Issues raised against the ISO 10303-239.

Issue file: dexlib/docs/issues/ap239_issues.xml

This issue log maintains a record of all the issues raised against AP239. These issues need to be raised as SEDS against the relevant module and addressed in a later revision of the modules.

When adding an issue, record the SEDS reference number in the attribute seds_ref.

Record any changes to the EXPRESS in:

dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp

OTHER issues

Open issue Issue: RBN-1 by Rob Bodington (06-06-19) minor_technical issue
SEDS: SEDS-1200-STEP-TS-1293
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign reference data to Representation_relationship to define the type of the relationship. Hence the classification_item select should be extended with Representation_relationship. Raise a SEDS against "ISO/TS 10303-1293:2005: AP239 part definition information"
Comment: (Rob Bodington 06-06-19)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.xml
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-02-01)
SEDS submitted: seds-10303-1293a.txt
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-02-01)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/arm_lf_p28xsd.xsd
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-29)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2745)

Open issue Issue: RBN-2 by Rob Bodington (06-06-19) minor_technical issue
SEDS: SEDS-1199-STEP-TS-1289
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a date to an Approving_person_organization. Hence the date_or_date_time_item select should be extended with Approving_person_organization. Raise a SEDS against ISO/TS 10303-1289:2004: AP239 management resource information
Comment: (Rob Bodington 06-06-19)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.xml
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-02-01)
Submitted SEDS: seds-10303-1289b.txt
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-02-01)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/arm_lf_p28xsd.xsd
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-29)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2744)

Open issue Issue: RBN-3 by Rob Bodington (06-06-23) minor_technical issue
SEDS: SEDS-1198-STEP-TS-1289
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a dated effectivity to classification_assignment. Hence effectivity_item should be extended with classification_assignment Raise a SEDS against ISO/TS 10303-1289:2004: AP239 management resource information
Comment: (Rob Bodington 06-06-23)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.xml
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-02-01)
SEDS submitted: seds-10303-1289a.txt
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-02-01)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/arm_lf_p28xsd.xsd
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-29)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2743)

Open issue Issue: RBN-4 by Rob Bodington (07-01-31) minor_technical issue
SEDS: 1135
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The use of message always requires the use of the escape mechanism to reference items, whereas, in some cases an AP may wish to restrict the usage to particular entities. Suggest: The entity Content_item should be subtyped (oneof) to Content_item_selected and Content_item_reference Content_item would become an abstract type, and the current attributes migrated to Content_item_reference Content_item_selected would have a single attribute pointing to an extensible select Additional Notes: An AP could chose to define the set of things a message is restricted to by a rule allowing only the Content_item_select subtype and extending the associated select.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-02-01)
added TYPE message_content_item and ENTITY Content_item_selected Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/arm_lf_p28xsd.xsd
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2746)

Open issue Issue: RBN-5 by Rob Bodington (07-02-01) minor_technical issue
SEDS: SEDS-1256-STEP-TS-1293
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a description to a Justification. Right now within AP239 this requires the ability to assign a document. The use of document (as described in the template assigning_descriptor) is a temporary solution until the module description_assignment is added to AP239. Add Justification to documented_element_select
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-02-01)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/arm_lf_p28xsd.xsd
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-10-01)
SEDS submitted: SEDS-1256-STEP-TS-1293.txt
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2009-01-17)
The module description_assignment should be included in AP239, and used instead.
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-29)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2733)

Open issue Issue: RBN-6 by Rob Bodington (07-02-01) minor_technical issue
SEDS: SEDS-1257-STEP-TS-1293
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a justification to a Property_value_representation. this will enable the reason that a property value has changed to be recorded. For example, the property recording the flying hours of an aircraft will be increased as the result of an activity (flying) performed by the aircraft. Add Property_value_representation to the select justification_item
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-02-01)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/arm_lf_p28xsd.xsd
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-10-01)
SEDS submitted: SEDS-1257-STEP-TS-1293.txt
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-29)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2734)

