2011-04-01-Protocol

From Object Memory Modeling Incubator Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

2011-04-01 Agenda

Participants and Scribe

  • Barbara Schennerlein (SAP)
  • Jörg Neidig, Bruno Kiesel (Siemens)
  • Alexander Kröner, Jens Haupert, Borsi Brandherm (DFKI IB)
  • Marc Seißler (DFK IFS)
  • Daniel Schreiber (TU Darmstadt)

Scribe: Marc Seißler

TOP 1 Review of past Action Points

Action point (all): Check current drafts for capabilities and missing features.

  • No further discussion needed

Action point (all): All examples should be transferred into the XML notation


TU Darmstadt:

  • Procedural Knowledge use case has been refined
  • For task knowledge use case data from FIAT and EADS are missing. Data will be available on Mai 11th, so that the use case can be formalized in XML format.
  • Overall it was pretty simple to implement the use case with the current XML format.

Q&A / Discussion:

  • Is the use of „x-xpdl“ type ok? -> The current format allows the use of all available MIME types so it is valid.
  • Non-Semprom Ontologie tag has been chosen -> The specification of a ontologie default set has to be discussed at the F-2-F meeting.
  • How to handle different Schema versions of used XML-files -> The use of a “version” tag might be obsolete since the XML-format version should be denoted in the used XML file itself.
  • Should it be possible to specify the schema information within a contenttype element, when a XML MIME type is used? -> This might be suitable and should work with the current object XML specification.


DFKI IFS:

  • XML dataformat should be refined. E.g. units should be specified as XML attributes -> Final XML format has to be refined with respect to an legitimate use of elements and attributes.

Q&A / Discussion:

  • It is questionable if we should specify product characteristics (weight, height) since other complex standards do exist for product information specification (e.g. IPC global)
  • We should rather focus on specifying the object structure, referencing other standards. (-> “where can the user find certain object information”)
  • On the other hand, this might impose the problem that OMMs become hard to read/interpret in the open loop.
  • Furthermore, those information might help to enable a faster search for object information: Before the object content is read (using external format) the header might indicate if this information is on the object at hand. Those issues should be discussed during the F-2-F meeting.


SAP

  • Since the original semprom use case has been implemented no further problems could be identified.

Q&A / Discussion:

  • The Object ID is used inconsistently: Some use it as an attribute, others use an element
  • Should the final XML format use the “semprom”-Element as document root -> No, this should be changed (e.g. “OMM”)
  • The question was raised, how events should be implemented in this format -> Two different concepts can be found within the W3C wiki. In the next iterations this should be considered.


SIEMENS

  • Due to time issues the use cases couldn’t be transferred into the XML format.
  • The use case implementation will be used to test if XML supports a better formalization of composed object memories. This might result in new findings and requirements for the XML format and should be finished by the F-2-F meeting
  • The third use case is similar to the second use case. Therefore, it wasn’t formatted in XML. The characteristics of IDs can be looked up in the second use case (maintenance).

Q&A / Discussion:

  • The attribute block format might need some restructuring -> As most other elements/structures the attribute block is an artifact of the binary format and need some rework to remove limitations due to the binary format.


DFKI IB

  • Since the use cases come from SemProM, the implementation using the XML format was straight forward. No major problems have been identified.


UCL

  • Discussion postponed to next meeting

TOP 2 Accepted XML Notation

  • Discussion: Experiences from the transfer of use cases into the XML notation - limitations, loss of information, complexity?

-> See TOP 1

TOP 3 Linked Structures

  • A model for the representation of linked structures is needed.
  • Do we have to link blocks or the whole memory?
  • SAP + Siemens: Add SemProM structure block information to Wiki ("PSS Demo")
  • Question 1: Adapt SemProM approach for OMM?;
  • Question 2: What's best practice: address individual blocks or the whole memory?

-> To be resolved

TOP 4 F-2-F Meeting

  • Daniel Schreiber: KL
  • Ralph Barthel: KL
  • Jörg Neidig: KL
  • Boris Brandherm, Alexander Kröner, Jens Haupert: KL
  • Marc Seißler: KL
  • Barbara Schennerlein, Sven Horn: ?

Selecting topics for the F-2-F Meeting.

  • Tentative Agenda:
    • Overall goal of the workshop is to approve XML format
    • Closer look on elements, that have been transferred from the SemProM binary format.
    • Furthermore, we should decide about open issues that can/should be tackled within the remaining time.
  • Due to September: W3C Report, XML format

Summary

Action Points

  • Siemens: Implement use cases
  • DFKI IB: Prepare revised XML format version
  • UCL: Prepare to present use case implementations

Next phone conference: April 15, 2011