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

  • From: Mattila Jouni <jouni.mattila@xxxxxx>
  • To: "ecop-poct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ecop-poct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:07:49 +0300

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<mailto:olli.vistbacka@xxxxxxxxx>
http://www.hermia.fi/in_english/

<ECO_PREMISES_PO_v0.5.docx>

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: