Template:— product_property_limit (prod_prp_limit) Date: 2009/03/24 12:40:21
Revision: 1.32
CoverContentsDescriptionModel diags.Input params.Ref. params.Instantiation pathInstance diags.CharacterizationsIssues

Issue raised against: product_property_limit

GENERAL issues

Closed issue 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.

Closed issue 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 product_property_limit written for the capability assigning_product_properties, has an invalid instantiation path defined. I suspect that either the processing engine is at fault, or the comment separator is misplaced with respect to the rest of the path and thus causes an error in the template.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-01-02)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: RBN-1 by Rob Bodington (07-01-02) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The input parameters that are enumerations should have the enumeration specified.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-01-02)
Corrected.

Closed issue 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.

Closed issue Issue: TRO-1 by Trisha Rollo (20070625) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Instance diagram instantiation - template example does not match the instance diagram figure
Comment: (Trisha Rollo 20070625)
template example changed

Closed issue Issue: GYL-1 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 3: The following file shall be removed from the image directory; process_property_limit_char_role.png.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-28)
Deleted

Closed issue Issue: GYL-2 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 4: Figure (4) 'Entities instantiated by product_property_limit template' is to wide to fit within an A4.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-28)
Rearranged image

Closed issue Issue: GYL-3 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) 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: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-28)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-4 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 24: The meaning of limit can be further explained.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-28)
Improved

Closed issue Issue: GYL-5 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) 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: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-28)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-6 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) editorial issue
Resolution: Reject. 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: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-27)
There is now a note explaining the Part 21 and Part 28 representation issue. This is included as agreed "Notes from issue resolution teleocn 2007-17-12"

Closed issue Issue: GYL-7 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) 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: (Rob Bodington 08-02-28)
Changed to Representation_context as per "Notes from issue resolution teleocn 2007-17-12"

Closed issue Issue: GYL-8 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Reject. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 52: Type = "ENUMERATION" not in the list of allowed types.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-27)
This is is an issue against the check list. ENUMERATION is acceptable

Closed issue Issue: GYL-9 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 67: There is one additional textual example missing for @3assigning_reference_ date that is being used in the figure.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-28)
Added

Closed issue Issue: GYL-10 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 71: There are three additional templates which are not required by this template
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-28)
removed

Closed issue Issue: GYL-11 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 72: The input parameter minute_offset for @41assigning_time template is missing in the textual example.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-28)
The template has been removed as per GYL-10

Closed issue Issue: GYL-12 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) editorial issue
Resolution: Reject. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 72: The input parameters middle_names, prefix_titles and suffix_titles for @52assigning_person_ organization template is missing in the textual example.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-28)
The template has been removed as per GYL-10

Closed issue Issue: GYL-13 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 73: The following classes in the given examples should be defined as being defined within urn:plcs:rdl:sample instead of being defined within urn:plcs:rdl:std
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-28)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-14 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 82: Template instantiation is not consistent with the Express instance diagram (characterization is missing)
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-28)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-15 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 82: Value of qualifier is in bold text which is not consistent with the textual example.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-28)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-16 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) editorial issue
Resolution: Reject. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 90: Figure (6) Characterizations for product_property_limit template should use the template representation for process_property_ limit, and not the ExpressG diagram. Do not include input parameters in this diagram.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-03-06)
The instance diagram is accptable

Closed issue Issue: GYL-17 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 91: Sometimes is the template product_property_limit stated within quotes, sometimes not. Shall be consisitent.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-29)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-18 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-08) 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: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-28)
It appears to

Closed issue Issue: GYL-19 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Value of limit shall contain any_value_number() in both Express instance diagram and in template instantiation diagram.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-28)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-20 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="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="value" 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: (Rob Bodington 08-02-28)
Corrected

Closed issue 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.