Open issue Issue: RBN-7 by Rob Bodington (07-03-14) minor_technical issue
SEDS: 1134
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The use of observation always requires the use of the escape mechanism to reference items, whereas, in some cases an AP may wish to restrict the usage to particular entities. Suggest: The entity Observation_item should be subtyped (oneof) to Observation_item_selected Observation_item_selected would have a single attribute pointing to an extensible select. TYPE observation_content_item = SELECT (Product, Product_version, Activity, State); END_TYPE; ENTITY Observation_item_selected SUBTYPE OF (Observation_item); contents: observation_content_item; END_ENTITY; Additional Notes: An AP could chose to define the set of things an observation is restricted to by a rule allowing only the Content_item_select subtype and extending the associated select.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-03-15)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/arm_lf_p28xsd.xsd
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-10-01)
SEDS submitted: SEDS-1255-STEP-TS-1258.txt
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-29)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2732)

Open issue Issue: RBN-8 by Rob Bodington (07-03-20) minor_technical issue
SEDS: SEDS-1258-STEP-TS-1307
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a work request to a State, in order to represent the fact that a given state should be addressed by a work request. E.g. A request to address a fault state. Extend the select affected_item_select with State and State_definition
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-03-20)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/arm_lf_p28xsd.xsd
Comment: (Rob Bodington 07-10-01)
SEDS submitted: SEDS-1258-STEP-TS-1307.txt
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-29)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2735)

Open issue Issue: GYL-1 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-05-02) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a document (description) to Condition_assignment as well as to Condition_parameter. E.g. descriptions. Extend the select documented_element_select with Condition_assignment and Condition_parameter.
Comment: (Johan Nielsen 08-02-18)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Rob Bodington 09-01-21)
Do we really need document assignment? If we incorporate description module - then this is not necessary
Comment: (Rob Bodington 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2705)

Open issue Issue: GYL-2 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-05-02) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a Justification to: Condition_assignment and Applied_state_definition_assignment E.g. descriptions. Extend the select justification_item with Condition_assignment and Applied_state_definition_assignment
Comment: (Johan Nielsen 08-02-18)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2706)

Open issue Issue: GYL-3 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-08-23) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a Document to Class. Extend the documented_element_select for Document_assignment.is_assigned_to with Class.
Comment: (Johan Nielsen 08-02-18)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-29)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2738)

Open issue Issue: GYL-4 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-08-23) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign an Identification_assignment to Class. Extend the identification_item for Identification_assignment.items with Class.
Comment: (Johan Nielsen 08-02-19)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-29)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2739)

Open issue Issue: GYL-5 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-08-23) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign an Effectivity_assignment to Independent_property_representation. Extend the effectivity_item for Effectivity_assignment.items with Independent_property_representation.
Comment: (Johan Nielsen 08-02-19)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2707)

Open issue Issue: GYL-6 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-08-23) major_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Enhance the Required_resource_by_specification" according to the figure below.

Figure 1 —  Suggested ARM extensions

Figure 1 —  Suggested ARM extensions

Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2747)

Open issue Issue: GYL-7 by Leif Gyllstrom (08-01-28) major_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign an In_zone to Activity_method and Applied_activity_method_assignment. Extend the in_zone_item for In-zone.located_item with Activity_method and Applied_activity_method_assignment.
Comment: (Johan Nielsen 08-02-19)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Rob Bodington 09-01-22)
I'm not sure why you want to have an Activity_method and Applied_activity_method_assignment as members of the in_zone_item This implies that the Activty_method is "in teh zone". Surely you would assign the Activty_method to the In zone entity?
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2009-01-22)
What is the semantics for assigning In_zone to an Activity_method, that the method are to be found in that zone? If so I think you should be referring to a document, representing a publication.
You might want to say that specific methods should be applied in a certain zone - but the you should assign an Activity_method to the zone_element_definition that defines that zone.
I cannot understand any other semantics of In_zone relationship to an Activity_method. An Activity_method is not something physical, and cannot therefore be located in a zone.
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-29)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2740)

Open issue Issue: GYL-8 by Leif Gyllstrom (07-08-23) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a Document to Document_assignment. Extend the documented_element_select for Document_assignment.is_assigned_to with Document_assignment.
Comment: (Johan Nielsen 08-02-19)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Rob Bodington 09-01-21)
Is this necessary if we use description module?
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-29)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2742)

Open issue Issue: GYL-9 by Leif Gyllstrom (08-02-25) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign an Effectivity to Activity_property_representation. Extend effectivity_item for Effectivity.items with Activity_property_representation.
Comment: (Johan Nielsen 08-02-28)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2708)

Open issue Issue: GYL-10 by Leif Gyllstrom (08-02-25) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign an Effectivity to Condition_assignment. Extend effectivity_item for Effectivity.items with Condition_assignment.
Comment: (Johan Nielsen 08-02-28)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2709)

Open issue Issue: GYL-12 by Leif Gyllstrom (08-02-25) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign an Effectivity to Resource_property_representation. Extend effectivity_item for Effectivity.items with Resource_property_representation.
Comment: (Johan Nielsen 08-02-28)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2710)

Open issue Issue: GYL-13 by Leif Gyllstrom (08-02-25) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign an Effectivity to View_definition_usage. Extend effectivity_item for Effectivity.items with View_definition_usage.
Comment: (Johan Nielsen 08-02-28)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Rob Bodington 09-01-21)
The assembly structure module has changed and assemblies are no longer sub types of View_definition_usage - needs further investigation
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2748)

Open issue Issue: GYL-14 by Leif Gyllstrom (08-02-25) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign an Condition_parameter to Product_configuration. Extend condition_parameter_item for Condition_parameter.parameter with Product_configuration.
Comment: (Johan Nielsen 08-02-28)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Rob Bodington 09-01-22)
We need to investigate the whole area of configuration management
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2749)

Open issue Issue: GYL-15 by Leif Gyllstrom (08-02-25) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign an Condition_parameter to Organization. Extend condition_parameter_item for Condition_parameter.parameter with Organization.
Comment: (Johan Nielsen 08-02-28)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2711)

Open issue Issue: MWD-1 by Mike Ward (2008-01-09) minor_technical issue
SEDS: SEDS-1272-STEP-TS-1293
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a Applied_state_assignment to an Approval, in order to represent the state (or status) on an Approval in a way that is consistent with other state assignments in AP239. Extend the state_of_item SELECT with Approval
Comment: (Mike Ward 2008-01-09)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/arm_lf_p28xsd.xsd
Comment: (Mike Ward 2008-01-091)
SEDS submitted: SEDS-1272-STEP-TS-1293" Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.xml
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-29)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2736)

Open issue Issue: GYL-16 by Leif Gyllstrom (08-03-09) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a Condition to an Effectivity. Extend condition_item for Condition_assignment.item with Effectivity.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 08-03-10)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xsd dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Rob Bodington 09-01-22)
We need to dicuss the whole area of configuration management
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2750)

Open issue Issue: GYL-17 by Leif Gyllstrom (08-02-25) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign an Condition_parameter to Organization_type. Extend condition_parameter_item for Condition_parameter.parameter with Organization_type.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 11-03-10)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xsd dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2712)

Open issue Issue: GYL-18 by Leif Gyllstrom (08-02-25) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a Condition to Activity_method and its subtypes. Extend condition_item for Condition_assignment.item with Activity_method.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 11-03-10)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xsd dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Rob Bodington 09-01-22)
Shouldn't the assignment be to the use of the Activity_method?
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2751)

Open issue Issue: GYL-19 by Leif Gyllstrom (08-02-25) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign an Condition_parameter to Independent_property. Extend condition_parameter_item for Condition_parameter.parameter with Independent_property.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 11-03-10)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xsd dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2713)

Open issue Issue: GYL-20 by Leif Gyllstrom (08-02-25) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign an Condition_parameter to Work_request. Extend condition_parameter_item for Condition_parameter.parameter with Work_request.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 11-03-10)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xsd dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2714)

