ManTIS Manufacturing Technology a Industrial Systems Task Force

Index

• New!
• Organization
  • Chairs
  • Hosting Working Group
  • Team Membership
• Submission Evaluation
  • Evaluation Schedule
  • Resources (Submissions, Issue Logs, etc)
  • Issue Identification & Resolution

New!

(30 August 2001)

• It was decided that the major work item for Toronto will be to Haromonize the Four Representations of the Specification:

  • Specification Text: mfg/2001-08-03
  • Specification IDL: mfg/2001-08-05
  • Specification UML
  • Convenience Document: mfg/2001-08-07

  Other Issues will be worked as well. See the Toronto Agenda for details.

• The PDM Evaluation Meetings for Toronto have been extended. Tuesday morning and Thursday afternoon sessions have been added. (see the schedule)

(20 August 2001)

• New Revisions of Revised Submission and PDM Evaluation Issue Logs. Followed by itemized summary of the changes. This revised submission has been posted for review by the ManTIS in Toronto.

Chairs:

Lutz Lämmer,  ProSTEP

Larry L. Johnson,  MSC.Software

Hosting Working Group:
Product & Process Engineering Working Group

Contact information:
The PDM Enablers Version 2.0 Submission Evaluation Team may be contacted through its working group via e-mail at mfg_ppe@omg. Please copy the following Submission Teams as well.

• JPDM – Joint PDM Enablers V2.0 Submission Team (mailto:[email protected])

PDM Evaluation Team Membership:

A list of individuals who participated in reviews, discussions, or provided critiques or analysis of the submitted specification.

Member	Organization	eMail
Heini Aarela	Nokia	[email protected]
Ed Barkmeyer	NIST	[email protected]
Pranab K. Baruah	Boeing	[email protected]
Russ Claus	NASA	[email protected]
David Flater	NIST	[email protected]
Ron Hare	GE Aircraft Engines	[email protected]
Rohinton Irani	GE Corp., R&D	[email protected]
Mattias Johansson	Eurostep	[email protected]
Larry L. Johnson	MSC.Software	[email protected]
Uwe Kaufmann	Fraunhofer IPK	[email protected]
Kiminobu Kodama	MASP Consortium	[email protected]
Manfred Koethe	Iona Technologies	[email protected]
Susumu Kubo	MASP Consortium	[email protected]
Lutz Lämmer (Chair)	ProSTEP	[email protected]
Greg Saul	Boeing	[email protected]
Mitch Silverman	UGS	[email protected]
Steve Waterbury	NASA	[email protected]
Ilan Weitzer	Ford Motor Co.	[email protected]
Bernd Wenzel	EuroSTEP	[email protected]

Submission Evaluation Procedures

Schedule:

Date	Item
18-June-2000	Revised Submission Due:    JPDM Revised Submission: mfg/2001-06-02
Danvers Meeting
8-July-2001 Sunday 13:00-17:00	Evaluation Team Meeting (Minutes)
9-July-2001 Monday 13:00-17:00	Presentation of Submissions to ManTIS    General Presentation    Variant Management Presentation
10-July-2001 Tuesday 15:00-17:00	Evaluation Team Meeting (Evaluation Report Development) Produced Issue Log
12-July-2001 Thursday … during Working Group Reports	Recommendation Report Presented to ManTIS
Interim: Danvers - Toronto
25-July-2001	Cancelled Teleconference
8-August-2001 08:00-11:00 PDT	PDM Evaluation Team Teleconference (Issue Classification, see current Issue Log.)
20-August-2001	Revised Submission Due mfg/2001-08-03 with IDL in mfg/2001-08-05
29-August-2001	Teleconference
Toronto Meeting
10-September-2001 Monday 09:00-12:00	PDM Evalutation Team Meeting. Principle work item for today, Tuesday and Thursday will by harmonizing the four representations (see 20010829 Teleconfc)
11-September-2001 Tuesday 09:00-12:00	PDM Evalutation Team Meeting. (See Monday for agenda)
13-September-2001 Thursday 09:15	PDM Evaluation Team Report
13-September-2001 Thursday 13:00 – 17:00	PDM Evalutation Team Meeting. (See Monday for agenda)
Interim: Toronto-Dublin
To be established.
Dublin Meeting
November 2001 –Detail Schedule not established.	Vote to Recommend Adoption

Resources:

• JPDM Revised Submission – OMG Document mfg/2001-08-03 with corresponding IDL in mfg/2001-08-05. This document is slated for review in Toronto (September 2001) with an adoption vote in Dublin (November 2001)
• JPDM Issue Log – Revision 20010820-0200 – OMG Document mfg/2001-08-06
  
• PDM Enablers V2.0 RFP – OMG Document mfg/2000-01-02 : The RFP against which the Submissions are Evaluated
• PDM Enablers V2.0 Initial Submission from the Joint PDM Enablers Submission Team – OMG Document mfg/2001-06-02
• IDL for PDM Enablers V2.0 Initial Submission from the Joint PDM Enablers Submission Team – OMG Document mfg/2001-06-05

Issue Identification and Resolution

All the submitters have withdrawn from the submission process.

Evaluation work on the submission  has ceased

A series of three meetings were held in Toronto. The principal goal was to synchronize the four submission documents:

• The Submission – NORMATIVE –Which are essentially edit directions against PDM Enablers V1.3 Specification (maintained by Larry Johnson)
• The Convenience Document – INFORMATIVE – Which is a first cut at folding the submission into V1.3 and producing V2.0 of the specification (maintained by Ed Barkmeyer)
• IDL – maintained by David Flater
• UML – maintained by Steve Marney

An over-arching result of the meeting is to switch the roles of what is now called the submission and the convenience document. It has become impossible to keep the submission document consistent because so many different aspects of the changes affect the same sections of the specification. It is more straight-forward (and understandable) to fold the changes in as we go and resolve any collisions there. The submission document will then become "Informative", providing the design intent of the various changes. (We will try to keep the change instructions up to date the best we can, however.)

Notes from Toronto:

• To Do:
  • Need to fold in the results of the v1.4 report as a section of 2.0 "Technical Corrections" of the submission
    • - [ED] will write the section to be included in "Miscellaneous Changes".
  • Change the LLJ submission to indicate what we have done (1.4 + 2.0) and use current sections 2 & 3 as explanation of the changes that have been made. INFORMATIVE. Caveat that there may be "some" conflicts because the changes compound and affect one another. i.e., they are not serial [LARRY]
  • Evolve the EJB "convenience document" to be "THE" specification in terms of incorporating everything. NORMATIVE. [ED]
  • Resolve issue on inheritances in product structure. [ED]
  • Resolve issue of Framework/Foundation reorganization. Do we leave them separate or merge them together? There is no compelling reason either direction, but it is clear that the split is not important. IF we are to do it, it must be done under an RFP... an RTF cannot do it. Query operations and profiles and navigation needed to modify "something" and those objects populated Foundation. Responsibility required Foundation and not Framework, which caused things to be put in Foundation things which would more naturally be in Framework.
    • Don't Do It. It's like it is and there is no compelling reason to merge them.
    • OTOH... we have had problems with circular dependencies due to the split & we may duck them by merging.
    • Since the damage seems slight to merge them compared to not merging them it is decided to merge!
    • the name of the merged module will be PdmFoundation
    • IDL to be changed [DAVID]
    • UML to be changed [STEVE]
    • Submission changed [LARRY]... Statement in Miscellaneous changes and indicate the changes mentioning PdmFramework are referencing their old location.
    • Specification changes [ED] (per above).
  • Add Document Reference field for each issue [LARRY]
    • Put current issues to last revised submission mfg/2001-08-03.
  • Review final checklist. [LARRY]
    • Validate Submission with new IDL. It will not be exact. For example one place talks about changes to something that is now in PdmFramework... those should be left as is... in another place it will mention that PdmFramework -> PdmFoundation.
    • Assure IDL is *exactly* the same between IDL file and Specification.
  • UML [STEVE]
• New Issue: Should we leave the resolution of Issue 4028 in place.
• Done:
  • * Synched Compliance Section between Convenience doc & Submission.
  • * Reincorporate v1.4 into the IDL.

20010829 Teleconference:

It was decided that the major work item for Toronto will be to Haromonize the Four Representations of the Specification:

• Specification Text: mfg/2001-08-03
• Specification IDL: mfg/2001-08-05
• Specification UML
• Convenience Document: mfg/2001-08-07

Other Issues will be worked as well. See the Toronto Agenda for details. (the agenda link always points to the agenda of the next meeting, so this link will be obsolete after 17-Sep-2001)

The following documents were posted

• DocNo: mfg/2001-08-01
  Title: JPDM Revised Submission Draft Revision 20010807-1500
  Descr: Interim Submission Draft, Change bars are relative to mfg/2001-06-02
• DocNo: mfg/2001-08-02
  Title: JPDM Revised Submission Draft Revision 20010820-0200
  Descr: Interim Submission Draft, Change bars are relative to mfg/2001-08-01
• DocNo: mfg/2001-08-03
  Title: JPDM Revised Submission
  Descr: Submission to the OMG for consideration in Toronto, September 2001.
  Submission IDL is in mfg/2001-08-05
• DocNo: mfg/2001-08-05
  Title: JPDM Revised Submission IDL
  Descr: Compilable IDL for JPDM Revised Submission mfg/2001-08-03
• DocNo: mfg/2001-08-06
  Title: PDM Submission Evaluation Issue Log
  Descr: Revision 20010820-0200

Two of the documents are special:

-03 is the official PDMEv2 submission for the 3wk-rule for Toronto.
-05 is its corresponding IDL. (Juergen will provide the doc number).

mfg/2001-08-01 is an "officiation" of the draft that was on the mfg web site. I'll update the web pages later this week.

mfg/2001-08-02 is essentially the submission except it still has the change bars so you can see what's going on.

I think you'll like what David Flater did to the compliance section, as well as Ed Barkmeyer's consolidation of the BOMquery material with the changes made to PdmPartStructureDefinition to accommodate PdmVariantManagement. Cleans up the document considerably. I apologize, but I wasn't able to chase out *all* the unresolved references, though we made good progress. Don't bother to log additional issues on unresolved references or field codes... we know they're there & are working on them.

I'll post the latest & greatest Evaluation Issue Log later this week.

The following is a summary of the modifications to the Document and Issue Log.

Folded in Ed Barkmeyer's rework of BOMQ and PdmProductStructureDefinition Mods for Variant Mangement sections.

• Created new section in Section 3 for Ed's Section "New PdmProductStructureDefinition Interfaces"
• Deleted section 2.3 in it's entirety. (On examination I didn't think any of the "justification material" needed to be preserved. Ed has the essential stuff in the new section.)
• Deleted most of the material in Section 2.5, leaving only a pointer to the new section.
• Added a tad of introductory material to the start of the new section and the BOM Data Structure section.

This resolves the following Issues:

• Issue 56: The style of parameter names differs from the style seen before

Folded in Dave Flater's "Compliance Points, Version 0.98" except the following that were fixed via Ed's rework of BOMQ and Variant Management changes to PdmProductStructureDefinition:

• "In Section 2.3.3 (BOMQuery Interface Definition), [...] 2. Fix or remove misleading editorial directions ..."

• - "In Section 2.5.2.1 [...] 2. Delete the paragraph beginning 'these convenience operations may not be implemented.'" [...AND...] 4. Replace the BOMQuery row with:..."

This resolves the following Issues:

• Issue 125: The large number of optional compliance points greatly reduces the likelihood that one of the key goals for interoperability of the PDM Enablers will be achieved.
• Issue 27: Replace the term "empty (...) interface" by "abstract (...) interface".
• Issue 29: References in the paragraph to section numbers are not correct
• Issue 30: Statement in the first paragraph on Attribute Profile to be mandatory is not clear
• Issue 31: What is the difference between "is a separate comliance point" and "is mandatory, if compliance is claimed with ..."
• Issue 33: "support for Qualifiable properties ..." probably means "support for the Qualifiable interface"
• Issue 35: The differentiation into support for parts of modules or for single interfaces is not well justified.
• Issue 22: "Harmonize Compliance Points after Profile Section Reformatting."
• Issue 24: Promote PdmSTEP to v2.0
• Issue 28: Inter-dependencies do not reflect the actual structuring as expressed in IDL.
• Issue 107: Picture and words do not map with respect to dependency of PdmViews
• Issue 128: IFDEFs in IDL for Compliance Points
• Issue 129: Obsolete Text in Section 1.9.4.1 & Change of Pragmas
• Issue 54: Declaring a method to throw CORBA::NO_IMPLEMENT in its signature is probably not a good idea.

• (Actually had to do just a tad more beyond the Issue 125 stuff to dismiss this one).
• Issue 72: The role attribute is probably meant to be read-only.
• Issue 134: UnsupportedInstance and UnsupportedOption unfinished work

Issue 82: Compliance point statements are necessary but missing from the current document -- Was claimed to be resolved by Issue 125, but is not. This issue requires the statement of each vendor as to what compliance points he is to implement.

Issue 70: Concept of a NullContext is not at all explained.

DWF 2001-08-14> What we have here is a failure to incorporate.

Revised Text:

The following Revised Text from JPDM Issue 84, marked as

Incorporated/Accepted, needs to be incorporated:

<...snip...>

It's incorporated now... Really... I mean it. I don't know what happened.... ... Wait! I know! It musta been another quirk in Word! That's my story & I'm stickin' to it.

Other Document Changes:

• Folded in Vijay Gummadi's new BOM DTD XML.
• Added Eigner + Partner Proof of Concept paragraphs.
• Folded in Revised Text from

• Issue 102: Three new instances of the previously eradicated id/kind workaround were incorporated in this section between 2001-06-12 and 2001-06-18.
• Issue 81: The last paragraph needs more explanation.

Other Issue Log Changes

• Issue 38: The behaviour of the method find_objects is not implementable as described.

• Marked rejected. Dave coded up a counter-example & I missed clearing the issue.

• Issue 41: PdmContext references as "nil" references are not implementable.

• Marked rejected. Dave coded up a counter-example & I missed clearing the issue.

• Issue 132: Design Structure compliance point is not implementable as described

• Reassigned to Mitch.

• Issue 119: What uses the TraversalCriteria object?

• Added David's commentary.

• Issue 99: Some of the changes specified in Section 2.4 have not been applied to the IDL in mfg/2001-06-05

• Marked as Incorporated in pdme_idl_flater_2001-08-10_1300 and closed.

• Issue 37: The motivation for using a parameter of type IdentificationContextName instead of IdentificationContext to specify an id_context is not given.

• Disposition corrected to Incorporated.

• Issue 12: Need OMG:PDM_V2.0_AttributeProfile

• Disposition corrected to Incorporated.

• Issue 17: What Needs to be Done with the Table in OMG:PDME_2.0_TEST?

• Disposition corrected to Incorporated.

• Issue 36: The motivation for the introduction of <object>Sequence types to spare the "narrow" for object references is weak.

• Reassigned to Ed Barkmeyer.

• Issue 46: Issues against wording in 2.1.1 apply correspondingly.

• Lutz clarification added. Disposition changed from Unclear to Open.

New Issues:

New Issue 136: The attribute name lists in BOMQueryXML (product_class_attributes, part_master_attributes, part_revision_attributes) should *not* be Property_Sets

The attribute name lists in BOMQueryXML (product_class_attributes, part_master_attributes, part_revision_attributes) should *not* be Property_Sets. They are only lists of attribute/property *names*; no function ever stuffs property values into them! I have the impression that these things may want to have the AttributeNames datatype from the Query and Retrieval modules, but those are "qualified names", and I don't know whether these need to be.

Assigned to Ed.

New Issue 137: BOMQuery Operations need Exceptions

The exception for inadequate constraints when need_exact is TRUE is not defined, nor does either BOMQuery operation contain a "raises" clause.

Assigned to Ed.

New Issue 138: Inheritance in Section "New PdmProductStructureDefinition Interfaces" needs to be fixed.

The text in Section "New PdmProductStructureDefinition Interfaces" needs to be fixed to implement the disposition of ConfigurationItem that David Flater and I believe was the last set of directions from Bernd. It makes ConfigurationItem inherit from AbstractionControlledElement, and moves the inheritance from ManagedEntity and Qualifiable "up" to ProductStructureElement.

Assigned to Ed.

New Issue 139: DesignStructure compliance point not defined.

Related to Issue 132.

Assigned to Mitch.

New Issue 140: Compliance Point, "WorkFlowIntegration", Depends on PDME V1.4

The Compliance point "WorkFlowIntegration" depends on the acceptance of PDME V1.4. Impacts the section, "Compliance Points" where it list the "WorkFlowIntegration" compliance point in the table, and the section, "Compliance Point Clarifications" where it mentions the exception WorkflowIntegrationNotSupported.

Assigned to David

New Issue 141: CORBA::NO_IMPLEMENT used in Appendix A Example Code for Use of Authorization & Connection Services

We have expunged the exception from the IDL.

Assigned to David

New Issue 142: CORBA::NO_IMPLEMENT used in Section 1.9.1.1, "IDL"

The ORB Tests probably need to be rerun.

Assigned to David

Revised Submission: Revision 20010807-1500

Issue Log: Revision: 20010807-1500

Interim draft, available for a short time by request: mailto:[email protected]

Changes Since 20 July 2001

Note: IDL Changes in Sections:

• BOMQuery
• Profile Framework.
• 2.7.4 DocumentMaster

Issue Resolution/Changes through Document Modification

Resolutions incorporated

• Issue 23: The statements on compatibility are not valid.
• Issue 39: It is not clear, how the CosCollection::Iterator may survive without a corresponding CosCollection::Collection
• Issue 42: The concept of a default context in contrast to a null context is not well defined.
• Issue 50: The syntax to define references to attributes of relationships is not consistent.
• Issue 73: Redundant sentences
• Issue 83: Extra exception NotImplemented (due to the supported compliance statements) should be defined and used in the IDL declarations.
• Issue 100: The means by which a portable client can generate and apply an identification within a given IdentificationContext remains unclear.
• Issue 101: In tables of "special" attribute names, Object::get_interface and CORBA::InterfaceDef refer to the same thing and should be harmonized.
• Issue 117: Unresolved JPDM Comment
• Issue 63: New interface method required for ID Contexts
• Issue 32: Operations are always "entirely" unsupported, delete this ambigeous adverb.
• Issue 34: reference (3.x) is incomplete
• Issue 40: Description of find_objects 2nd paragraph: References are incomplete
• Issue 64: The section describes interfaces and their inheritance and not classes and subclasses.
• Issue 66: ProductStructureElement is an interface and not "abstract" nor denotes a class.
• Issue 67: Issue against 2.5.2.2
• Issue 71: reference is incomplete
• Issue 72: The role attribute is probably meant to be read-only.
• Issue 80: IDL does not know classes. Change wording.
• Issue 84: references are incomplete
• Issue 96: references are incomplete
• Issue 106: Does work item mean that it will be a V2.x revision task force item or a V3.0 RFP work item?
• Issue 116: Paragraph is "self-aware"
• Issue 121: Typographical Error

Issue 11: Editorial problems with the BOM Query section

• Numerous editorial modifications.
• Changed IDL variable & structure element names to match conventions used elsewhere in the IDL. However, the noncompliant operation names BOMQueryXML and BOMQueryOBJ were retained. We can go further & change them if it makes sense to everyone.
• Moved the BOMQueryControl Structure IDL to the section that describes it.

Of note to check are:

* Added description of use_baseline as using the specified_pdm_context for selection of the baseline.

• Changed typedef sequence<PDMBOMQueryReturn> ReturnedBom;
              to
  typedef sequence<BOMQueryReturn> ReturnedBom;
  [How the heck did this compile? PDMBOMQueryReturn is defined nowhere!]
• Added definitions for BOMQueryOBJ return flags:
  • effectivity_supported is returned as true if the server supports PdmEffectivity
  • baseline_supported is returned as true if the server supports PdmBaseline
  • variants_supported is returned as true if the server supports PdmVariantManagement.
  [Is this right?... why are we not interested in these for BOMQueryXML, indicating the condition underwhich the XML document was formed?]
• Questionable IDL
  • - What is PdmFoundation::BOMQuery()? it returns an XML string with no arguments & raises exceptions. It is also referenced in PdmVariantManagement.
  • - There are no exceptions for BOMQueryXML and BOMQueryOBJ
  • - BOMQueryXML is scoped with PdmFoundation whereas BOMQueryOBJ is not.

Profile Issues:

Issue 13:

• BOM Query Profile is now named and specified through reference to the appendix.

Issue 20: Reformat Profile sections(retrieval & attribute)

• Replaced inappropriate use of Retrieval (INCLUDING IN IDL!!) in PdmProfile section (as well as Section 1.x stuff).
• Redundant/Conflicting IDL Snippets (except Pdmsystem mods). Deleted all Snippets & treated the "Complete PdmProfile IDL" section as Gospel. Reintegrated the snippets with the explanatory text (what there was) and wrote additional text.
• New material added in the "standard" format (e.g. as in Retrievals). Old Attribute & Operation documentation was left in table form for now.

Issue 21:

• Our specified Profiles are:
  • OMG:PDME_2.0_Attributes
  • OMG:PDME_2.0_Notifications
  • OMG:PDME_2.0_Retrievals
  • OMG:PDME_2.0_BOM_Template

Issue 30:

• Is actually a compliance point issue, reclassify & assign to David.

Issue 98:

• Reclassify as compliance issue.

