DIAGNOSTIC AND
MAINTENANCE CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE
08-B MEETING
St. Louis,
MO
April 22-24, 2008
Call to Order
Approval of Agenda
Reports
Chair's report
Secretary's report
Liaison Reports (CS, I&M, AES)
Brief presentations
Review and draft answers to questions on 1636.1 submitted by Kevin Coggins.
Joint meetings as necessary with all working groups
PAR for New Recommended Practice for XML/EXPRESS Instance Document Validation
Continue to progress on AI-ESTATE
Review D. Busch submittal
Models
Part 28
Document review
Prepare for ballot
SIMICA Discussions
Review ballot progress
MAI Discussions
Document review
Schema review
Prepare for ballot
P1522 Re-organization
Future of document
Final Discussions on All Topics
Review Old Action Items
Review New Action Items
Set Time and Location of 08-C Meeting
Set Agenda for 08-C Meeting
Adjourn
Agenda was reviewed, modified and approved by committee vote.
Chair’s Report
Tim W. gave a brief chair report.
1636.1 is now an official standard, published in March 2008. P1636 (SIMICA) approved by MEC and ready for ballot.
Secretary’s Report
Minutes of 08-A meeting were reviewed and approved.
Action Items and Open issues were reviewed and modified as appropriate.
Liaison Reports
CS liaison: IEEE ad hoc “best practices” Standards Committee reviewing SCC20. Secretary received list of questions and responded to it.
I&M liaison had nothing to report.
AES liaison had nothing to report.
Presentations
No presentations.
Test Results questions from Kevin Coggins
1. In the 1671.x standards / schema, there is a UUID that can be used to reference an instance from another instance, say for example referencing a UUT Descrption instance from a Test Configuration instance. Please correct my terminology if I get something wrong. In Test Results, there does not appear to be a mechanism to reference the UUID of the corresponding UUT Description, Test Configuration, etc. In an analysis scenario, if I want to see how a certain TPS is performing, and I start at the MTPSI, or even the Test Configuration, I do not see a standard method to link to Test Results via a UUID.
Use TestResults/UUT/DescriptionDocumentReference@uuid to reference a UUT Description instance document
There is a similar element for referencing a TestStation document, but I could not find one for referencing a TestConfiguration document. This is probably an oversight. You could create an extension, similar to the UUT node, or use TestResults/References/Reference with @name = “TestConfiguration” and @uuid = <uuid of your document>.
2. I cannot determine if a TestResults file is valid on its own merit. I do not know if a test was skipped at runtime (Outcome can only be PASS, FAIL, or ABORTED). If I cannot link this to a Test Configuration / Test Description, I cannot get to some parameter that tells me that a test was required, and in comparison to the Test Results determine that a test was not run.
You are correct, a “Skipped” value would probably be useful. If you are able to record skipped tests in your run time, and want to go around the limitation of the current schema, you could assign by convention an Outcome with value = “Aborted” and qualifier = “Skipped”. Not very nice, but easier that having to compare with TestDescription.
3. How can I tell from TestResults that a test was manually forced to the GO condition?
I believe that Events are intended to handle user interaction. Using them to record forced GO conditions is probably not a big stretch. You could record an Event under Test/Events with a name = “ForcedGo” and “source” = “Operator”. Again, not very portable – this would be a convention understood by only your run time.
Second option is to notate Outcome=”passed” qualifier=”FORCED”.
4. I do not see that with a Test Result I can put a user comment or event comment, such as FORCED GO, etc.
True, you can do it only for the entire Test. For individual Test
Results you may need to create an extension. Or you could record
Events under the parent Test and put in Event/Data an element with
name = “TestResultID” that references the ID of the
TestResult.
Presentations
Test Group suggestion: Tony A. has a use case that needs environmental context data within a TestGroup. Current structure requires extension.
Suggestion from Tony A. that EnvironmentalData element be moved within schema to subordinate of Test (by inheritance, will also be child to TestGroup).
AI-ESTATE Discussions
Darryl joined the meeting via telecon, and discussion turned to the Part 28-generated XML schemata. Darryl walked the group through an instance document generated according to the Part 28-generated schema. Darryl had a comment concerning how Part 28 handles class hierarchies. Part 28 handles inheritance by copying needed elements in the schema for the subtypes.
