[ecop-poct] Re: Updated PO v0.5
- From: Bernhard Schätz <schaetz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ecop-poct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:15:56 +0200
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
Other related posts:
