[ecop-poct] Re: Updated PO v0.5

  • From: Bernhard Schätz <schaetz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: ecop-poct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:43:09 +0200

HI Jouni,

I think the second figure could be helpful and should be added.
I would also only use the second part of the first paragraph for explanation, 
and add it to the current text, right after the text that is currently there:

Last sentence of current text: "MSB provides both static and dynamic service 
orchestration to allow static composition of safety-related services as well as 
dynamic service composition, so that new services can register themselves at 
runtime and become immediately usable via MSB."

Now add: 

"The ECO PREMISIS architecture consists of three types of units: COTS or legacy 
components that have been developed independently of ECO PREMISIS, components 
that are created (or possibly generated) for a particular machine according to 
the ECO PREMISIS methodology, and components that are fixed parts of the ECO 
PREMISIS platform. In Figure 2, these components are colored dark grey, medium 
grey, and light gray, respectively."


Best regards!

> 
> 


Am 31.03.2011 um 13:31 schrieb Mattila Jouni:

> Bernhard, Thanks a lot (again) ... 
> 
> Please find attached Section 2 figures (finally) .... 
> 
> Second picture is more detailed ... Thus, it requires some explanations ... I 
> guess, agent framework should be removed at least now, but what are your 
> opinions ... Should we use both of these pictures in section 2 and what 
> should be added or removed from the second picture ? 
> 
> FPP Platino said the flowing about the second picture (now genesys is 
> removed) 
> 
> *************** 
> 
> PLATINO is based on a service bus, called MSB (Machine Service Bus). All soft 
> real-time activities and non-real-time activities are implemented as services 
> available through MSB. The service bus follows the publisher-subscriber 
> pattern [9]: new services can be registered dynamically for the service 
> broker, and available services can be looked up and called. Soft real-time 
> services are attached with QoS information, including real-time requirements. 
> MSB is assumed to be built on top of a deterministic real-time protocol for 
> standard Ethernet.
> The PLATINO architecture consists of three types of units: components that 
> have been developed independently of PLATINO (for example, standard I/O bus 
> like CAN), components that are created (or possibly generated) for a 
> particular machine according to PLATINO rules, and components that are fixed 
> parts of the PLATINO platform. In Figure 2, these components are colored dark 
> grey, medium grey, and light gray, respectively.
> 
> The low level communication bus is isolated from PLATINO using Basic Machine 
> Interface (BMI), so that PLATINO can be ported to another I/O bus technology 
> by re-implementing an adapter for this interface. The higher-level soft 
> real-time or non-real-time services provided by the machine are exposed for 
> MSB by a Basic Machine Interface (BMI). A BMI can provide machine-specific 
> services, or it can provide a set of standard services for a certain domain. 
> In the latter case, new machines can be introduced in a business process by 
> giving a new implementation of such a BMI. Core machine controls provide us 
> both a means to integrate proprietary work machine control functionality as 
> well as GENESYS-based functionality into the PLATINO architecture. The 
> relation of GENESYS-architecture and PLATINO-architecture is depicted in 
> Figure 3, which explicates the role of PLATINO on a GENESYS-architecture 
> based platform.
> ****************
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, 
> -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 Bernhard Schätz
> Sent: 31. maaliskuuta 2011 13:42
> To: ecop-poct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ecop-poct] Re: Updated PO v0.5
> 
> Hi Jouni,
> 
> I made slight modifications. 
>> 
>> 2010 the evaluator complained " the relationship to AUTOSAR is not made 
>> explicit"   
>> 
>> The rationale behind ECO PREMISES is partly similar to the motivations of 
>> AUTOSAR (Automotive Open System Architecture) in car industry: reuse of 
>> solutions, flexibility of product development and management, improved 
>> product quality.
> However, AUTOSAR targets only the on-board architecture, has limited support 
> for non-functional properties (incl. safety), and only provides a reference 
> architecture for the base services (e.g., flashing, diagnosis). In contrast, 
> the ECO PREMSIS platform combines on-board/off-board architectures, a 
> high-level references architecture including support for collaboration 
> services, and explicitly addresses non-functional aspects. 
> 
> 
> Best regards!!
> 
>> 
>> 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 Bernhard Schätz
>> Sent: 31. maaliskuuta 2011 13:16
>> To: ecop-poct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [ecop-poct] Re: Updated PO v0.5
>> 
>> Hi Jouni,
>> 
>> here is the promised text.Please extend/change ad libitum:
>> 
>> While previous projects (incl. SOCRADES, eSONIA, iFEST, POLLUX) adressed the 
>> use of SOA approaches for embedded systems, none of them addressed the 
>> specifics of interconnected mobile work machines. ECO PREMISIS will build on 
>> these approaches to enable a new generation of mobile work machines. So, 
>> while SOCRADES mainly targets a SOA-only approach in the field of enterprise 
>> integration in automation, ECO PREMSIS uses a layered reference architecture 
>> including components and services, and applies this approach to mobile work 
>> machines. Furthermore, while eSONIA is providing models and tools for SOA in 
>> a factory environment, including diagnosis and maintenance, it is limited to 
>> automation and does not deal with the specifics of mobile collaboration. 
>> Similarly, while iFEST provides a generic tool chain framework, ECO PREMISIS 
>> will use such frameworks to specifically provide tool support based on the 
>> ECO PREMISIS reference architecture. In contrast to POLLUX, ECO PREMSIS is 