Open issue Issue: TJT-01 by Tim Turner, LSC Group (08-06-17) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign an Identification_assignment to Document_location_identification, File_location_identification, External_item_identification or External_source_identification. Extending the identification_item select type for Identification_assignment.items with External_source_identification will enable this for all (the others through inheritence).
Comment: (Tim Turner, LSC Group 08-06-17)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xsd dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2723)

Open issue Issue: TJT-02 by Tim Turner, LSC Group (08-06-17) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a Requirement_assignment to a Work_request. Extending the requirement_assignment_item select type for Requirement_assignment.assigned_to with Work_request will enable this.
Comment: (Tim Turner, LSC Group 08-06-17)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xsd dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2724)

Open issue Issue: TJT-03 by Tim Turner, LSC Group (08-10-23) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign an Effectivity to a Qualification_assignment. Extending the effectivity_item select type for Effectivity_assignment.items with Qualification_assignment will enable this.
Comment: (Tim Turner, LSC Group 08-10-23)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xsd dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2725)

Open issue Issue: TJT-04 by Tim Turner, LSC Group (09-1-05) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a Classification to a Product_group_membership relation. Extending the classification_item select type for Classification_assignment.items with Product_group_membership will enable this.
Comment: (Tim Turner, LSC Group 09-1-05)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xsd dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2726)

Open issue Issue: PBM-01 by Peter Bergström (2009-01-16) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Common supertype for properties

There is currently no supertype for entity types Assigned_property, Activity_property, and Resource_property, which makes it more difficult to create templates, and forces us to separate properties depending on what they are assigned to. In PLCS I cannot see any difference or need to have that separation, and I suggest the property modules are revised so that there is one common property model regardless of what the property is assigned to. The easiest way to do this would be to create a supertype for these three entity types, although the best way would be to remove them altogether and have only the "supertype".

note that there are other entities that would need supertypes as well, e.g. Property_representation, Activity_property_representation, Resource_property_representation, and Independent_propert_representation.

Comment: (Rob Bodington 09-01-20)
Whilst I agree -- I am not sure that this will be acheivable given the wide use of properties in other APs.
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2752)

Open issue Issue: PBM-02 by Peter Bergström (2009-01-16) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Delete function valid_document_property_representation

The function valid_document_property_representation is intended to control the exact properties a document must or can have, e.g. "creating system", "file size", "character code" etc. Although some of these may still be valid properties for a document in most applications, no other properties have been defined in the entire schema, and there is no reason to freeze these properties. It is rather so that in many existing implementations of PLCS, the document properties are ignored totally, and the templates in DEXlib have simply ignored the fact that this function exist in the schema, without even raising a SEDS.

Since nobody actually seems to be bothered with this function, and there are numerous examples that the document properties are ignored for good reasons when using PLCS, I suggest the deletion of this function, together with the deletion of all document specific properties, i.e. property types Assigned_document_property, Document_property_representation, Descriptive_document_property, Numerical_document_property, and select types document_property_item, and descriptive_or_numerical.

Comment: (Rob Bodington 09-01-21)
This function has an "UNKNOWN" as part of the case statement -- hence the function is only restrictive when naming Document_property_representation 'document content' etc Can we live this ....?
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2009-01-22)
No. This issue starts with complaining about the function, but also mentions that there are a number of unnecessary Document_property-realted entity types, that only messes things up, and that we could get rid of. The more generic Product_property may be used in all cases instead, and the Document_property is a legacy that we do not want to use in PLCS, because a document is so much more than a CAD drawing in the life cycle phase of operation, maintenance and support.
Is there a problem in deleting a function that is only restrictive when naming properties, when all other properties in PLCS are named using reference data, and totally out of control of any Express parser's rule checking functionality?
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2753)

Open issue Issue: PBM-03 by Peter Bergström (2009-01-16) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Delete rules for scheme_entry_item_select

Change or delete the rules for Scheme_entry_item_select, so that a Scheme_entry is allowed to relate to an Activity_method, a Task_method, and a Task_method_version as well as to activities and events. There is IMHO no reason why e.g. a task_method (or activity_method) should not be allowed directly. It is actually more logical to relate to the _methods_ than to a specific _activity_ in a maintenance plan, for example.

This would make it possible to relate to another Scheme and Scheme_version as well, but I see no wrong in organizing Schemes in a hierarchical fashion, e.g. Maintenance_plan (scheme) divided in 10000 miles service, 20000 miles service and 50000 miles service (all schemes as well).

Comment: (Rob Bodington 09-01-21)
Which rules? If these are the rules created from the long form, I strongly suspect that these occur becuase of the way selects in scheme were created - needs further investigation.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2009-01-22)
The rules are in the long form:
file ap239_arm_lf.exp, line 536-593.
I don't care why they exist, only that they are corrected...
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2716)

Open issue Issue: PBM-04 by Peter Bergström (2009-01-16) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Part classified as part, raw material or tool

Delete the where rule WR1 on entity type Part, which forces a part to be classified (with Product_category) as one of these, and nothing else. This limits the use of Product_category. Furthermore, with classification the use of Product category is not necessary.

Comment: (Rob Bodington 09-01-20)
Agree - furthermore, what is the difference between a tool and a part - it really a point of view
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2717)

Open issue Issue: PBM-05 by Peter Bergström (2009-01-16) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Delete un-used attributes

The DEXlib practice have made most of the attributes in AP239 totally redundant, and the DEXlib templates are entering the text string "/IGNORE" in many, many attribute instances. Those attributes (in particular attributes called id, name, description, role, type, but there may be others - see the templates) should be deleted from the schema. The use of templates (e.g. assigning_identifier) should instead be mapped to the integrated resources, if possible. My point here is that having the attributes, always filled in with dummy text "/IGNORE" do not give any higher backward compatibility with other STEP standards than if we delete them from the schema.

Comment: (Rob Bodington 09-01-20)
I am not sure that we will win thsi battle in SC4 - I think that we should develop an implemetation level schema
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2009-01-22)
What do you mean by implementation level schema, are you referring to MIM level schema?
Why is it so hard to convince SC4 about this when we are not using the attributes anyway? Or are they not aware of this "misuse" of the IRs?
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2754)

Open issue Issue: PBM-06 by Peter Bergström (2009-01-16) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Breakdown of Product_concept

A Breakdown must relate to what it is a breakdown of. Today that is done i terms of a product_view_definition, through Breakdown_of.of_view. This makes it impossible to have a breakdown of a Product_concept, which in many cases would have been a good idea, that is often how breakdowns are used in maintenance and support.

Make this possible by adding a select type for attribute Breakdown_of.of_view (and possibly change the name of the attribute?) that includes not only product_view_definition, but also Product_concept.

Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2755)

Open issue Issue: PBM-07 by Peter Bergström (2009-01-16) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Hierarchy of Product_configuration

There is a need to talk about refinements of product configurations in a hierarchical manner, in the aerospace environment.

A first level of product configuration is given in what equipment (a function, or physical_element, mapped to breakdown_element) is applicable to a certain product variant, i.e. what equipment can be mounted in the product variant.

The second level of configuration is then what specific realization of that equipment that is used in a batch of individuals in production, identified through a serial number range.
Note that this last configuration does not at all require a structure of each individual (using product_as_individual), the identification of serial range is an allowed effectivity parameter on the design structure.

Furthermore, a configuration of a product can today only be created in the context of a Product_concept. There is however a need to talk about multiple possible configurations for the same Product_concept in the aerospace industry today. A product variant many be configured differently depending on the customer, and still be considered as the same product variant (and there is no relationship between Product_concepts either).

Suggestion:
Make it possible to use another Product_configuration as the context of a configuration, thereby allowing for hierarchical configuration structures, by allowing the attribute Product_configuration.item_context relate to either another Product_configuration, or to Product_concept.

An alternative to this is to create a Product_configuration_realtionship, and (or?) a Product_concept_relationship.

Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2756)

Open issue Issue: PBM-08 by Peter Bergström (2009-01-16) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Relationship between contracts

There is a need to express a relationship between contracts in PLCS, e.g. for subcontracts or contracts related to other contracts for dependencies, etc. This is a necessity in the aerospace business.
Add an entity type Contract_relationship.

Comment: (Rob Bodington 09-01-20)
There is an entity contract_relationship at the IR level - I am surprised that this does not exsit at the MIM level. I will check if we need to create a new module or can extend contract
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2718)

Open issue Issue: PBM-09 by Peter Bergström (2009-01-16) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Assignment of a project to a contract

Today, a contract may be assigned to a project, but a project may not be assigned to a contract. The latter would be more logical, since a contract is required for the project to start.
Include entity type Contract in select type project_item.

Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2757)

Open issue Issue: PBM-10 by Peter Bergström (2009-01-16) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Configuration of Breakdown_element realizations

Today it is not possible to configure the realization of a breakdown_element, because the entity type used for realization (Product_definition_element_relationship or its subtype Breakdown_element_realization) is not included in the configuration mechanism (attribute Item_usage_effectivity.item_usage_relationship allows only View_definition_usage). This must clearly have been overlooked during the creation of the schema, there is no reason why this particular relation between products should not be configurable.
A work-around have been defined in the template Representing_breakdown_element_realization, where the entity type View_definition_usage is used instead of one of the two intended entities.

Either make Product_definition_element_relationship a specialization (subtype) of View_definition_usage, or create a select between these two and set it as the target of attribute Item_usage_effectivity.item_usage_relationship.

Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2758)

Open issue Issue: PBM-11 by Peter Bergström (2009-01-18) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Property assigned to several products

It is today not possible to assign a product property to more than one product, or even one view_definition of one product. There are however cases where several products share a property in real life, and the schema allows for sharing of documents, so there is really no reason why properties cannot be shared.

Make the relationship Assigned_property.described_element a SET[1:?].
Do the same for Activity_property.described_element and Resource_property.described_element.

Comment: (Rob Bodington 09-01-20)
Can you not do this with independent property? I am not sure that the IRs support what you want
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2009-01-22)
Do you mean by Applied_independent_property?
Well, if I use independent_property, I would not have the same semantics, right? so that is not really interesting, I'm talking about a product property, not an independent property.
I hope the IRs can accommodate my desire ;-)
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2759)

Open issue Issue: PBM-12 by Peter Bergström (2009-01-20) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Cannot assign effectivity to In_zone

It is not possible to assign effectivity to entity in_zone. This is needed for both configuration purposes, and for preserving the history of what is in the zone.

Extend the select type effectivity_item to include entity type in_zone.

Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2760)

Open issue Issue: RBN-9 by Rob Bodington (09-01-20) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The where rule in the ENTITY Assigned_document_property means that only one document property can ever be assigned to a document. This is a major restriction as most systems allow a document to have multiple properties
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2009-01-22)
I think we should get rid of all Document_properties, since we already have Product_property that can be used for documents as well. There are other silly rules regarding document properties that I think we should get rid of, see issue PBM-02.
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2719)

Open issue Issue: PHX-1 by Patrick Houbaux (2009-01-21) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a Property to an Work_request in a way that is consistent with other property assignments in AP239. Extend the property_assignment_select SELECT with Work_request
Comment: (Mike Ward 2009-01-21)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2761)

Open issue Issue: MWD-2 by Mike Ward (2009-01-21) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The SELECT type activity_item should be extended with Product_group_membership so that a usage profile may be assigned to the use of a part in a particular system - the same part may require a different usage profile when used in a different system. Extend the activity_item SELECT with Product_group_membership
Comment: (Mike Ward 2009-01-21)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2715)

Open issue Issue: RBN-10 by Rob Bodington (09-01-22) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

There is a requirement to identify a collection of objects and treat them as a baseline. This will require the creation of a new module information_collection
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2720)

Open issue Issue: TRO-1 by Trisha Rolo (2009-01-23) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

identification_item needs extending with type_of_person_definition so that we can assign an identifier to a skill (type_of_person_definition) Extend the identification_item SELECT with Type_of_person_definition
Comment: (Mike Ward 2009-01-23)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2762)

