[ecop-poct] Mapping: PO Section3 vs. Artemis WP 2011
- From: Mattila Jouni <jouni.mattila@xxxxxx>
- To: "ecop-poct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ecop-poct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:46:36 +0200
Dear all,
PO section 3 is very nicely written but the mapping of what is written to PO
vs. ASP's takes some time.
My level of understanding is attached.
I have some questions :
1. Do I understand the mapping correctly and how careful we should be on each
ASP on contributing to one or more listed specific project objectives?
2. E.g. ASP1 requirements maps to the PO's "CORE" = model-based development
process FOR SAFETY-RELEVANT embedded systems? .... We don't have a reference
to any standards mentioned in the "MBD objectives " bullet?
3. Should we or should we not make a specific reference and then contribution
in PO to some ASP4 specific objective? This is what our Industrial partners
will ask + the role of the demos WP.
Cheers,
-J
Jouni Mattila
Professor in Machine Automation, Dr. Tech.
TUT/IHA
Korkeakoulunkatu 6
P.O. Box 589
FI-33101 Tampere, Finland
Mobile +358-40-8490244
Fax +358-3-31152240
Email: jouni.mattila@xxxxxx
www.iha.tut.fi
-----Original Message-----
From: ecop-poct-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ecop-poct-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Kai Koskimies
Sent: 17. maaliskuuta 2011 18:49
To: ecop-poct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ecop-poct] Re: New PO section 2. uploaded
Dear all,
about connecting ecopremises to previous Artemis projects, I think there is an
interesting connection to Sofia (see http://www.sofia-project.eu/packages). The
mission of Sofia is:
"The mission of SOFIA project is to create a semantic interoperability platform
which enables and maintains cross-industry interoperability which is a platform
for new services. Concurrently the solution will foster innovation while
maintaining value of existing legacy multi-vendor interoperability platform."
That sounds pretty familiar, doesnt it? Sofia's targets are smart houses and
smart cities. Basically, as I see it, we are doing the same for work machine
domain. We can nevertheless learn and benefit a lot from Sofia, especially
concerning the methodologial issues.
Regards,
Kai
Bernhard Schätz wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Jouni -- great, thanks.
>
> Here's my two cents:
>
> - Concerning AUTOSAR: Here I would also make clear that AUTOSAR
> currently does not really support time-/space separation to support
> mixed-criticality systems (like, e.g., IMA-based approaches).
> Furthermore, AUTOSAR would be single-machine (without
> Car-to-Infrastructure) and specifically not support a SOA-like
> architecture. So, we will use of course a similar approach concerning
> modularity (potentially included results provided by ARTEMIS-projects
> like RECOMP) or ITEA-projects like VERDE; furthermore, we will
> incorporate embedded-SOA results (e.g., from the SOCRADES-project).
> However, there would --like in AUTOSAR -- be a need to identify
> specific core services (e.g., maintainance) as well as run-time
> coordination support (not exisiting in AUTOSAR)
> - Concerning Genesys: I would rather look for principles of the
> Genesys-Architecture adopted in COTS-HW, than the Genesys-HW itself.
>
> Best regards!!
>
>
> Am 17.03.2011 um 13:23 schrieb Mattila Jouni:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I did just upload "new" PO section 2 into Dropbox which is basically
>> text from PLATINO PO. We are working on making the text better and
>> shorter (max # of pages is: 2-2.5 pages)
>>
>>
>>
>> I have two questions:
>>
>>
>>
>> - Since Ecopremises is about mobile machines which are "car"
>> like vehicle the evaluators did and will ask Platino/Ecopremises
>> relationship to AUTOSAR. How this issues is best explained since I'm
>> not sure if we did good job last time?
>>
>> - Also, we have understood, that Artemis project would like
>> see that new projects (like Ecopremises) are built on existing
>> Artemis projects. And therefore we "used" GENESYS as a base for
>> Platino. Should we still do so or drop it?
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> -J
>>
>>
>>
>> Jouni Mattila
>> Professor in Machine Automation, Dr. Tech.
>> TUT/IHA
>> Korkeakoulunkatu 6
>> P.O. Box 589
>> FI-33101 Tampere, Finland
>> Mobile +358-40-8490244
>> Fax +358-3-31152240
>> Email: jouni.mattila@xxxxxx <mailto:jouni.mattila@xxxxxx>
>> www.iha.tut.fi <http://www.iha.tut.fi/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ecop-poct-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:ecop-poct-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> [mailto:ecop-poct-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Olli Vistbacka
>> *Sent:* 17. maaliskuuta 2011 12:17
>> *To:* ecop-poct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ecop-poct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> *Subject:* [ecop-poct] Weekly meeting minutes
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately I wasn't able to complete the minutes yesterday, but
>> the minutes are now in the Dropbox. Sorry for the delay.
>>
>>
>>
>> · I added an extra action point about Sensortecnic
>> Wiedermann, which not discussed in the actual meeting.
>>
>> · Please take a note that all the communication concerning
>> the PO and whole consortium is requested to be done using POCT-mail
>> list exclusively in order to maximize information sharing and
>> comments
>>
>> · A statement was made about the minimum contribution
>> guidelines for each partner (In the end of minutes)
>>
>>
>>
>> br,
>>
>> --
>>
>> Olli Vistbacka
>>
>> Project Manager, M.Sc. (Eng.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Phone +358 40 569 1043
>>
>> olli.vistbacka@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:olli.vistbacka@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> http://www.hermia.fi/in_english/
>>
>>
>>
>
> Bernhard Schätz, fortiss GmbH, email: schaetz@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:schaetz@xxxxxxxxxxx> Tel. +49 (0)89 360 35 22 27 Fax. +49
> (0)89 360 35 22 50 Guerickestr. 25, 80805 München, Germany
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
- » [ecop-poct] Mapping: PO Section3 vs. Artemis WP 2011 - Mattila Jouni
