search

MESAInternational / B2MML-BatchML

B2MML is an XML implementation of the ANSI/ISA-95, Enterprise-Control System Integration, family of standards (ISA-95), known internationally as IEC/ISO 62264. B2MML consists of a set of XML schemas written using the World Wide Web Consortium's XML Schema language (XSD) that implement the data models in the ISA-95 standard.
Other
92 stars 45 forks source link

add Required ID to each Op(Resource)CapabilityType in Common Schema #39

Closed racheliurui closed 4 years ago

racheliurui commented 5 years ago

Proposed change

add element ID to impacted definitions.

<xsd:element name="ID"              type="IdentifierType"/>

Background

The current B2MML Common Schema, makes updating or deleting an EquipmentCapability extremely hard to implement. During implementation, we found that the EquipmentCapability does not have an ID defined. But when we retrieve the equipment capability from a time accounting system, we do see an ID is attached to each of the reported equipment capabilities. But we can't map that id to the model. Then when the source system reports an equipment capability change, for example, a previously reported equipment capability item now needs to be deleted. How we achieve that?

After reviewing the original ISA-95 document, we found this missing ID is not aligned with updated 950002, each resource capability object in Clause 6.4 Operations capability information has a required ID attribute.

Current workaround

The current workaround is, we put the id in WorkCapability/ID, then every WorkCapability only contains one single EquipmentCapability.

Supporting Document

ISA-950002 Table 228 – Personnel capability attributes Table 232 – Equipment capability attributes Table 236 – Physical asset capability attributes Table 240 – Material capability attributes

Impacted Definitions

B2MML-Common.xsd

Dennis-Brandl commented 4 years ago

This is a breaking change (since the ID is required), but it will be fixed in the January 2020 Sprint.

JoeDo commented 4 years ago

Confirmed for the following types in the January-2020-Sprint branch:

@Dennis-Brandl, there appear to be similarly named types that are missing an ID field, including the following:

Should ID fields of type IdentifierType be added to these, as well?

Dennis-Brandl commented 4 years ago

ID fields added in soon to be released version. Issue closed.