SIMICA Discussions (Brief)
The ballot for P1636 has commenced, and the announcement should have been received 4/22/08. The ballot period ends 5/22/08
IEEE Std 1522-2004
The testability/diagnosability characteristics and metrics standard was published in 2004 but has never “caught on.” The five year period for the standard ends in 2009. Both DoD and MoD representatives were contacted, and both indicated they have no use for the standard. A motion was made at Steering yesterday, contingent on DMC approval, to remove the 1522 standard.
Motion: John S. moved that the 1522 standard be withdrawn. Seconded by Michelle H. The motion was passed without discussion or objection.
MAI Discussion
Joe S. reviewed the changes made to the MAI schema since the last meeting.
Tony A. raised a concern about being able to incorporate multiple MAIs into a single MAI document. No consensus was reached on whether or not a change was required, and it was suggested that the issue be deferred to the trial-use period to see just how big of an issue it is.
An issue was identified that one needs to be able to access the specific test results that indicate the failure leading to the maintenance event. This is leading to a need to modify the schema and information model. John R. will provide a proposal to both Joe S. and John S.
Discussion then moved to reviewing the draft standard itself. Several editorial recommendations were made. The entire subcommittee needs to review the draft to provide a good scrub on the textual descriptions.
Next Meeting
John S. offered to host the 08-C meeting at the Homewood Campus of Johns Hopkins. The subcommittee decided to target July 15-17, 2008.
P1232 Discussion (Part 2)
Motion: John S. moved to drop the XML/EXPRESS Validation Annex from the standard. It was seconded by Michelle H. Discussion focused on usability of the standard with and without as well as the concern of having the resources available to complete that part of the standard. The motion passed without opposition.
The subcommittee then called in to the conference bridge where the group was joined by Darryl Busch, Pat Kalgren, Oscar Fandino, and Dave Sharone. The meeting was turned over to Michelle as working group chair.
Clause 6.2 for reasoner services are almost finished. The question was asked about whether or not to leave the current 6.1 services “as is.” It appears that is the direction they are going. With respect to the the WSDL specification, the question was raised about whether to include the WSDL and whether or not it should be normative.
Discussion returned to whether or not to use the Part 28-based XML schemata. The consensus of the group is to proceed with Part 28 for the XML schemata. The plan is to use the ATS Framework AI-ESTATE demonstration to generate example XML instance documents that might be incorporated into the standard. Given the planned timing of the ballot process, it is likely the examples would need to be incorporated as a result of a comment on the ballot.
The discussion turned to the Impact Technologies proposal for adding gray-scale health. The current proposal is not likely to be sufficiently mature to include in the version of the standard to be balloted under the current PAR. The consensus was that the two proposals (Darryl's and Erol's) are not sufficient for the current version of the standard (since the standardizable elements of prognostics are still elusive); however, those interested are encouraged to continue to work the issue. If a viable proposal is developed in time, then it will be included in the draft. If not, the scheduling of tasks on the draft will not be impacted.
Another review of the information models focused on two items. First, explanatory text on Context (which needed to be renamed ContextState) was included to explain that the attribute “mustOccurIn” on Action, Diagnosis, and SystemItem must be “disjunctive” (i.e., at least one is required, but not necessarily all are required). Second, manual editing of the information models will be required prior to submitting the document to do the following:
Make sure CONSTANT definitions are placed in the right part of model.
Change all USE statements to remove all specific entities. This ensures the entire schema is “included.”
Add a REFERENCE statement to the D-Matrix model to include the four defined CONSTANTS.
The definitions for GOOD, BAD, CANDIDATE, UNKNOWN, and USER_DEFINED were reviewed. John S. needs to incorporate those definitions into the model.
Darryl then walked through the current draft of the 6.2 service specification. The clause includes an EXPRESS-based specification of the service followed by definitions of parameters, EXPRESS code for any needed data “structures,” exceptions, usage notes, and information on the effects on the DCM. The consensus was the new structure for clause appeared to be well thought out and comprehensive in its specification of the services. Tim W. pointed out that it would be good to make sure the 6.1 specification is developed consistent with 6.2.
Conformance
The conformance section was reconstructed.
Michelle asked, “If I choose not to implement 6.1 or 6.2 services, do I need to respond should a client attempt to use them?” No. But it should be clear what services the application supports.
MAI (reprise)
Joe S. presented a proposal for relating specific test results to specific maintenance events within the MAI schema. Some issues were identified with the specific indexing into the document. This can be fixed under the current action item.
Joe also brought the possibility of adding a new entity called “ancillary data” using a named-value pair. The subcommittee decided such a structure was not appropriate in a semantic model. The proposal was not adopted.
P1232 (Part 3)
The discussion returned to the extension mechanism. After considerable debate, it was suggested that a sentence or two be put at the end of the conformance section indicating that a) extensions to any AI-ESTATE model shall be defined within a separate schema, b) those extensions shall not cause applications that use conformant models to “break” when using those extended models, and c) an extension to an AI-ESTATE model is non-conformant to the standard. The intent includes the point that conformant and non-conformant parts of the application can be identified. Also, to be conformant, an instance document shall not contain any extensions. Also, any application can provide services beyond those defined in this standard; however, such services will not be recognized as conforming to the standard.
To summarize the discussion, three options appear to be on the table:
Enforce extension through subtyping and derivation of defined types.
Permit extension of any kind with the intent that they not abuse semantic definition of the existing models.
Permit no extensions, as described in the paragraph above.
Show of hands indicated 14 were not opposed to #1, six were not opposed to #2, and five were not opposed to #3.
Motion: Bill G. moved that AI-ESTATE will enforce extension through subtyping and derivation of defined types. It was seconded by Alicia H. (9-0-2) The motion carried.
Action items and log items were reviewed.
The agenda for the next meeting was reviewed.
Recommended Practice for AI-ESTATE
The intent is to focus on user-guide types of issues. Usability is a big issue with AI-ESTATE, and some kind of document to help people would be extremely valuable. It was put on the agenda for the next meeting. The focus will start with the requirements document, and then a PAR will be put together.
The meeting adjourned at 10:47.
|
Name |
Affiliation |
|
Day 1 |
Day 2 |
Day 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Alwardt, Tony |
Boeing |
X |
X |
|
|
|
Busch, Darryl |
Honeywell |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Chun, Kahn |
USMC TMDE |
X |
X |
|
|
|
Esen, Erol |
Impact Technologies |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Fandino, Oscar |
Lockheed-Martin |
|
X |
|
|
|
Gerstein, Bill |
Hamilton Sundstrand |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Harris, Michelle |
Lockheed-Martin |
X |
X |
|
|
|
Helton, Alicia |
Lockheed-Martin |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Jimmerson, Carey |
AMRDEC |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Kalgren, Pat |
Impact Technologies |
|
X |
X |
|
|
Modi, Mukund |
NAVAIR |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Ralph, John |
Northrop Grumman |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Seavey, Mike |
Northrop Grumman |
|
X |
|
|
|
Sharone, David |
Lockheed-Martin |
|
X |
|
|
|
Sheppard, John |
Johns Hopkins University |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Stanco, Joe |
SSAI |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Wilmering, Wilmering |
Boeing |
X |
X |
X |
Old Action Items
Action Item 06C-3: Alicia Helton will examine the 1232 models for elements that may be related or duplicated in a P1636.x schema. Such identification will enable use to ensure consistency between the schemata and provide a mapping as necessary.
Status: OPEN
Action Item 06C-4: Pat Kalgren to use his AUTOTESTCON 2006 paper to start developing a prognostics annex for 1232. This paper will provide a set of definitions as a starting point.
Status: OPEN Pat is going to examine the paper and other sources for a possible annex. The gray scale health may serve as an example in the annex.
Action Item 07A-3: Darryl B. to obtain a description of the operational/environmental information from recording devices for a commercial platform relevant to diagnostics.
Status: OPEN This action item is in support of possible new 1636.x Operational Context standard.
Action Item 07A-7: Darryl B, Tony A., and Alicia H. to provide a recommendation for specifying services via a transaction-based approach for P1232. The recommendation will also include specification of the 6.1 and 6.2 services.
Status: CLOSED OBE.
Action Item 07A-8: Darryl B. to complete a proposal for the XML schemas and validation approach for P1232.
Status: CLOSED
Action Item 07A-12: Mark K. to draft a PAR for revising P1522.
