Comments on Impact of STEP Modularization on the SC4 Common Resou rces White Paper

[pfAeroFW, ISOWG12]

WG10/WG12,
  One of the requests that the Modularization Team has requested of WG12 is
to review the White Paper called, 'The Impact of STEP Modularization on the
SC4 Common Resources'.  The Modularization Team indicated that the White
Paper could be found on the WG10 Web Site at ATICorp.  I have attached the
latest version of the document and provided my review comments of the
content.  I am not sure who is collecting comments on the document, but here
are my comments.

  Overall, a good impact paper.  I do not agree with a few points, but a
good impact paper with the current approach.

Greg Paul
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Greg A. Paul, P.E.
ISO TC184/SC4/WG12 Convener
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company - Ft. Worth
REGULAR MAIL: P. O. Box 748, Mail Zone 2884, Fort Worth, TX USA 76101
FedEx Address:  1 Lockheed Blvd. MZ 2884, Fort Worth, TX USA 76108
Phone: 817/777-5041  FAX: 817/762-9704  Email: ISOWG12 at imc7.ems.lmco.com
-----------------------------------------------------------

 <<ImpactIR.htm>> 

Comments from Greg Paul:
1) Clause 1.3 - First paragraph - Correction, - some of the other SC4 Common
Resources were developed with the same philosophy as other ISO 10303 Common
Resources - example PLIB Expressions Schema.
2) Clause 2 - 6th paragraph - Disagree on statement that AP made up of AMs
do not need a long form.  Several reasons: a) If an AP does not have a long
form, then a user who attempts to implement the AP will not know what the
EXPRESS constructs are for the AP.  b) An AM may be published with several
corrections, the AP needs to know version of the EXPRESS is valid for the
standard. c) The Extensible Selects need to be completed by the AP.  d) The
proliferation of AMs would result in several new/modified Extensible Selects
- how does the AP reconcile the different Extensible Selects.
3) Clause 2 - 6th paragraph - Disagree on statement that SC4 is going to be
required to maintain a repository of AM ARM EXPRESS schemas.  The AP will
need to put these together in the AP context, the AM AIM EXPRESS will be a
fall-out of this process.  The AM AIM EXPRESS will need to unique to work
across all contexts.  THE AM ARM EXPRESS will NOT need to unique to work
across all contexts.
4) Clause 3 - Disagree - AIC should still be allowed to be developed.
5) Clause 3.1 - 1st paragraph, 1st sentence - Disagree.  AMs go a lot
farther then the AICs go today.  The AMs provide ARM definitions,
interpretation of common resources, etc.  
6) Clause 3.1, 3rd paragraph - Disagree - AIC should still be allowed to be
developed.
7) Clause 3.2 - Additional impact - The EXPRESS amendment also has a
requirement to have a keyword to identify the version of EXPRESS.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ImpactIR.htm
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 18866 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.steptools.com/pipermail/wg10/attachments/20010731/21824901/ImpactIR.obj