DEX: (D003) task_set — Task Set Date: 2010/03/25 17:49:46
Revision: 1.80
CoverContentsAbstractIntroductionTermsScopePLCS Activity ModelBusiness OverviewInformation OverviewInformation RequirementsPLCS RepresentationTemplatesSchemasReference DataConformanceBibliography

Issue raised against: task_set

OTHER issues

Closed issue Issue: RBN-1 by Rob Bodington (05-11-30) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Following the recent TOG meeting where we reviewed the capabilities required by the DEXs, - I have added the following capabilities to the Fault state DEX: assigning_approvals assigning_codes assigning_date_time assigning_descriptor assigning_effectivity assigning_identifiers assigning_organization assigning_process_properties assigning_product_properties assigning_reference_data assigning_resource_properties messaging referencing_contract referencing_documents referencing_part_or_slot referencing_person_organization referencing_person_organization_typical referencing_product_breakdown_element referencing_product_configuration referencing_project referencing_resource referencing_task representing_condition representing_environment_typical representing_information_controls representing_justification representing_life_cycle_opportunity representing_location representing_periodicity representing_person_organization_typical representing_probability representing_properties_numerically representing_properties_textually representing_property_value_ranges representing_resource representing_state_type representing_task representing_task_and_state

Closed issue Issue: RBN-2 by Rob Bodington (07-04-10) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Figure 3 in the section "Task identification and versioning" shows the Task_method_version being identified by the template "assigning_identification_with_no_organization" - I would have expected the template "assigning_identification" to be used. We have previously agreed that ALL identification should be in the context of an organization - apart from an organization.
Comment: (Leif Gyllstrom 2008-03-05)
Corrected.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-3 by Rob Bodington (07-04-10) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

It is not clear what the section "Effectivity domain representation" is representing. The introductory text needs more examples and explanation.
Comment: (Leif Gyllstrom 2008-03-05)
Entire DEX structure has been revised.

Closed issue Issue: RBN-4 by Rob Bodington (07-04-10) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Figure 35 "How to represent a scheduled periodicity" in the Task trigger section shows one have of the trigger. I would have expected to see the property on the Part that is being compared to the independent property in order to trigger the task. E.g. if I want the task to be done on a part after 10 flying hours, I can represent 10 flying hours as the independent property. I would expect the trigger to be "if independent property flying hours = part property flying hours" then do the task.
Comment: (Leif Gyllstrom 2008-03-05)
Current representation is agreed within the PLCS Core Team, and is harmonized between the Task Set DEX and the Aviation Maintenance DEX.

Closed issue Issue: BCR1-013 by Gordon Robb (2008-04-24) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

"Introduction
Reference text: - ""information required for through life configuration change management of a product and its support solution.""
This should be changed to just Configuration Management. The subject matter of Task deals with the overall CM of the product and not just CCM.
Comment: (Core team review 2008-12-09)
Accept. But change Av DEX as well.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2010-2-05)
Done for DEX3.

Closed issue Issue: BCR1-014 by Gordon Robb (2008-04-24) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

"Introduction - Related DEXs
The information exchanged by the Task Specification DEX is normally between a product developer and a customer/end-user. It is assumed that each party has access to the Product information including breakdowns, equipments, components, effectivities etc.
The Product Information should be changed to the correct terminology of Product Configuration Information.
DEX (D001):- Product Breakdown for Support. This DEX can be used to specify the as designed product structure of an aircraft, including configuration effectivities. It will incorporate a breakdown structure detailing what parts can be fitted into which positions on the aircraft."
  1. I would have expected this cross-reference to DEX1 to read exactly the same as the Avn Mnt DEX viz DEX (D001):- Product Breakdown for Support. This DEX can be used to specify the as designed product structure of an aircraft. It will incorporate a breakdown structure detailing what components can be fitted into which positions on the aircraft;
  2. The 'configuration effectivities' is basically incorrect – the DEX does not use the "Configuration Effectivity" module but a series of 'effectivity' templates
  3. Why isn't the DEX using DEX 8? There will be occasions where the 'product' is in-service and requires additional Tasks.
Comment: (Core team review 2008-12-09)
Accept 1st para, 2nd ok, Reject 3rd statement.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2008-12-29)
Wording changed to the wording in aviation maintenance dex. Thereby issue 1 and 2 are OK.
No action taken on issue 3.

Closed issue Issue: BCR1-015 by Gordon Robb (2008-04-24) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

"Scope
Identification of the product (supported item), to which the task applies."

The Avn Mnt DEX uses "Reporting the authorisation to undertake a maintenance task on a reportable item (an asset)"
This diversion from 'standardized PLCS jargon' between the 2 OASIS PLCS DEXs COULD be confusing for new 'players'. This Task DEX uses PIF [Product in Focus] throughout. Could this be resolved to a 'PIF' statement in both DEXs?

