Template:— representing_promissory_usage (rep_prom_usg)
Capability:representing_assembly_structure		 Date: 2009/04/06 15:58:34
Revision: 1.20
CoverContentsDescriptionModel diags.Input params.Ref. params.Instantiation pathInstance diags.CharacterizationsIssuesin situ

Issue raised against: representing_promissory_usage

GENERAL issues

Closed issue Issue: RBN-1 by Rob Bodington (07-04-03) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Why is it mandatory to classify the assembly relationship?
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2007-04-18)
It should not be. Fixed.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2007-08-8)
I disagree. It is useful to distinguish between other types of usages of promissory usage. E.g. I might wish to define it as a BOM view, an APL, etc.. Also, given that the structure is identical to representing_assembly, it would be useful to separate the types of relationship by their use context. This is why there is a relation_type attribute on view_definition_relationship.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-08-09)
We are not saying that you cannot assign reference data - just that it should not be mandatory. Hence the classification has been moved to the characterization section. I would have thought that the distinction between the BOM view and an APL view is achieved by different view_definitions - not by classifying the relationships. That is after all what the view definition was designed for.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2007-08-13)
Ok, I understand where you are coming from; indeed the relation_type attribute is also optional. As for the placing the distinction on each view_definition to define and classify a parts list (rather than assigning classificiation and identification to the relationship), I think we need to review the parts list discussion that was had some time ago. I do believe that most, if not all, documented usages of promissory usage on Dexlib (at the time of creating the template) were assuming the classification of the relationship in this way, but it is probably worth revisiting to clarify.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-2 by Rob Bodington (07-06-25) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

representing_promissory usage and representing_assembly should use the same approach to representing the quantity. The quantity should be represented by a representing_quantity template rather than a representing_count. This will allow quantities with units. E.g. 10 litres to be represented as well as counts.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-07-06)
This has resulted in changing the quantity parameter to: quantity(Default=1,Type= 'TYPE (any_number_value)' ) unit(Default=Count,Type='CLASS') classifications: "Unit" (urn:plcs:rdl:std:Unit) unit_ecl_id(Default='urn:plcs:rdl:std',Type='URN') si_unit(Default=false,Type='BOOLEAN')
Comment: (Tim Turner 2007-08-8)
Representing_quantity allows bad practice in this context. The original count used to represent quantity restricted the usage with respect to the item in the assembly to the number of occurrences in the assembly or to allow for a quantified BOM. It is not practical to allow a quantity such as 0.5 Kg of Parts within an assembly.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-08-09)
So how would represent 10 litres of Oil?
Comment: (Tim Turner 2007-08-13)
I think this is tied up with whether the item refered to is a 'part' or 'non_countable_material', which I think is a carry over from the PDM schema specified in the product_category assigned to the part. If dealing with a 'non_countable_material', such as sand, it is not (humanly) possible to use count each grain of sand so a quantified value (with a weight measure, e.g. Kg) is applicable. For liquid, a volume measure should be used. If classified as a 'part' then count should be used. I think that we should have some constraints to ensure that these are enforced, rather than permit the misuse of this.
Comment: (Tim Turner 20087-03-01)
It has been left as-is for current release. Representing quantity is used in both templates. However, the issue about tying up the type of measure with the type of product may arise again in the future.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-3 by Rob Bodington (07-07-06) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The model diagram is showing the characterizations - these should be moved to a characterization diagram
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-07-06)
Updated

Closed issue Issue: RBN-4 by Rob Bodington (07-07-06) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

This template should look the same as representing_assembly_structure.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-07-06)
Udpated

Closed issue Issue: TJT-1 by Tim Turner (07-08-09) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The characterization shown in Fig5 does not match with those described in the section. Either modify the figure or update the characterizations provided.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-11-17)
Added reference data characterizations

Closed issue Issue: TRO-1 by Trisha Rollo (18-10-07) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

location indicator should be optional and treated as normal attribute not /IGNORE
Comment: (Trisha Rollo 18-10-07)
location indicator changed

