Template:— process_property_limit (proc_prp_limit) Date: 2009/03/24 12:40:21
Revision: 1.24
CoverContentsDescriptionModel diags.Input params.Ref. params.Instantiation pathInstance diags.CharacterizationsIssues

Issue raised against: process_property_limit

GENERAL issues

Closed issue Issue: RBN-1 by Johan Nielsen (2007-03-26) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

The reference parameter prop_repr declaration is missing in some diagrams. It should be declared and bound to Activity_property_representation.
Comment: (Johan Nielsen 2007-03-26)
Fixed by editing the diagrams.

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: BNN-1 by Bill Nairn (2007-06-25) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Changes made: Updated model review status; corrected .png file names (where needed); identified source files for each .png file; removed optional temlates from Figure 1; Created charaterizations summary diagram (Figure 6); removed characterizations from instance diagrams (Figures 4 and 5).
Comment: ( )

Closed issue Issue: GYL-1 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-11-26) 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 08-02-26)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-2 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-11-26) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 24: The meaning of limit can be further explained.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-26)
Modified to: "The qualified numerical value representing either the lower limit or the upper limit of the property."

Closed issue Issue: GYL-3 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-11-26) 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 08-02-26)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-4 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-11-26) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 47: Is missing on the abbreviated template
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-26)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-5 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-11-26) 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 08-02-26)
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-6 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-11-26) 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: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-26)
Changed to Representation_context as per "Notes from issue resolution teleocn 2007-17-12"

Closed issue Issue: GYL-7 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-11-26) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 52: Type = ENUMERATION not in the list of allowed types.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-26)
This is is an issue against the check list ENUMERATION is acceptable

Closed issue Issue: GYL-8 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-11-26) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 67: There is one additional textual example for @2assigning_calender_ date that is not being used in the figure.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-26)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-9 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-11-26) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 68, 73 and 77: Value of "context_ecl_id" is not consistent with textual example.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-26)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-10 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-11-26) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 82: Value of "context_ecl_id" is not consistent with textual example.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-26)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-11 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-11-26) 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 08-02-26)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-12 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-11-26) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 90: Figure (6) "Characterizations for product_property_limit template" should be process_property_limit
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-26)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-13 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-11-26) 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.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-26)
The approach used is consistent with a number of other templates

Closed issue Issue: GYL-14 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-11-26) editorial issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 91: Sometimes is the template process_property_limit stated within quotes, sometimes not. Shall be consisitent.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-26)
Now in quotes

Closed issue Issue: GYL-15 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-11-26) 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: (Rob Bodington 08-02-27)
They appear to be

Closed issue Issue: GYL-16 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 08-02-26)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-17 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="limit" 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 08-02-26)
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.