-12-3) major_technical issue
Resolution: Reject. Status: closed

Issue file: D:\users\rbn\projects\010937_DNV_dexlib\docs\review\checklists_12_07\all_template_issues.xls Template: representing_independent_property Check list clause: 18 There is difficult to understand how and when the template should be used. When will you ever want to use a property without any context?

Comment: (Johan Nielsen 2008-02-26)
Not a template issue.

Issue: DNV-41 by David Skogan, DNV (2007-12-3) major_technical issue
Resolution: Reject. Status: closed

Issue file: D:\users\rbn\projects\010937_DNV_dexlib\docs\review\checklists_12_07\all_template_issues.xls Template: representing_independent_property Check list clause: 24 See 17 and 18. There is no purpose clause. Why is this functionality needed? Add explanation of usage and rationale for when it is useful.

Comment: (Johan Nielsen 2008-02-26)
Usage is clear within the scope of the capability representing_independent_property.

Issue: DNV-42 by David Skogan, DNV (2007-12-3) editorial issue
Resolution: Reject. Status: closed

Issue file: D:\users\rbn\projects\010937_DNV_dexlib\docs\review\checklists_12_07\all_template_issues.xls Template: representing_independent_property Check list clause: 51 Rewrite descriptions. How does the class name correspond to the property name (isn't it the same as the property name?). Why do you need to identify the entity type External_class_library. Is it necessary to open up the asg_rd to explain the parameter?

Comment: (Johan Nielsen 2008-02-26)
Basic AP239/DEXlib/RDL functionality.

Issue: DNV-43 by David Skogan, DNV (2007-12-3) major_technical issue
Resolution: Reject. Status: closed

Comment: (Johan Nielsen 2008-02-26)
Other OWL-file is used, ref. Rob Bodington.

Issue: DNV-44 by David Skogan, DNV (2007-12-3) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: D:\users\rbn\projects\010937_DNV_dexlib\docs\review\checklists_12_07\all_template_issues.xls Template: representing_independent_property Check list clause: 87 P28 example is empty

Comment: (Johan Nielsen 2008-02-26)
Removed p28 example.

Issue: DNV-45 by David Skogan, DNV (2007-12-3) major_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Comment: (Johan Nielsen 2008-02-26)
Fixed.

Issue: DNV-46 by David Skogan, DNV (2007-12-3) major_technical issue
Resolution: Reject. Status: closed

Comment: (Johan Nielsen 2008-02-26)
Default is urn:plcs:rdl:std and must be mandatory.

Issue: RBN-1 by Rob Bodington (08-03-06) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The param_in "property_class_name" should have "Activity_property" as the permissible classifications.

Comment: (Leif Gyllstrom 2008-03-07)
Changed it to include both "Activity_property", "Assigned_property" and "Resource_property". All three are valid, dependent upon the context where the Independent_property is being used.