Comment: (Core team review 2008-12-09)
Accept; Should use PIF throughout both Task & Av DEXs.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2008-12-29)
"Product in focus" originally meant all the data about all the products that you are interested in managing. It was not used to identify a specific part or breakdown_element, or even the end_item product, but to identify the entire scope of your interest, i.e. all your products and systems of products.
This is the definition use in ISO 10303-239. If you want to use the now common definition of "product in focus" (the thing you are interested in just now, i.e. a part, breakdown_element, or individual) in the DEXs, you need to re-define the concept and highlight the difference in use between the ISO standard and the DEXs.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2010-2-05)
DEX3 now refers to PIF

Closed issue Issue: BCR1-016 by Gordon Robb (2008-04-24) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

ISO 10303-239 Activity model - ISO 10303-239 Activity model definitions, Identify potential task
2nd bullet - "configuration change management tasks to be undertaken by support participants such as fitting a local modification or conducting an audit of product configuration;"

The statement should be corrected to read "Configuration Management tasks to be undertaken by support participants such as modification implementations or conducting a physical configuration audit of the product'.

Comment: (Core team review 2008-12-09)
Reject.

Closed issue Issue: BCR1-017 by Gordon Robb (2008-04-24) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Task specification Business Information Requirements - Detailed Information Requirements, Product in focus identification
Product in focus identification
Identification of the product in focus to which the task specification applies. Identification of the product in focus includes the progression codes such as revision numbers.
NOTE At least one identification needs to be assigned to the product in focus.

What are progression codes?

Comment: (Core team review 2008-12-09)
Accept; Keep progression codes, but add to terminology section.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2008-12-29)
Term "progression codes" added.

Closed issue Issue: BCR1-018 by Gordon Robb (2008-04-24) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Task specification Business Information Requirements - Detailed Information Requirements, Task effectivity / applicability
Referenced text: The validity of a task, or part thereof, may be constrained to a specific context. These constraints are referred to as effectivity or applicability

Why a 'or' when the rest of the script uses '/' and (_) and in reality why mention applicability at all when no reference is placed on its usage.

Comment: (Core team review 2008-12-09)
Accept; remove usage of the term 'applicability'.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2008-12-29)
Applicability removed.

Closed issue Issue: BCR1-020 by Bryant Allen (2008-05-19) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Terms
The 'Terms' section does not include a list of terms and acronyms used in the DEX that needs further explanation.

Add list of terms/acronyms

Comment: (Core team review 2008-12-09)
Accept.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2010-2-05)
DEX3 now has terms defined

Closed issue Issue: BCR1-021 by Bryant Allen (2008-05-19) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Reference Data Library
The item property_value_representation_determination is not contained in the RDL yet is used in Figure 23, Template 46.

Add element and definition to the RDL.

Comment: (Core team review 2008-12-09)
Reject; Class exists.

Closed issue Issue: BCR1-022 by Bryant Allen (2008-05-19) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Reference Data Library
The element labour_time_planned has the same definition as labour_time_consumed.

Revise definition for labour_time_planned to indicate that it is planned labour hours.

Comment: (Core team review 2008-12-09)
Accpeted; Change definition for labour_time_planned
Comment: (Tim Turner 2010-2-05)
Redefined

Closed issue Issue: BCR1-026 by John Dunford (2008-06-11) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

DEX Name: I find the new short name "task_set" deeply confusing and I request that this short name be abandoned and that the DEX always uses its full name of "Task Specification". Task Set implies that many tasks are addressed, which is clearly not the case.
Comment: (Core team review 2008-12-09)
Change DEX long name to Task Set; Change wording accordingly to clarify that a set means at least one (task). A message shall contain one or more task specifications.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2008-12-12)
The DEX do address many task specifications, the message may have several content_items, one for each task specification. DEX Long name has been changed, and the text in abstract, introduction, and business overview have been slightly modify to clarify the relationship between a Task Set and Task Specifications.

Closed issue Issue: BCR1-027 by John Dunford (2008-06-11) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The current scope, and business information model make no reference to the context in which the Task Specification was defined, and for which the task specification is applicable. This could either be a text string, or identification of the various aspects of the Deployment Environment(s) to which the task applies (e.g. What product groups, what operating environment, what usage pattern, what support locations, organizations or support environments.) The ability to identify or describe such a context needs to be added to the DEX.
Comment: (Core team review 2008-12-09)
Accept; Add effectivity statements to the business info overview & scope sections.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2008-12-29)
Effectivity statements added to sections Scope and Business Information.

Closed issue Issue: BCR1-028 by John Dunford (2008-06-11) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

" I also offer some changes to wording of the Scope definition (see attachment), which I hope improve its style, removes duplication and improves alignment between the Scope and the Business Information Overview section
See file: Proposed revisons to scope-PLCS OASIS Task Spec DEX.doc http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/plcs-comment/200806/doc00000.doc "
Comment: (Core team review 2008-12-09)
Accept; Need to look into attachment.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2008-12-29)
Suggestions accepted as they are. Scope section updated.

Closed issue Issue: BCR1-029 by John Dunford (2008-06-11) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The Business Overview (but not the business information overview) mention the concept of a Task resource model. The idea here was to provide a sufficient description of the likely resource usage when the task was performed to enable spares optimization modelling. This is not the same thing as a simple list of required resources. Although I may possibly have invented this phrase, I have never seen a full definition of what it means! I suggest therefore that you either delete reference to "a Task resource model" or spell out in more detail what it is, and how it can be represented.
Comment: (Core team review 2008-12-09)
Accept; Change Task resource model in overview to reflect what is actually stated in the DEX
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2008-12-29)
Changes made to section Business Overview and Business Information Overview. Task resource model is no longer used as a concept. The list of required resources in section Business Information Overview has been complemented by a new text paragraph at the end.