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