FIATECH PCA Instrument and Control, December 1st 2015

Time and place

01.12.2015, 3.00PM - 4.00PM (CET)
GoToMeeting (how to connect - need login)
Next meeting: December 15th 2015, 3.00-4.00PM CET

Attendees

Bjørn Berli, Nils Sandsmark, Hindrik Koning, Ray Topping, Keith Willshaw, Darijus Strasunskas (MoM)

Agenda

1. Approval of agenda.
2. Approval of MoM.
3. DEXPI model for instrumentation
4. Status of DEXPI.
5. Status of STI.
6. Proposal for top classes of instruments.
7. Coordination of Reference Data development, maintenance and enhancement
8. Agenda for the next Meeting.
9. A.O.B.
10. Review of Actions

Minutes of Meeting

1. Approval of agenda.
Approved

2. Approval of MoM.
Approved

3. DEXPI model for instrumentation.
Hans help is needed. Discussion is postponed until the next Meeting.

4. Status of DEXPI.
By email from Heiner: "There is good progress: Instrumentation@RDL2. In general there are only two questions: ClassOfFunctionalObject? versus ClassOfActivity? and sometimes DEXPI needs more generic class definitions. On Friday morning we will continue the work with Hans and Hindrik. "

5. Status of STI.
Steering Committee has been held. Working on establishing method and process for discipline groups to work. First working Group (instruments) is planned to start right after Christmas. It is expected to present the method and process at the next SIG Meeting.

6. Proposal for top classes of instruments.
A good review is necessary, align with Part 4 top structure. Nils agreed with Paul to establish a Group for this consisting of Leo, Magne, Hans and David.
RDL2 group should come up with proposal for what should be included in Part 4, and what should be kept as extensions. Extensions (RDL2) could be put into PCA RDL.

7. Coordination of Reference Data development, maintenance and enhancement.
Work has started, conclusions have not been reached yet. PCA continue to work on this. Community is invited to come up with proposal. Lillian has proposed a checklist that is a good starting point.
Hindrik brought to attention the following aspects:

The content of the RDL

The rules on content and structures depend on type of RDL, pure Taxonomy is of course easy on content and structure. But the name and the definitions need to be recorded in an uniform way. At the same time the classification to higher levels (super classes) that form the link to the top is Important.
Lillian Hella her presentation in Baltimore fall 2015 was hitting that nail right on the head, her CR0006 Update of ISO 15926-4 note and dealing with the issue list had and should have a positive effect to this issue. Structure, for the spreadsheet application everyone will agree that the columns need a fixed place in the spreadsheet so the content can be placed correctly by the originating computer and at the same time reached by the receiving computer.

Levels of classification Make the classification as dense as possible, no Classification of different properties in series

The structure of the RDL (not the infrastructure)

The relations between the fields defined by rows and columns to higher classification (the super classes) need to be in an uniform way to speed up the ISO 15926 application in data exchange.

The infrastructure The infrastructure (FROM ISO 15926 WIP) needs more attention (data connections, server etc) the PCA website gives a lot of information but ISO standardization could be required.

8. Agenda for the next Meeting.
1. Approval of agenda.
2. Approval of MoM.
3. DEXPI model for instrumentation
4. Status of DEXPI.
5. Status of STI.
6. Proposal for top classes of instruments.
7. Coordination of Reference Data development, maintenance and enhancement
8. Collect and share work done on instruments (JORD, SIG)
9. Agenda for the next Meeting.
10. A.O.B.
11. Review of Actions

9. A.O.B.
None

10. Review of Action Items.
All remains.

Action items

15.03. PCA makes a draft proposal for coordination for the next discussion and distributes few days before the next Meeting. (pending from the meeting on 3rd of Nov.)
15.04. Hindrik to distribute sections 4.1 and 5.1 from "Functional safety" document.
15.05. Hindrik to discuss with Hans edm namespace used in instrumentation top hierarchy. How differet is it from Part 2 and Part 12? edm:FunctionalObject might be miscommunication as Keith was using FunctionalPhysicalObject?.

Home
About PCA
Reference Data Services (RDS)
RDS Operations Support
Meetings and Conferences
ISO 15926
Special Interest Groups
Technical Advisory Board
Norwegian Continental Shelf Std
Projects
Search