Open issue Issue: RBN-11 by Rob Bodington (09-01-23) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

When creating the 2008 edition of this module, the attributes of Approval have changed: It is now ENTITY Approval; actual_date : OPTIONAL date_or_date_time_select; planned_date : OPTIONAL date_or_date_time_select; purpose : STRING; status : Approval_status; END_ENTITY; It was: ENTITY Approval; status : Approval_status; purpose : STRING; planned_date : OPTIONAL date_or_date_time_select; actual_date : OPTIONAL date_or_date_time_select; END_ENTITY; Hence the change is not backwardly compatible and any ARM implmentation no longer works.
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2721)

Open issue Issue: RBN-12 by Rob Bodington (09-01-23) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The 2008 edition of this module has changed Assembly_component_relationship entity to be a subtype of Product_occurrence_definition_relationship. ENTITY Assembly_component_relationship ABSTRACT SUPERTYPE OF (ONEOF (Next_assembly_usage, Promissory_usage, Component_upper_level_identification)) SUBTYPE OF (Product_occurrence_definition_relationship); location_indicator : OPTIONAL STRING; quantity : OPTIONAL Value_with_unit; WHERE WR1: NOT(EXISTS(quantity)) OR ((NOT ('NUMBER' IN TYPEOF(quantity.value_component))) XOR (quantity.value_component > 0)); END_ENTITY; ENTITY Product_occurrence_definition_relationship ABSTRACT SUPERTYPE ; relating_view : Product_view_definition; related_view : Product_view_definition; END_ENTITY; It was previously a subtype of View_definition_usage which in turn is a sub type View_definition_relationship ENTITY Assembly_component_relationship ABSTRACT SUPERTYPE OF (ONEOF (Next_assembly_usage, Promissory_usage, Component_upper_level_identification)) SUBTYPE OF (View_definition_usage); quantity : OPTIONAL Value_with_unit; location_indicator : OPTIONAL STRING; WHERE WR1: NOT(EXISTS(quantity)) OR ((NOT ('NUMBER' IN TYPEOF(quantity.value_component))) XOR (quantity.value_component > 0)); END_ENTITY; ENTITY View_definition_relationship; id : OPTIONAL STRING; relation_type : OPTIONAL STRING; description : OPTIONAL STRING; relating_view : Product_view_definition; related_view : Product_view_definition; END_ENTITY; ENTITY View_definition_usage SUBTYPE OF (View_definition_relationship); END_ENTITY; The consequence of this change is that any module that used the previous edition of Assembly_component_relationship may no longer have the same select extensions. View_definition_relationship may have been added to a select type with the intention that its sub types were include by definition e.g Assembly_component_relationship An example is effitivities and dates assigned to View_definition_relationship. With the new module, this is no longer the case. The second consequence is that the inheritted attributes of Next_assembly_usage, Promissory_usage, Component_upper_level_identification are different. Previously Next_assembly_usage.id Next_assembly_usage.relation_type Next_assembly_usage.description Next_assembly_usage.relating_view Next_assembly_usage.related_view Next_assembly_usage.quantity Next_assembly_usage.location_indicator Now Next_assembly_usage.relating_view Next_assembly_usage.related_view Next_assembly_usage.quantity Next_assembly_usage.location_indicator Hence the change is not backwardly compatible and any ARM implmentation no longer works.
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2722)

Open issue Issue: GYL-21 by Leif Gyllstrom (09-01-25) major_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The logic defined in Task specification should be defined as a generic capability, which could be applied to Tasks, Activities, Scheme elements etc. The usage of e.g the subclasses of Structured_task_elements enforces one or the other of sequential or concurrent, which might not be determined until the task is being transformed into a set of activities.
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2763)

Open issue Issue: GYL-22 by Leif Gyllstrom (09-01-25) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The name of the entity Required_resource_by_specification should be renamned to Required_resource_by_requirements_specification. Resource_item is the specification of the resource.
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2764)

Open issue Issue: GYL-23 by Leif Gyllstrom (09-01-25) major_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

