Dear all,
I agree that the text of the standard need rework. Should we do this in
a meeting or by email? As I have mentioned before, I am not very
satisfied with the class E3 Condition State. It the only state oriented
class in a non state oriented model.
Regards,
Christian-Emil
On 15.12.2006 10:37, martin wrote:
Dear All,
For the next amendment to ISO21127, I propose to rework the following scope
notes:
1) E51 Contact Point
Scope Note: This class comprises identifiers
used to communicate with instances of E39 Actor.
rewrite.
2) E54 Dimension
.....An instance of E54 Dimension is thought to be the true quantity,
independent from its
numerical approximation, e.g. in inches or in cm.
change: "is thought to be"
....The properties of the class E54 Dimension allow for expressing the
numerical approximation.
rewrite.
3) E3 Condition State
...It describes the prevailing physical condition
of any material object or feature during a specific E52 Time Span.
Should be : An instance of this class...
4) E4 Period
...Artistic style may be modeled as E4 Period....
may be better: ...Artistic style can be regarded as E4 Period.
5) the capital of Italy (E53) is identified by Rome (E48)
should be: the capital of Italy (E53) is identified by 'Rome' (E48)
6) coffee mug – OXCMS:1983.1.1 (E19) has note
chipped at edge of handle (E62) has type Condition (E55)
Should be: coffee mug – OXCMS:1983.1.1 (E19) has note
'chipped at edge of handle' (E62) has type Condition (E55)
7) E3 Condition State
Examples:
Ruination of theTower of Babylon (E3) consists of wind-erosion phase (E3)
Is a bad example, describing rather an extended Event than a condition state.
8) Question: Should the stereotype phrase "this property descibes..." be
replaced by
"An instance of this property describes..." ?
Best,
Martin