Status: CLOSED OBE
Action Item 07A-13: P1232 working group co-chairs to prepare final draft of P1232 for April meeting.
Status: OPEN, Modified to be due electronically by July 15, 2008.
Action Item 07B-6: Michelle H. to add text to the P1232 standard expressing that the focus of the models is to define semantics and to facilitate information exchange. As a result, it is possible, if not likely, that an instantiation of the model will not be optimized for computational purposes (wordsmithed for clarity).
Status: OPEN
Action Item 07C-6: Brit Frank to complete a QA review of the P1232 draft prior to submission to MEC.
Status: OPEN
Action Item 07D-1: Tim W., John R., Michelle H., and Mukund M. to contact logistics experts/SMEs at their respective organizations to review the SIMICA information model to determine if there are any blatant omissions or issues with the current model as well as solicit involvement in subsequent work on the standards. By the 08-A meeting, the standard will proceed with or without input to ballot (contingent upon approval of the subcommittee).
Status: CLOSED OBE
Action Item 07D-3: Darryl B. to write a constraint that Action.Cost.CostCategories in the CEM should be unique.
Status: CLOSED
Action Item 07D-4: Darryl B. to write an introduction to ISO 10303-21 as an informative annex to P1232.
Status: OPEN
Action Item 07D-6: Darryl B. to add relevant services to support “ActualUsage.”
Status: OPEN
Action Item 07D-7: Alicia H. and Darryl B. to develop a service for asserting outcomes.
Status: OPEN
Action Item 07D-14: Darryl B. to derive an XML schema from the information model and distribute to the subcommittee for review as an alternative to the emerging schema.
Status: CLOSED
Action Item 08A-01: Darryl, John S., & Pat K. to generate a proposal for a Gray Scale Health indicator for services and for the DCM but not necessarily for calculating specific Gray Scale Health. Proposal due at the April DMC Meeting. If the proposal is not ready for the April Meeting this action item will be moved to Open Issues for future revisions of this standard.
Status: CLOSED
Action Item 08A-02: Darryl to review Clause 4.4 to see if it needs modification and ensure it supports model exchange in both EXPRESS and XML.
Status: OPEN
Action Item 08A-03: Mark and Tim to rework the conformance section to allow conformance under one of two categories or both. Categories are conformance to services or models. Conformance to models only, models and model manipulation services, or runtime services (checkboxes not levels). Remove XML data exchange from conformance.
Status: CLOSED
Action Item 08A-04: John, Joe and Mukund to harmonize the information model, definitions, and the schema.
Status: CLOSED
Action Item 08A-05: Brit F. to QA SIMICA prior to MEC.
Status: CLOSED
Action Item 08A-06: Tim W. to initiate SIMICA MEC followed by the rest of the ballot process after QA.
Status: CLOSED
New Action Items
Action Item 08B-01: John R. to provide a proposal for identifying specific test result elements that identify failures leading to the current maintenance events in the MAI document. This proposal will be furnished to Joe S. to modify the XML schema and to John S. to modify the information model.
Status: OPEN Making progress, but still in work.
Action Item 08B-02: Joe S. to make changes to MAI schema resulting from schema review. Those changes affecting the EXPRESS will be be provided to John S. to make the associated changes in the information model.
Status: OPEN
Action Item 08B-03: John S. to check on whether there is a need for a Letter of Consent to use the EXPRESS-G figures generated by EDMVisualExpress.
Status: OPEN
Action Item 08B-04: Joe S. to update the MAI draft standard to incorporate the editorial changes recommended by the subcommittee.
Status: OPEN
Action Item 08B-05: All members of the subcommittee to provide a detailed review of the draft P1636.2 standard by May 23, 2008. Comments should be sent to Joe Stanco.
Status: OPEN
Action Item 08B-06: Oscar F. to examine the modified information models to determine impact on regenerating the WSDL for both 6.1 and 6.2 services. If impact is small, he will generate the WSDL. If it is large, impact on schedule will determine whether or not the WSDL will be generated and included in the standard.
Status: OPEN
Action Item 08B-07: John S. to update the definitions of the various outcome constants to tighten the semantics. The specific definitions to use are those provided by the April 2 email from Darry B. (titled, “suggested changes for GOOD/BAD/CANDIDATE and for hierachical consistancy”).
