Nullifying Values in Part7/8

Message
Author
KeithWillshaw
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 8:48 am

Nullifying Values in Part7/8

#1 Post by KeithWillshaw »

During the IIP meetings one of the topics that has been raised is the requirement to be able to transfer a nulled value for a property and there does not seem to be a method to achieve this at present.

A sample workflow is as follows

A Designer publishes a package of information about a plant item but one of the properties in that package is found to be incorrect. The new value is not known at this point but its important that an update be issued to remove the offending property.

In Design applications systems are usually engineered such that a true null can be entered arther than just a blank or a zero. The consensus of the group seems to be that we need a similar facility in ISO 15926 but it has already been established that a template role may not be left blank or set to null.

Any suggestions as to how we can handle this would be most welcome.

Keith

HansTeijgeler
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:02 pm

Re: Nullifying Values in Part7/8

#2 Post by HansTeijgeler »

Hi Keith,

The formal response is to end the related temporal part, but perhaps you are not using temporal parts.

The workaround might be to enter a ridiculous number, like 999999, so that it is apparently wrong.

Regards,
Hans

KeithWillshaw
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 8:48 am

Re: Nullifying Values in Part7/8

#3 Post by KeithWillshaw »

HansTeijgeler wrote:Hi Keith,

The formal response is to end the related temporal part, but perhaps you are not using temporal parts.

The workaround might be to enter a ridiculous number, like 999999, so that it is apparently wrong.

Regards,
Hans

You are correct in that we are not using temporal parts at present but even when we do it would seem like overkill to end the temporal part just to nullify a property.

I thought about the 'magic number' workaround but that is a rather ugly kludge.

Keith

OnnoPaap
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Nullifying Values in Part7/8

#4 Post by OnnoPaap »

There are three kinds of property enironments:
  • Properties of individuals through temporal parts.
    • Ending the temporal part is the normal way of expressing that there is no property there any more.
    • We may come to the conclusion that properties are certain classes or relationships, but that each kind of property also needs values for: "Hold", "Not Applicable" and "Deprecated".
  • Propeties of individuals wiithout temporal parts.
    • What Hans said.
  • Properties of classes. See Lifecycle model to know why this is the normal situation of design data
    • Changing the property as a revision to a property called "Deprecated" would be also the way to go here.

KeithWillshaw
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 8:48 am

Re: Nullifying Values in Part7/8

#5 Post by KeithWillshaw »

OnnoPaap wrote:There are three kinds of property enironments:
  • Properties of individuals through temporal parts.
    • Ending the temporal part is the normal way of expressing that there is no property there any more.
    • We may come to the conclusion that properties are certain classes or relationships, but that each kind of property also needs values for: "Hold", "Not Applicable" and "Deprecated".
  • Propeties of individuals wiithout temporal parts.
    • What Hans said.
  • Properties of classes. See Lifecycle model to know why this is the normal situation of design data
    • Changing the property as a revision to a property called "Deprecated" would be also the way to go here.
We will certainly need temporal parts for properies at some point and perhaps this is a good place to start that discussion. As yet there do not appear to be any templates for that. The initial set contains templates with temporal roles for classes and individuals but is not immediately obvious to me how we would do this for properties

The notion of a status such as Hold, Not Applicable or Deprecated is very attractive although we may wish some other Value than Deprecated such as "Withdrawn" or "Cancelled" which is stronger than Deprecated.

I took a look at the Lifecycle Model and would be interested in following that option up in terms of the templates needed.

Keith

OnnoPaap
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: Nullifying Values in Part7/8

#6 Post by OnnoPaap »

Agreed on the "Withdrawn" and "Canceled".

KeithWillshaw wrote:We will certainly need temporal parts for properies at some point and perhaps this is a good place to start that discussion. As yet there do not appear to be any templates for that. The initial set contains templates with temporal roles for classes and individuals but is not immediately obvious to me how we would do this for properties
We should not look at the initial set of templates from ISO 15926-7. We are way ahead of that with the ones we have now at the template specs list (click in the menu: Online tools, Template Specs list)

In the second column the general template types. These are "Class", "Temporal part" and "WholeLifeIndividual".

EPC contractors will mostly use Class templates for properties, as these are for the design phase. Once the equipment exists, there will be temporal parts property relationships.

To know what to use for which part in the equipment life-cycle, we will use the Jord Methodology (click on JORD-ISO15926-Mapping-Methodology-V1-1.zip )

HansTeijgeler
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:02 pm

Re: Nullifying Values in Part7/8

#7 Post by HansTeijgeler »


KeithWillshaw
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 8:48 am

Re: Nullifying Values in Part7/8

#8 Post by KeithWillshaw »

OnnoPaap wrote:Agreed on the "Withdrawn" and "Canceled".

KeithWillshaw wrote:We will certainly need temporal parts for properies at some point and perhaps this is a good place to start that discussion. As yet there do not appear to be any templates for that. The initial set contains templates with temporal roles for classes and individuals but is not immediately obvious to me how we would do this for properties
We should not look at the initial set of templates from ISO 15926-7. We are way ahead of that with the ones we have now at the template specs list (click in the menu: Online tools, Template Specs list)

In the second column the general template types. These are "Class", "Temporal part" and "WholeLifeIndividual".

EPC contractors will mostly use Class templates for properties, as these are for the design phase. Once the equipment exists, there will be temporal parts property relationships.

To know what to use for which part in the equipment life-cycle, we will use the Jord Methodology (click on JORD-ISO15926-Mapping-Methodology-V1-1.zip )
I am giving this topic a nudge as its more than a year since we discussed it and we will need a solution for a number of the ongoing projects such as HEED and EDRC

Let me throw in an idea to get the ball rolling

How about a template for StatusOfPropertyOfIndividual which as 3 roles

hasPossessor - dm:PossibleIndividual
hasProperty - dm:SinglePropertyDimension
hasPropertyStatus- dm:ClassOfStatus

Keith

Andrew.Prosser

Re: Nullifying Values in Part7/8

#9 Post by Andrew.Prosser »

Does this have to be individual? we talked in the Geometry SIG about the same issues and those aren't Individuals. How about StatusOfPropertyOfThing?

KeithWillshaw
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 8:48 am

Re: Nullifying Values in Part7/8

#10 Post by KeithWillshaw »

Andrew.Prosser wrote:Does this have to be individual? we talked in the Geometry SIG about the same issues and those aren't Individuals. How about StatusOfPropertyOfThing?

Sounds reasonable to me

I see the business need for this has been reinforced by the gaps list document produced by the Dexpi group who have this
explicit requirement as a high priority.

"Issue 1:For each property there are three states.

1) Property present and set;
2) Property not present in the source system;
3) Property defined but not set in the source system.

It must be possible to identity these states in the instance data. Currently it is not possible to identify state 3
"


Keith

Post Reply