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

By using a very general model and by using predicates to deal with queries, the Query Service is de

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

It"s believed this issue is referring to a default Identification Context. See 1565 for resolution

Summary: Provide Data Dictionary for PDM Enabler Objects/Attributes

The PDM Enablers is an interface specification and provides a standard mechanism to access PDM data

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.

Resolved by Issue 1744

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

The client must specify the id context as every id applies to a particular context, even if the use

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?

The PDM Enablers define that the Query Service, defined in Chapter 11 of the CORBA COS services, sh

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

Issue asks for no specific change

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.

Based on clarification from the submitter, it was determined that the Find in question is actually

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

Accepted: Add MakeFromUsage relationship with quantity attribute inheriting from Usage Relationship

Summary: How should PDM relate to Workflow?

Resolved in Issue 2248

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

Contexts are expected to have similar semantics regardless of which PDM system is being used, howev

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

Yes. A single client can be coded to obtain IdentificationContextFactory objects from separate PDM

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

The PDM Enabler provides basic document function such as create, delete and also simple structures

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

Out of scope extension which are not modeled by the current specification. However these may be han

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

Defer to PDM implementers. This is an implementation specific question for the systems that impleme

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

Not sure if the question is understood, but the PDM Enablers does not define or describe the use of

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

Same as Issue 1554

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

The PDM Enablers place no requirements on ranking alternate or subsitute parts. If an alternate or

Summary: Problem: The following ConfigurationManagement interfaces inherit
from Manageable, but do not support attached Document descriptions:
ProductClass, SpecificationCategory, Specification, ProductComponent,
ProductFunction. The descriptive string may be insufficient to
document these properly, and may be subject to controlled revision.
Therefore, these interfaces should be Documentable. The simplest
solution is to change the inheritance from Manageable to ManagedEntity.

Summary: "Section 1.12.7 and Section 1.12.9 should be modified to clarify that the following sub-processes are addressed by section 2.9.3.17:
Coordinate Design Change: Notify required team members
Coordinate Design Change: Notify design change across all products
Implement Product Changes: Alert Change"

Notify required team members

Summary: The PDM Enablers convenience document mfg/98-02-02, section 2.6.1,
"PdmDocumentManagement Overview," explains checkin/checkout as follows:

To perform a checkout, the client would first lock the file using the
lock() operation. The client then transfers the file"s contents from
the PDM server to it"s file system. To perform a checkin, the client
creates a new DocumentIteration. It then creates a new File,
associates it with the DocumentIteration, transfers the contents of the
file from the client to the PDM server. Lastly, it unlocks the file.

If every checkin creates a new DocumentIteration, then it follows that I
would never actually change a File once it has been uploaded, because that
would be an untracked change, and untracked changes are always bad and
evil. So I don"t know why I"d ever need to lock a File.

No Data Available

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?

Duplicate of OMG issue 1575

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?

The IDL for PersonOrganization is correct and the "role" attribute should be included in the UML.

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.

1.14.2.2.1 Management of STEP Data

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.

In Section 1.14.2.1.5 the term "Version" and "Versioning", and "Release" are used in their general,

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.

:Vault interface.

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