>> not limited to electrical vehicles and also addresses inter-vehicle 
>> collaboration.
>> 
>> 
>> Am 31.03.2011 um 11:32 schrieb Mattila Jouni:
>> 
>>> Dear Bernhard,
>>> 
>>> thanks, for SODA and SOCRATES .. ??? SODA is very old. TUT was in it 
>>> too (not me/us) .
>>> 
>>> I found
>>> 
>>> FTPOnline Don't Let SODA Ruin Your SOA Retrieved on July 6, 2007
>>> 
>>> Can someone write please 2-3 sentences about socrates and soda for 
>>> reference for section 2?
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> -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 Bernhard Schätz
>>> Sent: 31. maaliskuuta 2011 12:28
>>> To: ecop-poct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [ecop-poct] Re: Updated PO v0.5
>>> 
>>> Dear Jouni,
>>> 
>>> as you said, impact is supposed to go to section 4.
>>> 
>>> The POC are very good to define measurable and verifiable objectives! Good 
>>> job!!
>>> 
>>> One comment: In Demo #3, I would use the term "autonomous motion control" 
>>> vs. "robotic motion control", but then this is a matter of taste.
>>> 
>>> I'll go through section 2 immediately.
>>> 
>>> Best regards!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 31.03.2011 um 11:07 schrieb Mattila Jouni:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,  I actually removed impact "talk" from section 2 since I thought it 
>>> supposed go in section 4 (only) ok no problem thanks.
>>> 
>>> Please check out section 2 (actually 2.1 concept and objectives is about 
>>> ready)  ..
>>> 
>>> Since concept and objectives should be stated in "measurable and 
>>> verified form" I wrote a list of tentative demos (POC) .
>>> 
>>> I don't think these are very binding, however, pls let me know if you agree 
>>> on these or not for this PO stage . ?
>>> 
>>> Are these the "most" critical ones in terms of S&T to demonstrate? 
>>> (attached and below)
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> -J
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The ECO PREMISES project is led by the four world market leader OEM's. With 
>>> their key role the mobile working machine domain requirements for set of 
>>> use cases are elicited, analyzed and validated, a domain model is build and 
>>> general reference architecture requirements are mapped out. In addition, 
>>> requirements for model-driven design process and tool chain are mapped out 
>>> for ECO PREMISES design approach development. After S&T phase, the 
>>> developed ECO PREMISES concept will be validated by developing 3-4 
>>> industrial scale proof-of-concept (POC) OEM machine demonstrations. These 
>>> POC's demonstrate (roughly):
>>> 
>>> 1.       Demo #1:  Inter-machine and intra-machine communication via MSB 
>>> and SOA broker (e.g. fleet management)
>>> 2.       Demo #2:  Architectural separation of hard real-time functionality 
>>> from the service-based functionality so that the critical real-time 
>>> behavior is not affected while preserving system-level predictability and 
>>> appropriate levels of safety. (e.g. performance of SOA vs. domain 
>>> requirements) 
>>> 3.       Demo #3: Advanced machine functionality demonstration with 
>>> software configurable level of intelligence (e.g. robotic motion control 
>>> vs. manual control or maintenance at different levels)
>>> 4.       Demo #4: Model-based development and tool chain demonstration vs. 
>>> product-line management (software variability management)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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 Bernhard Schätz
>>> Sent: 31. maaliskuuta 2011 11:38
>>> To: ecop-poct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [ecop-poct] Re: Updated PO v0.5
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> one short comment, which might be helpful for section 2 and 4:
>>> In the AWP (Annual work Program) for all three subprogrammes (ASP5, ASP1, 
>>> ASP4) objectives and expected impacts are listed.
>>> It helps to support the reviewers in finding keywords in the corresponding 
>>> text of these sections.
>>> 
>>> Here is an example for ASP 1:
>>> 
>>> In section 2, you might want to consider to prominently place 
>>> objectives, e.g., by printing them in italic; e.g.,
>>> - contribution to a European Standard Reference Technology Platform, 
>>> definition of a model-based compositional develoment process 
>>> including safety and security aspects, design and prototype 
>>> implementation of a multi-domain embedded systems architecture 
>>> addressing networking, security, robustness, diagnosis and 
>>> maintenance services
>>> 
>>> In Section 4, you might want to do the same for the expected impacts 
>>> required in this section, e.g.,
>>> - reduce time to market; increase the quality and reliability of products 
>>> and services while providing novel functionalities; contribute to 
>>> architectures that reduce cost and effort of qualification and 
>>> certification processes.
>>> 
>>> So, while all this already is in the content of these sections, sometimes 
>>> it helps just to repeat some of the keywords and make them stand out.
>>> 
>>> Best regards!!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 31.03.2011 um 10:16 schrieb Olli Vistbacka:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Updated PO attached.
>>> 
>>> It's almost complete information wise.
>>> 
>>> TODO:
>>> - Section 2 condensing
>>> - Section 4 improvement, some material is available (e.g. impact 
>>> statements from Bernhard and FAGOR, listed standards, )
>>> - Abstract improving?
>>> - getting missing information
>>> 
>>> I have understood that section 2 is under editing in TUT. Am I correct?
>>> Is somebody working on the Section 4? Pandeli?
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Olli Vistbacka
>>> Project Manager, M.Sc. (Eng.)
>>> 
>>> Phone +358 40 569 1043
>>> olli.vistbacka@xxxxxxxxx
>>> http://www.hermia.fi/in_english/
>>> 
>>> <ECO_PREMISES_PO_v0.5.docx>
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <ECO PREMISES PO v0 4-comments_fortiss_joma.docx>
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <ecopremises_po_figure_section2.pdf>

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: