Template:— process_property_range (proc_prp_range) Date: 2009/03/24 12:40:21
Revision: 1.20
CoverContentsDescriptionModel diags.Input params.Ref. params.Instantiation pathInstance diags.CharacterizationsIssues

Issue raised against: process_property_range

GENERAL issues

Closed issue Issue: RBN-1 by Johan Nielsen (2007-03-26) editorial 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 (2007-06-26) 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); Corrected reference parameters in figure 2 (no impact on XML).
Comment: ( )

Closed issue Issue: GYL-1 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Reject. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 13: Reference parameters in model diagrams (1, 2 and 3) should be enlarged for better readability.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-27)
They are at the normal font used for all templates

Closed issue Issue: GYL-2 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) 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 08-02-27)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-3 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) 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 08-02-27)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-4 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) minor_technical 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-5 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) 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 08-02-27)
Changed to Representation_context as per "Notes from issue resolution teleocn 2007-17-12"

Closed issue Issue: GYL-6 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 72: Values of upper_limit and lower_limits shall contain "any_value_number()"
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-27)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-7 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 82: Values of upper_limit and lower_limits shall contain any_value_number()
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-27)
Corrected

Closed issue Issue: GYL-8 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) editorial issue
Resolution: Reject. Status: closed

Review issue, review item 90: Figures within the characterization section should use the template representation for process_property_range, and not the Express entities.
Comment: ( )
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-02-27)
The approach used is consistent with a number of other templates

Closed issue Issue: GYL-9 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-12-09) 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 08-02-27)
They appear to be

Closed issue Issue: GYL-10 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="upper_limit resp lower_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="upper_limit resp lower_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 08-02-27)
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.