Issues Resolved with no change in Document

• Issue 97: What is the difference to the preveously defined Navigable funtions for a one-step-navigation.
  Added resolution text... Issue closed as Resolved by reference/clarification to nnn (the RFP).
• Issue 104: What proof is there that these changes will actually increase performance or reduce client complexity.
  Added resolution text... Issue closed as Resolved by reference/clarification to nnn
• Issue 105: Is Paragraph 1.9.4.7 Correct?
  Yes. Closed as Resolved by reference/clarification to nnn (the Authority of Lance).
• Issue 62: Deletion of the find_id_contexts method prevents the client from retrieving all available id_contexts.
  DWF 2001-08-03> Untrue. We still have find_all_id_contexts() for that purpose.
  Rejected.
• Issue 69: Explanation on default_context() is wierd.
  DWF 2001-08-03> There is no conspiracy. The referenced text is helpful for clarification of the session-level concept.
  Rejected.
• Issue 78: Need an example, how the association of a Qualification to an IdentificationContext should be established.
  DWF 2001-08-03> In general, the binding of identifications remains unspecified. See Issue 100.
  Marked Resolved in Issue 100 (or not).
• Issue 25: Justification statements at the end of the section are duplicated.
  It was the intent of the authors. The apparent duplication is the result of the same feature satisfying multiple requirements.
  Rejected.
• Issue 53: The style of referencing to other parts of the documents is not consistent.
  Cross-referencing has two types in this document. One is a reference to another area of the submission. We have tried to use the section-title-page form in most places. Where we have had unresolved flags of this form, we have used it. But since these won't survive into the final document we are not going to chase down all deviant forms. Sorry. The other reference type is to another section of the formal spec when it is written. The latter must be resolved when the FTF forms that document. They are noted as xxx, yyy... as a flag to the editor of the final document in the FTF.
  Resolved by clarification.
• Issue 79: references are incomplete
  Intentionally left to be resolved by FTF editor. See Issue 53.
  Rejected.
• Issue 115: Attribute Name could be Ambiguous
  We feel is adequately understandable in context.
  Rejected.
• Issue 122: Typographical Error
  The error was not there
  Rejected.
• Issue 123: Typographical Error
  The error was not there
  Rejected.

Issue Changes:

• Issue 54: Declaring a method to throw CORBA::NO_IMPLEMENT in its signature is probably not a good idea.
• Resolution noted. Changed to 0Text and assigned to Steve Marney to assure the IDL gets updated.
• Issue 102: Three new instances of the previously eradicated id/kind workaround were incorporated in this section between 2001-06-12 and 2001-06-18.
  Need Revised Text. (Sorry David… repeating the general resolution here is not really revised text. Besides, do we harmonize in a major or minor key?… which key?)
• Issue 125: The large number of optional compliance points greatly reduces the likelihood that one of the key goals for interoperability of the PDM Enablers will be achieved.
  Added David's "Hear, Hear!".
• Issue 27: Replace the term "empty (...) interface" by "abstract (...) interface".
  Recategorized as Compliance issue & assigned to David.
• Issue 29: References in the paragraph to section numbers are not correct
  Recategorized as Compliance issue & assigned to David.
• Issue 30: Statement in the first paragraph on Attribute Profile to be mandatory is not clear
  Recategorized as Compliance issue & assigned to David.
• Issue 33: "support for Qualifiable properties ..." probably means "support for the Qualifiable interface"
  Recategorized as Compliance issue & assigned to David.
• Issue 81: The last paragraph needs more explanation.
  Recategorized as Testability issue & assigned to David.
• Issue 82: Compliance point statements are necessary but missing from the current document
  Recategorized as Compliance issue & assigned to David.

NEW Issues:

• Issue 129: Obsolete Text in Section 1.9.4.1 & Change of Pragmas
  0 Text
• Issue 130: Typographical Error
  Incorporated
• Issue 131: Obsolete text in Section 1.10.3.2
  Incorporated
• Issue 132: Design Structure compliance point is not implementable as described
  Open
• Issue 133: Obsolete Text in Section 1.10.2.10
  Incorporated
• Issue 134: UnsupportedInstance and UnsupportedOption unfinished work
  0 Text
• Issue 135: Section 3.6.2.19 ProductClass has Unresolved Section Reference to XML DTD Definitions.
  Open

Other Changes:

• Updated all figures from Marney Memo 20010702.

Approximately 115 additional issues were received from three sources. These have been merged with the remaining outstanding issues of the JPDM Submitters' Issue Log to form the initial ManTIS PDM Submission Evaluation Issue Log.

Between Danvers and Toronto the Submission Team will work to resolve all issues.

Last updated on: 11/09/2007