Issues for Product Data Management (PDM) RTF 1.4 discussion list

List of issues (green=resolved, yellow=pending Board vote, red=unresolved)

List options: All ; Open Issues only; or Closed Issues only

Issue 1546: PDM Enablers shall support use of a Note Object
Issue 1547: Engineering change document needed
Issue 1548: IdentificationContext appears not to be value added
Issue 1549: Provide Data Dictionary
Issue 1550: Need capability to return list Generalized Find (Query) capabilities
Issue 1551: Modularity
Issue 1552: Identify cases where interoperability between PDM systems is of use
Issue 1553: How should PDM relate to Workflow?
Issue 1554: Use of PDM Enablers without modifying them
Issue 1556: How can we extend ICOM
Issue 1557: DesignMakeFrom relationship, and DMFR Substitute
Issue 1558: How do PDM Enablers accommodate Alternate/Substitute Part ranking?
Issue 1559: How are models accommodated in PDM Enablers?
Issue 1560: Note Objects currently not addressed
Issue 1561: PDM_Image and PDM_Markup
Issue 1562: Document and/or Drawing Sheet Information
Issue 1563: Structured Documentation Capability provided?
Issue 1564: specific queries
Issue 1565: How do PDM Enablesr identify specific part not knowing specific context
Issue 1566: Can client be written to retrieve a part from multiple PDM systems?
Issue 1567: Are contexts meant to be the same across PDM Systems?
Issue 1568: How are defaults to be specified?
Issue 1569: How are argument formats for a query to be specified?
Issue 1570: Default for all systems needed
Issue 1571: How does a PDM Enabler server expect the format of wild cards?
Issue 1572: Use of PDM Enablers.
Issue 1573: What Security Systems are used with the PDM Enablers?
Issue 1574:
Issue 1575: PersonOrganization relastionship -- IDL problem
Issue 1576: PersonOrganization Issue
Issue 1643: IDL consistency Issue for PDM
Issue 1708: PDM Enablers issue - PartDataFactory attributes
Issue 1721: Illegal usage of keyword "context"
Issue 1742: Change cardinality of ComponentHierarchy-Relationship
Issue 1743: Add relationship from document master directly to vault
Issue 1744: Add relationships from most main objects to documents
Issue 1745: Configuration module: ProductRootToComponent - Relationship
Issue 1769: PDM Enablers IDL uses different include file names than CORBA Services IDL
Issue 1800: Duplicate Exceptions
Issue 1801: No City in PdmResponsibility
Issue 1895: Issue: Alignment of OMG Person/Party models
Issue 1901: Editorial changes to mfg/98-02-02
Issue 1902: Engineering Change Order
Issue 1903: Manufacturing Implementation
Issue 1904: Document management
Issue 1905: Product Structure definition
Issue 1906: Configuration Management
Issue 1907: Test, maintenance, and diagnostic information
Issue 1908: How does SWAP apply?
Issue 1909: ISSUE #9 REF: 1.11.3 Workflow , 1.14.4 Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC
Issue 1910: Develop Product Definition
Issue 1911: Develop Product Design
Issue 1912: REF: 1.12.6 Develop Process Design and Procurement Agreements
Issue 1913: REF: 1.12.6 Develop Process Design and Procurement Agreements
Issue 1914: REF: 1.13.3 CAD
Issue 1915: REF 1.13.4 ERP: add following bullets
Issue 1916: Differences in Purpose
Issue 1917: ISSUE #17 REF: 1.14.2.1.5 Versioning
Issue 1918: ISSUE #18 REF: 1.14.2.1.6 Assembly Model
Issue 1919: 1.14.2.2.1 management of STEP Data
Issue 1920: REF: 1.15 Other Information
Issue 1922: Vault attributes shown as being read - write
Issue 2101: Problem creating certain objects
Issue 2112: There are some bugs in the AssemblyComponentUsage
Issue 2123: 1.14.1 Relationship to RM-ODP?
Issue 2124: 2.10.2 Level of control for Part manufacturing information
Issue 2125:
Issue 2127:
Issue 2128:
Issue 2129:
Issue 2130:
Issue 2131:
Issue 2132:
Issue 2133:
Issue 2134:
Issue 2135:
Issue 2137:
Issue 2138:
Issue 2139:
Issue 2140:
Issue 2141:
Issue 2142:
Issue 2143:
Issue 2144:
Issue 2145:
Issue 2146:
Issue 2147:
Issue 2148:
Issue 2149:
Issue 2150:
Issue 2151:
Issue 2152: Process - Part relationship
Issue 2154: PDM Enablers section 2.10.3.12
Issue 2158: The create method on the ItemSolutionFactory interface
Issue 2159: There is no way to find or navigate to a PdmDocumentManagement::Vault inte
Issue 2164: The Part - Document relationship
Issue 2166: UML - IDL consistency of role names
Issue 2168: Property-sets for non-Attributable relationships
Issue 2232: 2.6.3.2 Relationship Propogation when using the factory methods.
Issue 2236: 2.3.3.9 How is this related to ItemRevision::create_next_revision?
Issue 2237: Part Description text indicates discrete mfg
Issue 2238: 2.7.1 Concerned that the product structure is at too low a level in the hi
Issue 2239: The names of the relationships are unintuitive, such as prc
Issue 2241: Missing Usage roles
Issue 2242: Missing UML inheritances for Usage
Issue 2243: Misplaced Usage inheritance from SecurityClassifiable
Issue 2244: 2.7.3.2 description of reference_designator attribute
Issue 2245: Lack of role defintion.
Issue 2246: Subprocesses in section 1.12.7 and 1.12.9, that have been addressed by 2.9
Issue 2247: 2.9.3.5 EngChangeOrder : Add an “effectivity” (or “do it by”) attribute to
Issue 2248: Clarify and expand the text that explains how or why ECIs yield ECRs.
Issue 2250: PdmDocumentManagement IDL is obsolete
Issue 2257: Part Description text indicates discrete mfg,
Issue 2359: Figure 1 in section "2.2.3.5.1" has two incorrect object names
Issue 2360: Figure needs updates
Issue 2438: Change name DocumentRevisionRelationship to PartDocumentRelationship
Issue 2439: Make certain ConfigurationManagement interfaces Documentable
Issue 2485: PDM Enablers file locking behavior
Issue 2622: PDM Enablers - cannot determine client type for file transfer
Issue 2874: PDM RTF Issue - The Identifiable interface should raise InvalidProperties
Issue 3084: Session Management
Issue 3085: Authentication
Issue 3086: Attributes
Issue 3087: Workflow
Issue 3088: Factory Finder Conventions
Issue 3089: IdentificationContext Conventions
Issue 3090: Convention for Creating Items
Issue 3154: PdmContext is insufficient as a TraversalCriteria
Issue 3155: PdmContext is insufficient as a TraversalCriteria
Issue 3301: Vault object references
Issue 3309: Factories for non-abstract subtypes of Qualification
Issue 3310: Factories to non-abstract subtypes of Effectivity
Issue 3311: ConfigurationItem
Issue 3312: ViewQualification is abstract
Issue 3755: PdmFoundation Model (page 2-26)
Issue 3756: Some wording - the last paragraph on page 2-34 is wrong
Issue 3757: PdmFramework Entity Model (page 2-51)
Issue 3758: PdmViews Model (page 2-79)
Issue 3759: PdmDocumentManagement (page 2-93)
Issue 3760: PdmChangeManagement (page 2-150)
Issue 3761: PdmChangeManagement (page 2-150)
Issue 3804: addition of two exceptions to CosGraphs::Node::add_role().
Issue 3992: PdmFoundation.idl version 1.3, dtc/00-10-01
Issue 4026: move Qualifiable up to EngChangeItem.
Issue 4027: allow "document type" to be the IdContext "kind"
Issue 4028: allow Documentable to point to a DocumentRevision or a DocumentMaster.
Issue 4082: Interactions to be specified
Issue 4129: missing attribute in the IDL
Issue 4130: "interface repository name" is an undefined term.
Issue 4131: "interface name" is ambiguous
Issue 4145: make_buy missing in IDL
Issue 4146: was/is relationships to The EngChangeAffectedData relationship
Issue 4147: ObjectChangeNotification models the "is"
Issue 4148: PDM RTF issue: "successor"
Issue 4161: IdentificationContext Considered Harmful
Issue 4162: Is Transactionable still needed?
Issue 4163: Provide an ID when creating an object
Issue 4185: Should all PDM Enablers IDL files begin with #pragma prefix "omg.org"
Issue 4222: Behavior of Lockable operations is not defined
Issue 4223: Define the Substitute Usage model
Issue 4259: Exception declaration inconsistent
Issue 4260: description of the get_info() operation states
Issue 4565: PDM RTF issue: no generic "set session properties" operation

Issue 1546: PDM Enablers shall support use of a Note Object (pdm-rtf)

Summary: 1. PDM Enablers shall support use of a Note Object.  Note Object(s) are used by Boeing to store note text associated with another Object (e.g. Documents, Models, Parts, Processes, etc.).  Notes may provide information about how to handle, fabricate, or process a part that is not contained in any other location (e.g. a Definition or Process Note may be created for a graphics model), or notes may provide additional information pertaining to a Work Authorization.  Note Records are revision controlled and are linked to the Object types to which they correspond.  Boeing PDM provides the capability of resolving where the Note is used in a product structure relationship.  Notes may contain attributes as described in the following table (for example only):
 
 

 received issue

Summary: 2. PDM Enablers shall support the need for a relationship between an Engineering Change and a Document describing the Engineering Change.  In many Boeing systems today, the Engineering Change is written in the form of a document (this may be a hardcopy of a document or an image of a document).  For future processes, the Document Object may still provide for electronic Engineering Change Forms.

Summary: IdentificationContext appears to be no value added.  Boeing only wants to make call to get Partid without overhead baggage attached.  There exists limited to no capability for query functionality.
 
 Disposition:
 

Summary: Provide Data Dictionary for PDM Enabler Objects/Attributes

Summary: 1.10.2.4 Query Service.   Find operation only returns one object, cannot return a list. Need capability to return list. Generalized Find (Query) capabilities.

Summary: Encourage modularity.  Request PDM Enablers move in the direction of Modular Functions as the Maturity Model is developed.  Convenience Function = Function

Summary: Identify cases where interoperability between PDM Systems would be of use.  Identify how these PDM Systems interoperating would be supported by PDM Enabler Functions

Summary: How should PDM relate to Workflow?

Summary: Can we build Boeing ICOM and use PDM Enablers without modifying PDM Enablers?
 
 

 received issue

Summary: How do we extend ICOM?  Keep PDM Enablers add attributes vs. Subtyping PDM Enablers?
 
 Disposition:
 

Summary: How do PDM Enablers accommodate Design MakeFrom Relationship (DMFR), and DMFR Substitute?

Summary: How do PDM Enablers accommodate Alternate/Substitute Part Ranking?

Summary: How are Models accommodated in PDM Enablers (Treated as Document to Part Relationship)?

Summary: PDM Enablers do not currently address Note Objects.  This is a Boeing Requirement.
 
 Disposition:  Submit as Boeing Requirement to be supported by PDM Enablers
 

Summary: How do we handle PDM_Image and PDM_Markup in PDMEnablers?

Summary: How do we handle Document and/or Drawing Sheet Information in PDMEnablers?
 
 Disposition:
 

Summary: Do PDM Enablers provide Structured Documentation Capability (e.g. Worldview, Document references chapters or paragraphs

Summary: 1.10.2.4 Query Service.    How do PDM Enablers provide a list of parts which meet a specific query, not knowing the context?

Summary: 2.2.3.5 IdentificationContext.     How do PDM Enablers identify a specific part without knowing a specific context?

Summary: Can a client be written to retrieve a part from multiple PDM systems

Summary: Are contexts meant to be the same across PDM Systems?

Summary: 1.10.2.4 Query Service ??.    How are defaults to be specified? With capital "D", ("Default"); With lower case "d" ("default"); Other?

Summary: 1.10.2.4 Query Service.     How are argument formats for a query to be specified?

Summary: 1.10.2.4 Query Service.    At least one default that all systems can use to perform query or search is requested/needed.

Summary: 1.10.2.4 Query Service.    How does a PDM Enabler server expect the format of wild cards? (Review CORBA Query Service)

Summary: When does one use OMG PDM Enablers and when does one use STEP PDM Schema?
 
 
 

Summary: What security services are to be used with the PDM Enablers?  CORBA Security Services?
 
 Disposition:
 

Summary: 2.1.3.7 PersonOrganization.    The IDL says that the PersonOrganization relationship has anattribute called "role". The picture of the IDL shows that there are noattributes in this relationship. The other relationship in this module(ProgramOwner) does not have any attributes. Also there is no correction toeither of these interfaces in the errata. Should I believe the IDL pictureor the text?

Summary: 2.1.3.7 PersonOrganization.   The IDL says that the PersonOrganization relationship has anattribute called "role". The picture of the IDL shows that there are noattributes in this relationship. The other relationship in this module(ProgramOwner) does not have any attributes. Also there is no correction toeither of these interfaces in the errata. Should I believe the IDL pictureor the text?

Summary: In the Salt Lake city meeting Ed brought up a point that Revisions 
      cannot be created independent of the Master and the Iteration cannot 
      be created independent of the Revision to which it belongs. 
      
      As a result the Factory for the Master - to - Revision relationship 
      does not exit and the create function for the revision takes the 
      Master as a parameter and also creates the MasterRevision 
      relationship. The same is also true for Revision to Iteration 
      Relationship. eg BaselineRevisionFactory - The create function takes a 
      BaselineMaster as a parameter and creates the 
      BaselineMasterComposition Relationship.
      
      This behaviour has been duplicated in the Master-Revision-Iteration 
      relationships of most of the modules expect the Product Structure 
      Definition. In the ProductStructureDefinition Module the following 
      relationships should not have factories:
         PartMasterComposition
         PartDataRelationship
         PartStructureRelationship
         PartDataIterationRelationship
         PartStructureIterationRelationship
      
      
      Taking this principle one step further we can say that this behaviour 
      is true for all Containment Type of relationships (Black Diamond). If 
      so then there are a few other places where this applies these are 
         Change Management Module:
                 Deliverable relationship
                 ChangeDescription relationship
      
         Configuration Management Module
                 SpecificationCategoryComposition Relationship
 

Summary: There are interfaces for PartData, and PartDataFactory in the PdmProductStructureDefinition module. A Client uses the PartDataFactory create operation to create a PartData object and give PartData object attributes.  Once the attributes were add to PartData object, there is apparently no way for the client to get them out or change the attributes" value.  The same issue exists for PartStructure too.
 
 It does not make much sense to assign attributes through the PartData and PartStructure interfaces.  They are grouping and control interfaces which really exist only to provide separation between structure and data so that they can be separately iterated, and to provide navigation from PartRevisionChangeLevel and the different (two) types of iterations (PartDataIteration and PartStructureIteration).
 
 Notice that both PartRevisionChangeLevel and the PartIteration interfaces are all Attributable, so that Attributes are appropriately accessed through  those interfaces
 

 The property_set parameter is deleted from the operations that create PartData and PartStructure.

Summary: The IDL shown in a few modules contain illegal usage of the
 	keyword "context" and cases of type/variable names, which
 	differ only incase. Both facts reperesent illegal IDL (but have
 	only be detected by one compiler....).
 

 Throughout the specification, Change the IDL interface name "Context" to "PdmContext".  Where the plural form "Contexts" is used, change to "PdmContexts".  Occurrences are as follows:

Summary: A)	Change the cardinality of the ComponentHierarchy-Relationship from now 1:n to n:m. This 
 would enhance the flexibility of use for ProductComponents significantly and would allow the 
 creation of more complex hierarchies.

Summary: B)	Add a relationship from a DocumentMaster directly to a Vault with the corresponding document 
 data. If the PdmEnablers are used for importing or exporting a partial model from one Pdm-
 System to another, there often will be only one file to import/export, and only in rare cases 
 complete document-hierarchies will be exposed. With a direct relationship from DocumentMaster 
 to a corresponding Vault there would be no need to build up the complete hierarchy for 
 documents (Master, Revision, Iteration, File, Vault) if you want to expose only one single file, 
 which could eliminate the creation of much overhead.

Summary: C)	Add relationships from most main objects to documents, especially from the Configuration, 
 Changemanagement and Manufacturing module. In a real construction process, every single step 
 and every configuration needs to be properly documented. In most main elements (ItemSolution, 
 ProductComponent, ProductFunction etc.) there is only one field ”description”, which cannot 
 fulfill the need for complete documentation. Therefore we suggest relationships from 
 DocumentMasters to: ItemSolution, ProductComponent, ProductClass, ProductFunction, 
 Specification, Configuration (from Configuration module), to ProcessStep (from Manufacturing) 
 and to EngChangeItem, EngChangeRequest, EngChangeOrder (from Change management). A 
 technically correct way for these changes would be the creation of an new Interface 
 ”Documentable” from which all main elements would inherit (like they do from Qualifiable or 
 Attributable) and to have a single relationship from the DocumentMaster to the ”Documentable” 
 object, simultaniously eliminating all specialised relationships to and from DocumentMaster or 
 DocumentRevision.

Summary: D)	In the Configuration module, the ProductRootToComponent-Relationship should be changed to 
 run from a ProductClass to a ProductComponent. We see the need to be able to freely associate 
 ProductComponents to ProductClass definitions. Currently the ProductRootToComponent runs 
 from ProductComponents only to ProductRootClasses, therefore causing heavy limitations.This 
 relationship should also have it’s cardinality altered from currently 1:n to a more flexible m:n, 
 allowing ProductComponents to appear in many ProductClasses, and to associate many 
 ProductComponents to a ProductClass, which is how it is used by many of our customers 
 especially from the automotive section.

Summary: In "#include" statements, The IDL published in the PDM Enablers specification uses file names for most of the CORBA Services that are different than the file names used in "#include" statements by the CORBA Services IDL published on the OMG web site.
 
 For example, PdmResponsibility.idl has the following statement:
   #include <CosLifeCycle.idl>
 and the published IDL for Compound Life Cycle has
 #include <LifeCycle.idl>
 
 To compile PDM Enablers IDL with the published CORBA Services IDL, one of the sets of IDL needs to be hand-edited to be consistent with the other.  The PDM Enablers IDL should be changed to be consistent with the published CORBA Services IDL.  This problem originally arose because there are apparently no published official file names for the CORBA Services IDL files.
 .
 

Summary: It seems that
 there are a few cases where duplicate exceptions
 are being raised.  The c++ compiler recognizes this
 as a warning.  Nothing major here but it does 
 cause lots of warnings during the compiles.
 

 Duplicate exceptions have been eliminated

Summary: In the PdmResponsiblity module, there is no
 attribute for "City".  Probably ought to go in the Party
 interface.
 

Summary: Problem:  There are differences between the interfaces for Person in 
 the PdmResponsibility module and in the PIDS.  In general, these two
 models reflect different concerns for the management of Person
 and Party objects, but they have identifiably common attributes
 that will also no doubt be part of any Party Management proposal,
 which we may expect to be implemented by Human Resource Management
 systems.  Because of the coupling of Human Resource Management with 
 PDM and ERP systems in the manufacturing operations environment, it will
 be necessary for Manufacturing to have a common basis model for Person 
 and Party that extends across these systems.  An initial cleanup of 
 unnecessary nomenclature differences will facilitate this.
 
 

This issue is deferred, pending coordination between the task forces on Person and Organization models.

Summary: ISSUE #1 - Editorial changes
 
 1.) 1.10.2.1, p. 15: change "CosLifeCycle LifeCycleObject" to "CosLifeCycle::LifeCycleObject
 2.) 1.14.2.2.1, p.39: need separation between paragraphs
 3.) 2.7.3.4, p. 136: change "PartRevisionChangeLeve" to "PartRevisionChangeLevel"
 4.) 2.11.1: The model name is "Camry", not "Camary". In either event, it is trademarked and probably should be so noted.
 

Summary: ISSUE #2	REF: 1.9.2	Engineering Change Order
 
 This design implies a two step ECM process model (ECR à ECO). While rare, not all organization use this strategy. Some employ a one-step method (no ECR; go straight to ECO).
 

Summary: ISSUE #3	REF: 1.9.3	Manufacturing Implementation
 
 Is this just a BOM view by the MES? There could be much more here (ERP has one view; engineering another).
 

Summary: ISSUE #4	REF: 1.9.4	Document Management
 
 How about viewer technology? Native and neutral images. Grouped files (i.e. 3d CAD models)?
 
 

Summary: ISSUE #5	REF: 1.9.5	Product Structure Definition
 
 BOI or BOM perspective?
 
 [Motorola places emphasis on a Bill of Information; that is, product information that goes beyond the traditional notion of BOM. A BOI encapsulates BOM as well as process specifications, test programs, recipes and other manufacturing engineering objects.]
 