One should be able to refer directly to a Part, Person, Type_of_person etc as the required resource, without having to instantiate Resource_item.
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2765)

Open issue Issue: GYL-24 by Leif Gyllstrom (09-01-25) major_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

The Resource_item.resource_items association should have an association entity in between the Resource_item and the resource_item_select.
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2766)

Open issue Issue: GYL-25 by Leif Gyllstrom (09-01-25) major_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

One should be able to refer directly to a Part, Person, Type_of_person etc as the managed resource, without having to instantiate Resource_item.
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2767)

Open issue Issue: GYL-26 by Leif Gyllstrom (09-01-25) major_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

There is no way to define Configurations of configurations, i.e. an aircraft configuration can consist of valid combinatons of hardware and software configurations. Extent the scope of Configuration item.
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2768)

Open issue Issue: GYL-27 by Leif Gyllstrom (09-01-25) major_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Configurations can just be defined against View_definition_usages. Other examples of usages of configurations could include e.g. Task_methods, Breakdown_element_realizations etc. Make item_usage_relationship an extensible select.
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2769)

Open issue Issue: GYL-28 by Leif Gyllstrom (09-01-25) major_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

There should be an effectivity that can relate to Condition, where the Condition defines the context (domain) in which something is effective. Create a new subtype of Effectivity that relates to Condition. (Also see the Oasis template assigning_conditional_effectivity)
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2770)

Open issue Issue: GYL-29 by Leif Gyllstrom (09-01-25) major_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

There is no explicit definition of Product variant in AP239. Add to the model.
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2771)

Open issue Issue: GYL-30 by Leif Gyllstrom (09-01-25) major_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Task elements can have there own objectives. Add to the model.
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-30)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2772)

Open issue Issue: TJT-05 by Tim Turner, LSC Group (09-2-16) minor_technical issue
SEDS: NOT YET RAISED
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign an Identification_assignment to a Document_definition_relationship. Extending the identification_item select type for identification_assignment.items with Document_definition_relationship will enable this.
Comment: (Tim Turner, LSC Group 09-2-16)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xsd dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp

Open issue Issue: TJT-06 by Tim Turner, LSC Group (09-2-16) minor_technical issue
SEDS: NOT YET RAISED
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a description to a Document_definition_relationship. Extending the documented_element_select select type for document_assignment.items with Document_definition_relationship will enable this.
Comment: (Tim Turner, LSC Group 09-2-16)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xsd dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp

Open issue Issue: TJT-07 by Tim Turner, LSC Group (09-2-16) minor_technical issue
SEDS: NOT YET RAISED
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a Task_method to a Product_group_membership. Extending the activity_method_item select type for Task_method_assignment.items with Product_group_membership will enable this.
Comment: (Tim Turner, LSC Group 09-2-16)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xsd dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp

Open issue Issue: TJT-11 by Tim Turner, LSC Group (2010-01-06) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

It should be possible to assign a Requirement_assignment to a Product_group or Product_group_membership. Extending the requirement_assignment_item select type for Requirement_assignment.assigned_to with Product_group or Product_group_membership will enable this.
Comment: (Tim Turner, LSC Group 2010-01-06)
Updated: dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.exp dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xml dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_lf.xsd dexlib/data/schemas/ap239_arm_sf.exp
Comment: (Tim Turner, LSC Group 2010-01-06)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=3331)

OTHER issues

Closed issue Issue: GYL-11 by Leif Gyllstrom (08-02-25) minor_technical issue
SEDS: ?sent
Resolution: Reject. Status: closed

It should be possible to assign an Effectivity to Classification_assignment. Extend effectivity_item for Effectivity.items with Classification_assignment.
Comment: (Johan Nielsen 2008-02-28)
Classification_assingment is already part of effectivity_item, see RBN-3/SEDS-1198-STEP-TS-1289.
Comment: (Josh Pearce 09-01-28)
Transferred to bugzilla (http://locke.dcnicn.com/bugzilla/iso10303/show_bug.cgi?id=2773)