[ecop-poct] Re: New PO section 2. uploaded
- From: Bernhard Schätz <schaetz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ecop-poct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:28:24 +0100
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
> www.iha.tut.fi
>
>
>
> From: ecop-poct-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ecop-poct-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Olli Vistbacka
> Sent: 17. maaliskuuta 2011 12:17
> To: 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
>
> http://www.hermia.fi/in_english/
>
>
>
Bernhard Schätz, fortiss GmbH, email: 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:
