Open racheliurui opened 5 years ago
@gerardmoloneyetpartners @terryrankine
Need to resubmit this issue to MESA,
Original Issue was submitted with:
EquipmentType.xsd
This should have been an IdentifierType. Fixed in current version of Equipment.xsd and in original comment for issue above.
Agreed
Agreed
In part this is accepted by MESA with comments that may require our review.
Recommendations: "Change element "EquipmentLevel" to be with type = "EquipmentLevelType". I respectful disagree there no real reason givem. The HierarchyScopeType is already the nested type using the equipment levels. The only change would be the name of the type. Which is not relevant for generated documents. "ADD element name ="PhysicalAssetID" type = "PhysicalAssetIDType". Yes, but the type is IdentifierType to line up with the simplifcation of types and removal of intermediate types. "ADD element name = "OperationalLocationType" type = "ResourceLocationTypeType". Yes to be fixed in the January 2020 Sprint.
@gerardmoloneyetpartners, @terryrankine
He says it is not a good reason but it creates an extra level of complexity to use HierarchyScopeType to get to EqupmentLevel with EquipmentLevelType. Seems a circular reference. If MESA wishes to keep this, I recommend ERDi not use this method.
I agree with the change, my previous objection was that the change was breaking, but so many of these are breaking changes no, it really doesn't matter. Anyone wanting to use Version 7 will need to redo their mapping.
I am not entirely an expert on the coding side of things, however when I attempt to write an equipmentclass record as above, line 53 appears to me to align with ISA95 Part2 Table 40 & 44 for EquipmentClass and Equipment attributes are specified (where EquipmentLevel is listed), however the resolver currently says that this is invalid, and as you can see, it is resolves when written differently (line 63-66).
Hopefully I am on the right track here with a solid example. @Dennis-Brandl and @CharlieG021163 I guess this is already accepted at any rate, and the specifics of how will be done when the pull request is fully committed. I'm happy, seeing as I am finding this issue today, and seeing we already covered it.
MESA
https://github.com/MESAInternational/B2MML-BatchML/issues/37
Background and Solution
Equipment.xsd complexType name = "EquipmentType"
complexType name = "EquipmentClassType">
Supporting Document
ISA-950002 JWG5 CDV01 version (2019 12) Clause 5.5.2 Equipment class Table 40 – Equipment class attributes Clause 5.5.4 Equipment Table 43 – Equipment relationship roles Table 44 – Equipment attributes
Impacted Type
B2MML-Equipment.xsd