 Although Bill of Information may be a more accurate name, Bill of Material is an industry accepted t

Summary: ISSUE #6	REF: 1.9.7	Configuration Management
 
 How are revision rules addressed?
 

Summary: ISSUE #7	REF: 1.9.8	Test, Maintenance, and Diagnostic Information
 
 Is this within the scope of PDM or in the MES domain? 
 
 [Equipment maintenance is definitely MES. Product diagnostics may employ FMEA, which seems to fall under P/PE scope.]
 

 The specification in Section 1.9.8 only indicates how test data can be associated with product. Othe

Summary: ISSUE #8	REF: 1.11.3	Workflow , 1.14.4 Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC) 
 
 How does SWAP apply ?
 
 [SWAP stands for Simple Workflow Access Protocol. As I understand it, it is a protocol for exchanging workflow information. This may be more pertinent for the BODTF.]
 

 Here is  text for  addition to section 1.14.4.

Summary: ISSUE #9	REF: 1.11.3	Workflow , 1.14.4 Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC) 
 
 Does the design support a change process whereby workflow management is jointly owned by PDM and WORKFLOW? Consider this scenario: a REA is submitted for a change in the product design. The request is accepted and elevated to an ECR. So far, we"re under the purview of PDM. However, the work behind changing the associated 3-D CAD model would be adminstered by WORKFLOW. When finished, the new model is distributed for review and approval. Each system must coordinate their respective work activity with one another.
 

Summary: ISSUE #10	REF: 1.12.3	Develop Product Definition
 Manage Libraries of Existing Modules (Parts)
 
 3.	Define new part types.
 By a Parts Classification system. 
 
 Should include integration to third party classification tools (i.e. Aspect).
 
 [ASPECT is a classification tool used by the electronics industry. Its functionality includes searches on product metadata.]
 

Summary: ISSUE #11	REF: 1.12.5	Develop Product Design
 Develop Part Design
 3.	Provide feedback to other designers when changes to their parts would improve the overall design.
 EngIssueItem to create an issue object.
 EngChangeAffect to associate it to the questionable specifications. 
 
 ERP integration at this stage is crucial!
 

Summary: ISSUE #12	REF: 1.12.6	Develop Process Design and Procurement Agreements
 Develop Manufacturing Facility Plan 
 Is this within the scope of PDM ????
 

Summary: ISSUE #13	REF: 1.12.6	Develop Process Design and Procurement Agreements
 Procure Machine Tools, Firm Tools and Services 
 Is this a workflow/ERP issue or a PDM issue?
 
 [May be within the scope of PDM if production tooling is tied to a part of assembly and is tracked by an engineering tool.] 
 

 Requested by RFP. Possible PDM Enablers use.

Summary: ISSUE #14	REF: 1.13.3	CAD
 
 Add the following bullet:
 
 · Able to convert native CAD file into neutral image (e.g., PDF, PostScript) when a view is requested. Can handle complex file stuctures (i.e. 3d CAD).
 

 Converting CAD files is not a PDM function and managing complex file structure is not supported by t

Summary: ISSUE #15	REF: 1.13.4	ERP
 
 Add the following bullets:
 
 · Provide item master ownership strategy by attribute between PDM and ERP systems.
 · Provide item master ownership strategy based on product life cycle between PDM and ERP systems.
 · PDM and ERP systems need to be able to view each other"s BOM views. 
 · System of record strategy need so meet individual organization"s needs.
 

Summary: ISSUE #16	REF: 1.14.2.1.1	Differences in Purpose
 
 Modify bullets as follows:
 
 · Store (check in) and retrieve (check out) product "documents" and structures.
 

 Text Correction Supplied

Summary: A formal definition of version and release is needed here and elsewhere within this document. The terms version and revision seem to be used interchangably in different parts of the document.

Summary: AP203 requires a specific revision of an assembly specification to refer to specific revisions of the component parts. This structure model is intractable in a concurrent engineering work-in-progress environment, because all the parts of an assembly are undergoing simultaneous rapid versioning in each aspect of their descriptions. 
 
 This is a very important point and this discussion needs to be tied to the product"s status within an organization"s life cycle model.
 