Status: OPEN
Action Item 08B-08: Darryl B. and John S. to reword the extension mechanism from the 2002 AI-ESTATE for the P1232 standard. The rewording will focuses clarity, consistency, and intent of maintaining semantic integrity combined with appropriate flexibility.
Status: OPEN
Issue 01C-1: Testability metrics based on maintenance philosophy, such as Fault Resolution, can provide a means of validating predictive measures. At this point, the information models used to support definition of metrics in P1522 are insufficient to address maintenance philosophy. Need to add a link to the SIMICA information model to reference P1522 and update P1522 to specify both predictive and actual measures. Then need to emphasize the role of MAI in collecting data based on maintenance practice. Still need something to make sure the predictive measures in P1522 reflect those maintenance practices. All of this is contingent upon P1522 surviving.
Status: CLOSED. IEEE Std 1522-2004 is being withdrawn.
Issue 06C-1: IEEE Std 1522 is not currently being used. Need to examine reasons for this and determine the future of the standard. Some possibilities to examine include: Does it a need management component (ala MIL HDBK 2165)? Are metrics too inaccessible due to tie to 1232? Is it simply a publicity/perception issue? Is there resistance to objective accountability? Discuss with program managers (Russell Shannon—NAVAIR).
Status: CLOSED High Priority IEEE Std 1522-2004 is being withdrawn.
Issue 07B-1: The current order constraint in 1232-2002 is difficult to understand and, therefore, difficult to use. The DMC decided to “minimalize” the order constraint to focus only on preconditions and added actions to the model. It is recognized that this minimalist construct is at best suboptimal and possibly “broken.” Unfortunately, timing prevents a new construct being included in the model, and the DMC felt something needed to be there to address ordering. For the next revision, a more expressive and usable order constraint facility needs to be incorporated into the model, replacing the current minimalist construct. One proposal on hand is Log #451.
Status: OPEN Medium Priority
Issue 07C-1: Need to perform a trade study to determine what new services are actually required. This is essential for establishing a usable scope for the service specification. The focus here is for the next revision of the standard.
Status: OPEN Low Priority
Issue 07D-1: These standards (especially AI-ESTATE) are difficult to understand due to the large number of options available to an implementer. It is really important to provide some kind of guidance to the implementer. The hope is that a User's Guide can be put together once the revision has cleared its next ballot.
Status: OPEN Medium Priority
Issue 08A-1: Craig M of NAVAIR suggest several additions to the SIMICA model at the 08-A meeting. One of those suggestions was to add a subtype of Design Model: Obsolescence Model. The question is whether the Obsolescence Model can be used a basis for triggering a maturation event and thereby affecting the Diagnostics Model. John S. has the use case (Asset Specific Diagnostics).
Status: OPEN Medium Priority
Issue 08A-2: John S. and Darryl B. raised the issue of Part 28 for XML schemas to support validation of instance models against the information model. The general issue of validating XML instance documents against EXPRESS information models needs to be explored, whether using a schema derived from Part 28 or an XML schema geared toward XSLT translation to Part 21.
Status: OPEN High Priority
#467 CraigMcCullough SIMICA Input.ppt
#468 Gray-scale health.htm
#469 New 1232 Conformance 1-1-jws-tjw.doc
#470 Part 28 XML Schemas for 1232 (D. Busch)
#471 Draft Conformance Section (T. Wilmering)
#472 Draft Service Specification (D. Busch)
#473 MAI Summary of Changes (J. Stanco)
#474 Draft Extensibility Section (D. Busch)
#475 Answers to questions from Kevin Coggins (J. Ralph)
Call to Order
Approval of Agenda
Reports
Chair's report
Secretary's report
Liaison Reports (CS, I&M, AES)
Brief presentations
Finalize AI-ESTATE
Document review
Prepare for ballot
SIMICA Ballot Resolution
MAI Discussions
Document review
Prepare for ballot
Pxxxx AI-ESTATE User's Recommended Practice
Requirements Document (priority 1)
Draft PAR (priority 2)
Final Discussions on All Topics
Review Old Action Items
Review New Action Items
Set Time and Location of 08-D Meeting
Set Agenda for 08-D Meeting
Adjourn