RE: [plcs-dex] Prodcut as realized

Rob,

 

Regards your last question, I prefer the approach which 
allows for a distinction between "representing_product_as_planned" and 
"representing_product_as_realized" I'm not sure that we need the additional 
complexity of "product_as_individual" as this blurs the distinction between 
a product that can be observed/used/sold etc and a product which is 
planned. However there are a few areas of commonality between 
"representing_product_as_planned" and "representing_product_as_realized", for 
example the "serial number" to identify an individual product, which is perhaps 
why we ended up with both concepts together under the DEX8 name. Perhaps we 
need three DEXs here, one for product designs the second for expected individual 
products the third for existing individual products.

 

I 
remember JD was always very keen to make these distinctions.

 

Regards

 

PS 
thank goodness for spell checkers, I should have been thinking about "prodcuts" 
not "products" anyway! 

 

Adrian

Landline +44 (0) 117 979 
5820

Mobile +44 (0) 788 0798 
370

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Bodington 
  [mailto:]
Sent: 24 February 2004 
  08:54
To: Mail List PLCS-MODELERS; 
  
Subject: [plcs-dex] Prodcut as 
  realized

  

  
Hi

  
I have started on the capability 
  “representing_product_as_realized” and have made a first stab at the 
  introduction and business context.

  
Comments welcome

  
 

  
Whilst doing this I took a look at 
  the introduction for the DEX “product_as_individual”

  
 

  
The first observation was that it 
  reads as if the DEX is encompassing the “design” of the product (i.e. the CAD, 
  specs, support breakdowns etc) as well as the actual 
product.

  
 

  
Is that the case? If so I am a bit 
  surprised as I thought that the DEX was exclusively about the product as 
  individual – not the design. The design should be covered in DEX1. If you need 
  both the design and the individual then use both DEX1 and 
  DEX8

  
 

  
The second observation was perhaps 
  we have the names of the capabilities wrong.

  
The term product as individual 
  refers to an existing or potential future artefact whose properties can only 
  be known by observation or by derivation from observations. I.e the 
  product_as_planned and the product_as_realized.

  
 

  
Should the capability therefore be 
  called “representing_product_as_individual” and deal with the product as 
  planned as well as the product as realized?

  
Or should we have two capabilities: 
  “representing_product_as_realized” and 
  “representing_product_as_planned”

  
 

  
Regards
Rob

  
-------------------------------------------
Rob 
  Bodington
Eurostep Limited
Web Page:   http://www.eurostep.com http://www.share-a-space.com
Email:  
  
Phone:  
  +44 (0)1454 
  270030
Mobile: 
  +44 (0)7796 176 401
Fax:    +44 (0)1454 270031  

  
 

The data contained in, or attached to, this e-mail, may contain confidential information. If you have received it in error you should notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail, delete the message from your system and contact +44(0)1332 242424 (the Rolls-Royce IT Security Director) if you need assistance. Please do not copy it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person.

An e-mail response to this address may be subject to interception or monitoring for operational reasons or for lawful business practices.

(c) 2004 Rolls-Royce plc

Registered office: 65 Buckingham Gate, London SW1E 6AT

Company number: 1003142. Registered in England.