 |
ManTIS
Manufacturing Technology a
Industrial Systems Task Force |
 |
PDM Enablers V2.0
Submission Evaluations
PDM Enablers V2.0 RFP –
mfg/2000-01-02
(All Submitters have Withdrawn.. the Submission is no longer active)
Current Issue Log:
Revision 20010820-0200 – mfg/2001-08-06
Index
New!
(30 August 2001)
(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.
Organization
Chairs:
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.
PDM Evaluation Team Membership:
A list of individuals who participated in reviews, discussions, or
provided critiques or analysis of the submitted specification.
Submission Evaluation
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
|
7 February 2002 – The Anaheim Meeting (January,
2002)
|
|
All the submitters have withdrawn from the submission
process.
Evaluation work on the submission has ceased
|
24 September 2001 – The Toronto Meetings (September,
2001)
|
|
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:
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
- 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
Issue Log: Revision: 20010807-1500
Interim draft, available for a short time by request:
mailto:larry.johnson@mscsoftware.com
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.
This page was updated on 7 February 2002.
Please send comments and suggestions to mantis@omg.org by email.
Last updated on:
11/09/2007