Summary: 
 ISSUE #19 REF: 1.14.2.2.1	Management of STEP Data
 
 STEP-compliant data can be managed by the PDM system in the same fashion as proprietary files. The STEP files provide standardized domain-specific semantics (having removed the closed, proprietary nature) that provide the potential for a broad range of tools to understand the file.
 
 This could be an improvement over the neutral image strategies currently in use.

 This recommended addition is an opinion that adds nothing to the purpose of the section.

Summary: ISSUE #20 REF: 1.15	Other Information
 
 Other materials are not provided as part of this proposal.
 
 How about embedded software (test software and process control software associated with the part)? Is there any software process management tool interface strategy (i.e. Clear Case, PCMS, etc.)?
 

 Although there is a capability to treat software as Files in the PDM system, this topic is not discu

Summary: The documentation describes the Vault attributes as
 being read only.  The actual IDL code shows them
 as being read - write!
 

Summary: There"s a problem creating PartDataRelationship, PartDataIterationRelationship,
 PartStructureRelationship and PartStructureIterationRelationship objects. 
 
 Unfortunately neither PartData nor PartStructure inherit from CosGraphs::Node 
 in any way. This makes connecting a CosGraphs::Role-derived interface (like
 PartStructureOfPrcl) pretty difficult ;-).    
 
 I suggest to make both PartData and PartStructure inherit from 
 PdmFramework::ManagedEntity. This would also provide the ability
 to add attributes and identifiers via the Attributable and Identifiable 
 interfaces.
 

Summary: There are some bugs in the AssemblyComponentUsage specification and the IDL
 in 2.7.4 differs from the description in 2.7.3.2:
    
    
 2.7.3.2 AssemblyComponentUsage
 2.7.4 PdmProductStructureDefinition IDLP

 IDL in 2.7.3.2 will be corrected; IDL in 2.7.4 is correct (although misformatted).

Summary: 1.14.1  Should we at a later date define relationship to RM-ODP?
 
 

 received issue

Summary: 
 2.10.2 Similarly, why do PRCLs reference ProcessRevisions direct not via their PartDataIterations? This relationship could be pushed down to the PartDataIteration level allowing closer tracking of the Manufacturing process for a Part.  Paul J .  
 

 received issue

Summary: In the Manufacturing Implementation module there is a relationship between a
 ProcessRevision and the ProductRevisionChangeLevel. There is also a need for
 a relationship between the ProcessRevision and the
 Usage Relationship for defining Assembly Process Plans. This allows you to
 specify a Part specific process
 plan using the PartProducedByProcessRevision and Use this ProcessRevision to
 Usage relationship to specify
 Assembly Process plans.
 

Summary: Problem: The data type of attribute ProcessStep::duration is "string", but
 duration is a quantity of time, and should be represented as a Measurement
 type.
 

Summary: The create method on the ItemSolutionFactory interface should raise
 ITEM_CREATE_EXCEPTION
 

Summary: 
 There is no way to find or navigate to a PdmDocumentManagement::Vault interface.
 
 The Vault interface does not inherit the CosGraphs::Node interface, which would allow clients to navigate to the Vault containing a SecuredFile.
 
 In addition, there is no interface to allow one to find a Vault given its id.  A find operation could be added to the SecuredFileFactory interface to provide this capability.  Since a Vault is an administrative object of the PDM system rather than an item managed by the PDM system, it is probably not appropriate to make it a ManagedEntity or Identifiable interface.
 

Summary: Problem: The DocumentRevisionRelationship appears to be a general-purpose 
 mechanism for relating Documents to Parts, in that it is many-to-many.
 And yet it specifically relates Part Revisions (PRCL) to Document
 Revisions rather than Document Masters.  It seems that two ideas have
 been mixed here:
     a) the relationship that binds a definitive Document to the Part,
 such that each Revision of the document describes a Revision of the
 part, e.g. the part geometry model; and
     b) a general-purpose relationship that attaches arbitrary 
 Documents to one or more Parts, such as analysis reports, Issue
 documents, design recommendations, etc.
 

Summary: Problem: The role names in the IDL and would-be CDL are NOT the same 
 as the role names in the UML in section 2.7, e.g. UML prcl_of_dr
 is interface PrclOfDr.
 
 (In most sections, the role names do not appear in the UML at all.
 The only other section in which the role names appear in the UML
 model is 2.2, and in that section the UML and IDL match.)
 
 Recommendation:  Either remove the role na