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-17 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 6 XML >figure ..< tags do not include a "master"-attribute with a reference to an editable file (source file).
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Master files added.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-18 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 8 Naming of the source files is a bit chaotic.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Made consistent.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-19 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 14 Most places ok, but class Unit has no rdl_ref.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
The Class Unit cannot be specified in the input param section as an rdl_ref id="Unit" urn="urn:plcs:rdl:std"/. The chcecklist needs to reflect that urns are used not rdl_refs.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-20 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 15 There are references into Stepmod modules: links in Reference Parameters point into stepmod modules, e.g., "Allow the >Promissory_usage< entity ..." ; same in Instantiation Path.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Appear to have been removed.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-21 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 20 Status is "in_work".
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Fixed

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-22 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 31 The template reference parameter ^promissory_usage is outside of the rectangle for Promissory_usage.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Fixed

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-23 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 34 Representing_quantity is optional, but has not a dashed borderline.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
The representing quantity template usage is not optional, even though the Express parameter may be. This is purely a consistency of application matter. Optional templates are normally applied in the characterization section.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-24 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 39 The reference parameter "quantity" for the template representing_quantity is missing.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Added (also the unit ref param was missing),.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-25 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 41 Yes, done, however, the inheritance arrows have the wrong direction all together. Also, the two supertypes in the middle are missing the (ABS) tag.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Fixed. Aslo added the ABS - although it is only for one of the supertypes (not View_definition_usage).

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-26 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 47 In the full representation one attribute is called "consistuent_part", but should be "constituent_part".
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-27 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 48 The template reference parameter is not above, but below the rectangle, and it is a bit tilted :-)
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Fixed

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-28 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 49 Only one parameter (quantity) is included in the full version-
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-29 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 51 The description for unit is missing a noun ("The class name of the corresponding to the quantity unit.").
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-30 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 59 The abstract supertypes are not defined here, but this is probably ok. The checklist should be updated instead.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Not a template issue.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-31 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 60 The parameter @constituent_part is wrongly spelled @consistuent_part.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-32 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 72 The reference parameter "quantity" is probably missing in the diagram.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-33 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 76 The optional template instance has not a dashed border line.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
The representing quantity template is always used, therefore not dashed. However, a quantity value need not be provided. In this case a default value of 1 is always used instead. To represent the default value the rep_cquantity template is used.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-34 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 82 The value for location_indicator is '' in the text and $ in the diagram. The value for si_unit is 'false' (i.e. a string) in the text and false (boolean) in the diagram.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Fixed. But note that in Part 11 (a STEP file) true is represented by the string ".T.", and false by ".F.", while in Part 28 (XML) they are represented by text strings "true" and "false".

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-35 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 83 Not filled yellow.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-36 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 85 The arrows are associated with the input parameter names, not the attribute names.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Renamed the attribute names to reflect the template params.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-37 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 88 No uniqueness constraint given though a kind of primary key rule would be useful. How else shall instances of this template be referred to unambiguously?
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
It is not currently possible to construct rule constraints within the template paradigm, although this would be useful (for the purpose you mention). Identification assignments can be made to the promissory usage entity to unquely identify them if required. The instances maybe reffered to through a referencing template.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-38 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 90 The same comments apply as for figure 1.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Fixed

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-39 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 91 Use "shall" instead of "should". A note with reference to the corresponding capability shall be given also for the third and fourth characterizations. Deprecated concepts (assigning_calendar_date) shall not be recommended.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Notes added and deprecated concepts removed,

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-39 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_promissory_usage Check list clause: 91 It needs to be stated that the use of such additional characterizations reduce the possibility of reusing a template instance; a potentially provided unique key that does not include these characterizations will be rendered useless.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
The characterizations only describe what may be provided in addition to the template defined. A business template may choose to make these more explcit. Referencing templates may also be developed to identify an instance of the main concept. However, there is no global rule facility within the templates to filter instances based upon certain characterizations. A specialized reference template may provide for this.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-5 by Rob Bodington (08-03-01) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The template refers to the deprecated template: assigning_calendar_date This reference should be removed.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Removed.