(Feedback from Canada)

There are relationships to Process Output (Transformed Output, Process Metric, Process Execution Log) but not to Process Input. It seems that Transformed Output and Process Metric are inputs to Process Control, so I assume that the execution flow, i.e. next steps to be executed, will be determined in part by them. Two questions come to mind:

(i) is Process Execution Log an input to Process Control or an output? The association is not labeled, so it’s hard to know because it could make sense either way: it could be the log of the Process Control, or it could be the log of a prior Process Step used as input to determine what happens next; and

(ii) why not including Process Input as well? Every piece of information of what happened before in the execution might determine what happens next, and that could include not only the outputs but also the inputs to previous Process Steps. For instance, knowing which statistical classification was used as Process Support Input to a hypothetical “Coding” Process Step could be as relevant as anything else to determine the next Process Step to be executed. Unless, of course, we assume that such information will be in the Process Execution Log (which might be the case, but it is a big undocumented assumption).

In fact, I wonder whether we need associations to Process Output sub-types at all. Could we just have generic associations to the super classes, i.e. Process Input and Process Output, called “uses”, “can use” or something similar?

  • No labels

5 Comments

  1. InKyung Choi

    24 Jan, 2019

    GSIM Sprint (24 Jan.)

    i. To label the association between Process Control and Process Execution Log as "updates". 

    ii. Process Control controls flow, currently, there are only inputs from Transformed Output and Process Metric based on the diagram. Do we not need Process Input?

    But the information will be in the Process Control Design in the design part.

    But in the execution part, it is not clear. 

    Process Control is inside Process Step, then Process Input needed for Process Control will refer to Process Input in the Process Step. But we cannot assume that explicitly from composition relation? If we assume that information is passed via Process step, then to make it clear shouldn't we add explicit association with Process Input to Process Control?

    Decision: 

    • to add relation "uses as parameters" - with Parameter Input
    • to add relation "uses" - with Transformable Input
    • to add relation "uses" - with Process Support Input

  2. InKyung Choi

    22 Feb, 2019

    New relations with Process Control are added as below, would this work (aggregation and 0..*)  Flavio Rizzolo ?

  3. Flavio Rizzolo

    15 Mar, 2019

    Stepping back and looking at the whole Business Group I see some inconsistencies. We have inputs and outputs associated with Process Control now, but they do not appear in the Process Control Design. How can that be? A Process Control implements a Process Control Design, which means that every object that appears associated to a Process Control should be also associated to the Process Control Design as well – in other words, if an object is not part of the design it cannot be part of the implementation. We followed that unwritten rule in GSIM v1.0 and v1.1, I think we should follow it for this version as well.


  4. Flavio Rizzolo

    15 Mar, 2019

    With that in mind, I'm wondering whether we should simplify the model and assume the implementations, i.e. Process Step and Process Control, somehow "inherit" everything that is associated to the respective design classes, i.e. Process Design and Process Control Design. One way to do that would be to make the implementations extensions of the designs. The implementation, in the end, are just the use of the designs in a particular context, which can be easily modeled as an extension. Just a thought.

  5. InKyung Choi

    29 Mar, 2019

    Process Design "has" Process Input Specification which "corresponds to" Process Input. Can we add then "has" relation between Process Input Specification with Process Control Design...? Or should it be directly from Process Input?