Template:— representing_assembly_structure (rep_assy) Date: 2008/03/03 06:04:43
Revision: 1.15
CoverContentsDescriptionModel diags.Input params.Ref. params.Instantiation pathInstance diags.CharacterizationsIssues

Issue raised against: representing_assembly_structure

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 2007-04-16)
It should not be, and this has been corrected now.

Closed issue Issue: GYL-1 by Leif Gyllstrom (2007-05-04) major_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Under the description section it says: "...structures that represent traditional Bill of Material structures..". I was under the impression that BOM structures should be representied using the enitity Promissory_usage, and Assembly_structure should be used for Assemblies. See PDM Schema Usage Guide 4.1.4 Promissory Component Usage.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2007-05-17)
As I interpret the PDM schema usage guide 4.1.4, it says that Promissory_usage may be used for Preliminary BOMs in early design phases. Promissory_usage should be used when you don't yet know the exact relation between Parts in an assembly, but you know one is part of the other. But section 4.1 also talks about explicit BOMs, so I think this is not an error. In fact, I believe most BOM structures in industry are very explicit in their structures and really talkes about the direct relationship as a next assembly, and they should noy use Promissory_usage, but Next_assembly_usage.

Closed issue Issue: GYL-2 by Leif Gyllstrom (2007-05-04) major_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

I would suggest not using the quanitity and location_indicator attributes, but use assignments instead.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2007-05-17)
I don't see the obvious replacement to using the quantity attribute, what did you have in mind?
When it comes to using the asg_location instead of location indicator, I'm not sure asg_location can actually serve the full purpose of the attribute. The location_indicator is primarily used as an indicator of an occurrence of a Part, not a physical location. The capability Representing_location says in the business overview that "This Capability should not be used to describe location within product geometry." I don't fully know what is meant by that statement, or if it applies to location_indicator in general, but for certain types of occurences of Parts it would be a location within the product geometry.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-10-18)
Following discussions, it is agreed that we use quantity and strings for location

Closed issue Issue: PBM-1 by Peter Bergström (07-06-05) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Quantity is currently always implemented by the instantiation path, although the attribute is optional. This may be OK, but since it is done using template representing_count it makes it impossible to give the quantity with a unit, e.g. 1 litre of oil. Either the representing_count should not be instantiated by the path, or use representing_quantity instead (the values for representing_count may be default values?).
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2007-06-11)
Replaced the use of template representing_count with representing_quantity, with default values set for "1 count" (i.e. one piece). In this way it is easy to use the same template regardless of quantity (and location).

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

The model diagram should show the complete inheritance hierarchy. See representing_promissory_usage.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-07-06)
Updated

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

The model diagram shows the parameters: Repr_assy.related_view Repr_assy.relating_view These should be parent/child
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-07-06)
Updated

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-1 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_assembly_structure Check list clause: 6 Ttwo out of five XML >figure ..< tags do not include a "master"-attribute with a reference to an editable file (source file).
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Fixed

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-2 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_assembly_structure Check list clause: 7 "and interfaces" is not hyperlinked like the entity data type names before it ... either hyperlink this one or do not hyperlink the others; "especially when several product structures representing" is not a complete sentence; not "defaults values", but default values; not " The assignment of effectivities are described", but "... is described".
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Reworded.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-3 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

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

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-4 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

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

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-5 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_assembly_structure Check list clause: 31 The template reference parameters ^nau is outside of the rectangle for Next_assembly_usage.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Fixed

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-6 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_assembly_structure 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-6a by JH, EPMT (2008-1-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_assembly_structure Check list clause: 39 The reference parameter "quantity" for the template representing_quantity is missing.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Fixed

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-7 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_assembly_structure Check list clause: 41 Yes, done, however, the inheritance arrows have the wrong direction all together. Also, the two supertypes in th emiddle 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-8 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_assembly_structure Check list clause: 46 "representing" is abbreviated as repr.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-9 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_assembly_structure 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-10 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_assembly_structure 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)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-11 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_assembly_structure 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-12 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_assembly_structure Check list clause: 75 Yes, but the name is followed by trailing blanks.
Comment: (Tim Turner 2008-03-01)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-13 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_assembly_structure 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-14 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_assembly_structure 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-15 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

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

Closed issue Issue: EPM-RI-16 by JH, EPMT (2008-1-17) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

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

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

Issue file: template_issues_EPMT_JH_20080118.xls Template: representing_assembly_structure 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)
Fixed.