Closed pdequick closed 3 months ago
Thanks for this helpful feedback how to improve our common standard :-) I saw that we have an existing label "dcm" - I'd suggest to tag your issue with this label.
Thank you for this Feedback. I think we should discuss this DCM internally first in order to ensure that we are all on the same page. For this issue I´m not really sure if prerequisites for a Feature is fulfilled. Open for Discussion at Friday DCM Expert Group Meeting.
so things start going... nice. As a base you should consider a working mode up next.
Save the standard – it was in heavy development and needs time to rest, stabilize Extend the KIT: it’s THE entry support for the Use Case Help, the use case to scale Do anything possible for the expert group to enable and foster the building of data-chains via digital twins
@LukasSchmetz @MWADCM will reference to that in the next EG meeting, I think.
... + wait vor v.2.0 to be released as the foundation for your future activities - this here is v.1.0
Not part of Tractus-X Release
Description
One sentence in the standard introduces ambiguity (p22; 4.1.2.2) . "This means that the customer needs to collect all demands for all factories and send them aggregated as one MaterialDemand to the supplier." This sentence may be understood as if aggregation implies loosing detail on customer, or demand category for example. It implies a "total aggregation", it is not the spirit.
Expected behavior
The standard should avoid any ambiguity. Specifically, there should be alignement with the sentence written in the standard "For the combination of the attributes supplier , customer and materialNumberCustomer in the object MaterialDemand , there MUST NOT be more than one MaterialDemand object in existence" Suggestion for rephrasing: This means that the customer may have to perform some agregation operation to insure such unicity.
How to reproduce
N/A