Template:— assigning_security_classification (asg_sec) Date: 2008/02/15 10:23:44
Revision: 1.17
CoverContentsDescriptionModel diags.Input params.Ref. params.Instantiation pathInstance diags.CharacterizationsIssues

Issue raised against: assigning_security_classification

GENERAL issues

Closed issue Issue: DNV-38 by Sylvia Schwab on behalf of DNV (07-03-07) major_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Security_classification in representing_security may have a start_bound and end_bound e.g. period of validity.

Proposal: Add template assigning_effectivity to be assigned (optional).

In the context of this discussion the following issue was brought up and should be followed up as well: use of effectivity vs. time stamps. Issue to be reviewed and common practice to be established including documentation.

Another general issue use of assigning_cdate vs. assigning_time (date+time). There seems to be a common practice to use date and time and if time is not required to set it to zero. This should be documented.

Comment: (Mike Ward 2008-01-21)
The use of assigning_calendar_date is now deprecated; assigning_time should be used.Dated_effectivity now assigned.

Closed issue Issue: DNV-39 by Sylvia Schwab on behalf of DNV (07-03-07) major_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Representing_security populates Security_classification.classification_level and Security_classification.description with "/IGNORE", this is not in accordance with spreadsheet PLCS_attribute_usage.xls.

Proposal: If spreadsheet is not valid then classification level should be assigned using assigning_identification with organization that assigned the identification.

In this context: clarify status and usage of the PLCS_attribut_usage.xls?

Comment: (Mike Ward 2008-01-21)
The spreadsheet is incorrect. The use of "/IGNORE" is correct.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-1 by Rob Bodington (08-01-09) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Input parameter "security_ecl_id" has a default="http://www.plcs.org" should be "urn:plcs:rdl:std"
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-01-09)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-001 by Lorentz Buan, EPM (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Check list clause: 6 The "master" attribute belongs to the ">img<" tag, which is subordinate to the >figure< tag
Comment: (Mike Ward 2008-01-22)
All master attributes now correct.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-002 by Lorentz Buan, EPM (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Check list clause: 21 DNV-38 by Sylvia Schwab on behalf of DNV (07-03-07) major_technical issue DNV-39 by Sylvia Schwab on behalf of DNV (07-03-07) major_technical issue
Comment: (Mike Ward 2008-01-22)
All issues now addressed.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-003 by Lorentz Buan, EPM (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Check list clause: 28 There are characterizations included in the EXPRESS-G diagram. Check item 28 says not to.
Comment: (Mike Ward 2008-01-22)
All characterization now removed from expg diagram.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-004 by Lorentz Buan, EPM (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Check list clause: 29 Should'nt the items attribute Security_classification_assignment be highlighted with blue and bold as a template parameter ?
Comment: (Mike Ward 2008-01-22)
Added to expg diagram.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-005 by Lorentz Buan, EPM (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Check list clause: 42 Abbrevated graphical representation not present
Comment: (Mike Ward 2008-01-22)
Added to tmpl diagram.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-006 by Lorentz Buan, EPM (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Check list clause: 48 Reference parameters are shown below , not above as explicitly stated.
Comment: (Mike Ward 2008-01-22)
This is an error in the checklist

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-007 by Lorentz Buan, EPM (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Check list clause: 49 The items parameter is missing
Comment: (Mike Ward 2008-01-22)
Added to expg diagram.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-008 by Lorentz Buan, EPM (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Check list clause: 70 PART instances should be greyed
Comment: (Mike Ward 2008-01-22)
Added to inst diagrams.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-009 by Lorentz Buan, EPM (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Check list clause: 72 Description is set to /IGNORE in the instantiation path. Not so in Fig. 3
Comment: (Mike Ward 2008-01-22)
Inst diagram corrected.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-010 by Lorentz Buan, EPM (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Check list clause: 74 Not filled with yellow
Comment: (Mike Ward 2008-01-22)
Inst diagram corrected.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-011 by Lorentz Buan, EPM (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Check list clause: 83 Not filled with yellow
Comment: (Mike Ward 2008-01-22)
Inst tmpl diagram corrected.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-012 by Lorentz Buan, EPM (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Check list clause: 88 The uniqueness constraint for Security_classification is understood, but the same rule should also be applied for Security_classification_assignment ?
Comment: (Mike Ward 2008-01-22)
UR added to Security_classification_assignment.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-013 by Lorentz Buan, EPM (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Check list clause: Is it not a rule that all assignments like Security_classification_assignment should have a classification (C010) classiifying the role of the assignment attached ? If that is the case it is missing.
Comment: (Mike Ward 2008-01-22)
There is no absolute rule here, Security_classification_assignment does not have role attribute in the EXPRESS and the role is clear form the name of the entity.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-014 by Lorentz Buan, EPM (2008-1-18) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Check list clause: In case that there are charcterization to be attached to an instantiation of this template it can not be applied. For instance to different assigning_time templates (same role but different times) can not be attached to the very same Security_classification_assignment instance. That would introduce ambiguity in the population. This raises the important question . Can Security_classification_assignment belong to the template since it can not be reused in all cases. I am afraid this question is not rescricted to this very simple template, but has to do with the concept of characterization as such.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-15)
in the case you describe, you would use time based effectivity