Add "OperationsRecordSpecTemplatePatternID" and "DefinitionType" element to OperationsRecordSpecTemplateType in Common.xsd to support 950002 "maps to" relationship of Operations Event Definition Record Specification object

[CharlieG021163]

Background

1. 950002: In the Operations Event Model, Operation Event Definition Record Specification has a "map to" association relationship with a 0..1 multiplicity to Operations Event Class Record Specification as a pattern of the instance.
2. Both Operation Event Definition Record Specification and Operations Event Class Record Specification objects use the abstract Operations Record Specification object which does not have an exclusion specialization (pattern) relationship to support the "maps to" relationship of the concrete objects in No. 1 above.
3. In B2MML OperationsEvent.xsd, both OperationEventDefinitionType and OperationsEventClassType use the RecordSpecification element with type = "OperationsRecordSpecTemplateType" for the both related specification objects.
4. B2MML Common.xsd, "OperationsRecordSpecTemplateType" does not have an element to support the "maps to" relationship (0..1) for a Definition Record to Class Record as a pattern.

Supporting Document ISA-950002 JWG5 CDV01 version (2019 12) Clause 5.10.1 Operations record model (abstract), Figure 17 – Operations record model (abstract) Clause 5.10.2 Operations record specification template (abstract), Table 118 – Operations record specification template relationship roles Clause 5.11.1 Operations event model, Figure 18 – Operations event model Clause 5.11.7 Operations event definition record specification, Table 135 – Operations event definition record specification relationship roles

Impacted types and Solution Common.xsd, complexType name="OperationsRecordSpecTemplateType" An 95 Committee Comment was approved at the ISA95/JWG5 October 2109 meeting to update this object with the "Defined by" relationship with a target role of "OperationsRecordSpecTemplatePatternID" and with the DefinitionType attribute. ADD: ADD:

[racheliurui]

I want to understand the underlyingly reason for changing this.

For example,

• An ID element under person will be treated as a person ID, an ID element under Equipment Type will be treated as a equipment ID.
• Like above, a RecordSpecification under OperationsEventClass will be treated as OperationsEventClass RecordSpecification, why we need to implicitly say it's OpsEventClassRecordSpecification?
• If we apply same approach , should we change the ID element under Personnel to PersonnelID also?

But I noticed this change is WIP. So waiting for more details about it.

[CharlieG021163]

@racheliurui Re-review. I have completed issue explanation above and addition to schema.

[racheliurui]

ISA change.

[CharlieG021163]

Copy of Original Comment with Dependent Referenced Issues: #31, #32, #35

Background

1. 950002: In the Operations Event Model, Operation Event Definition Record Specification has a "map to" association relationship with a 0..1 multiplicity to Operations Event Class Record Specification as a pattern of the instance.
2. Both Operation Event Definition Record Specification and Operations Event Class Record Specification objects use the abstract Operations Record Specification object which does not have an exclusion specialization (pattern) relationship to support the "maps to" relationship of the concrete objects in No. 1 above.
3. In B2MML OperationsEvent.xsd, both OperationEventDefinitionType and OperationsEventClassType use the RecordSpecification element with type = "OperationsRecordSpecTemplateType" for the both related specification objects.
4. B2MML Common.xsd, "OperationsRecordSpecTemplateType" does not have an element to support the "maps to" relationship (0..1) for a Definition Record to Class Record as a pattern.

Supporting Document ISA-950002 Clause 5.10.1 Operations record model (abstract), Figure 17 – Operations record model (abstract) Clause 5.10.2 Operations record specification template (abstract), Table 118 – Operations record specification template relationship roles Clause 5.11.1 Operations event model, Figure 18 – Operations event model Clause 5.11.7 Operations event definition record specification, Table 135 – Operations event definition record specification relationship roles

Impacted types and Solution Common.xsd complexType name="OperationsRecordSpecTemplateType" An 95 Committee Comment was approved at the ISA95/JWG5 October 2109 meeting to update this object with the "Defined by" relationship with a target role of "OperationsRecordSpecTemplatePatternID" and with the DefinitionType attribute.

ADD:

ADD:

[CharlieG021163]

This Change to 950002 approved by ISA-95 and JWG5 Committee at Oct 2019 Meeting. Submit Issue to MESA. complexType name="OperationsRecordSpecTemplateType" An 95 Committee Comment was approved at the ISA95/JWG5 October 2109 meeting to update this object with the "Defined by" relationship with a target role of "OperationsRecordSpecTemplatePatternID" and with the DefinitionType attribute.

[gerardmoloneyetpartners]

Agreed

[gerardmoloneyetpartners]

Agreed

[Dennis-Brandl]

I agree with the change.