@sbocconi - Are you decrementing and implementing the resources based on the action of the events? Assuming you are, and we are talking first about just putting the gowns into a lot in preparation for sending to the laundry, then what we want to happen is to keep the accounting quantity the same (the agent still owns the gowns) and decrement the onhand quantity of each gown because it is packed up and not available? Or maybe that happens when you send them to the laundry? I feel like I need to be more clear about what actually happens operationally here. Anyhow, the trouble with consume and produce is that the accounting quantity will be affected, so the "owned" gowns wouldn't show as "owned" in inventory or reporting while packed up and at the laundry.
We can note that transfer-custody does what we want in general, and could be used when giving the gowns to the laundry, and then again when receiving them back. Would you be tracking in the bigger lots then? Or will they also be scanning the gowns for identifiers?
Looking at what might work for just the packing into a container lot, and not finding anything that works very well. Really, we would want to define something that would know it will be creating and then removing containedIn relationships, to do it more modularly. But maybe that could be done in a specific packing process, maybe by ProcessSpecification?
Also, there is always the question of how much is worth recording. There is no problem "skipping" things that aren't useful operationally, say for knowing about your inventory or actually coordination your processes, as long as the provenance is maintained as needed for your requirements. Or it is more like "burying" things into other things, not so much "skipping".
And btw, thanks for these detailed use cases, they are helpful to us too. Is there a repo we can watch to see what you are doing? We'd also be happy to talk there about VF questions if that works better for you all. As you can see, there are pieces of VF that are pretty stable and have been implemented multiple times, and there are pieces that have not been implemented with VF vocabulary at all or enough to know they are stable for different use cases.
I wonder how the semantics is implemented, if A and B are "containedIn" C, and I transfer-custody of C to place X, is location of A and B also updated to X? Is this an implementation duty?
New territory. Thinking out loud, you would I assume want to report out the correct location of a particular gown if asked - so either the software would need to know to look at the container location to give that info, or you would have to update each gown when the container changes location. I'm thinking that changing each gown is safer?
1 reply
.. because it is possible for containedIn not to be of physical nature like members of a team, instead of gowns containedIn a packet)?
Hi @hoijui:fabcity.hamburg ! Good question. ContainedIn is a property of EconomicResource, which we try to think of as "not people" as a general principle. For transporting people, it would be interesting to detail out the semantics where location matters more than what we have, which is the primaryLocation, for a use case.
do a transfer-custody of the lot, and at destination possibly consume the lot (to produce nothing) and modify each containedIn properties of the gowns. Tricky is maybe that the lot does not have a contains property to get back to the gowns? That might be an implementation issue (to have a reversed index)
Do you want to include a transportation process for the lot to the laundry? And do you maybe have access to a laundry to see what their operational processes might be? Or will your modeling exercise not include what happens at the laundry? I'm hearing that coming back from the laundry, the gowns might be in a different lot than they left in? Which seems fine, when you do an unpack process maybe they could lose that containedIn lot?
at destination possibly consume the lot (to produce nothing) and modify each containedIn properties of the gowns.
Thinking about this... and wondering what should be the most clear standard logic to consuming a container resource. It seems to me that in general consuming the lot might be expected to consume all the containedIn resources, thinking about use cases that actually do want to do that without detailing out everything in the container. Same for "move" and maybe other actions. But I understand for your use case. Still thinking about what existing alternative could possibly work better, if any....
1 reply
4 replies
FabCity Hamburg was founded.. now, basically (a few months ago/last year).
I am not sure how accurate that is, and the others in the project would surely say things more ... carefully.
Don't worry about it. We have worked out how LearnDeep should start with some help from the Bonfire project team. They might or might not connect with FabCity later, so your time estimates seem good in either case.
And please visit the gitter chat if you have difficulty accessing the gitlab repositories!
There have been closures due to spam that may affect your ability to register.
hi! Lynn and Bob please could one of you try to help me to sign into gitlab? it's saying i don't have a gitlab account when i do 😅
3 replies
FabCity Hamburg was founded.. now, basically (a few months ago/last year).
it won a big pot of funding money (big for me at least)
awesome to see you here @hoijui:fabcity.hamburg. congrats on the funding!
3 replies
.. aww just saw that it does not support gitea yet (according ot the README) :/
https://valueflo.ws/introduction/flows.html#actions
https://valueflo.ws/examples/ex-production.html#pack-unpack