AssetKind: add Batch besides Type and Instance?

[BirgitBoss]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
In Digital Product Passport ESPR there is a distinction between

• model = Type
• item = Instance
  and
• batch

For batch we do not provide a specific value in the enumeration AssetKind

Describe the solution you'd like
Add Batch to the enumeration AssetKind

[THadlic]

Unfortunately, "Batch" is term that can be used with different meanings.
In general it means "quantity of material regarded as a single unit, and having a unique reference" - but there can be different reasons for seeing the quantity as a single unit.
A "Production Batch" is a set of product items produced under same conditions (with same materials).
A "Transport Bach" can be a mix of product items transported together.

ESPR is using the term "Batch" as synonymous for "Production Batch": (3) ‘Batch’ means a subset of a specific model composed of all products produced in a specific manufacturing plant at a specific moment in time.

[BirgitBoss]

2024-11-27 TF Metamodel
Two viewpoints:

1. distinguish batch from instance, instance only for single products
2. or understand instance as either item or batch

In case 2 we would need to update the description to make this clear.

In case 1 we would need to extend the enumeration .

• Case 1a: distinguish different types of batches Base
• Case 1b do not distinguish different types of batches

needs strategic decision.

[BirgitBoss]

@JoergNeidig any opinion on this?

[JoergNeidig]

As @THadlic wrote, the ESPR explains that the DPP should be specific to the model, batch or item level or in AAS vocabulary type, (batch) and instance. Batch is used synonymous for "Production Batch", meaning that a batch can consist of identifiable single units. In IEC 61406 batch is defined similarly as "quantity of material regarded as a single unit, and having a unique reference" this quantity could consist of serialized items.
As a result, I think the solution might not be as easy as adding a third option, because we would change a 2-level dependence to a 3-level dependence. That would surely lead to the demand to link all these levels to each other. (Meaning this would lead to additional references in the model.) @BirgitBoss

[THadlic]

in response to @JoergNeidig: At the moment the information model in DPP is still in discussion. There seem to be 2 possible approaches:

1. The description of a batch can contain a list of the items that belong to the batch (i.e. the 'parent' manages the relationship)
2. The description of an item contains the ID of the batch that the item belongs to (i.e. the 'child' manages the relationship)

A combination of both approaches seems to be possible. But if both approaches are used at the same time, it is possible that Batch-Description and Item-Description provide conflicting information (parent says "this is my child", child says "I have another parent"). A standard approach for resolving such conflict should be defined.