Revision content and strategy discussion

Transcription

1 DIAGNOSTIC AND MAINTENANCE CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE 11-B MEETING St. Louis, MO June Proposed 11-B Agenda Call to Order Approval of Agenda Reports o Chair's report o Secretary's report o Liaison Reports (CS, I&M, AES, SAE) o Brief Presentations P User s Guide o Draft Review P1636 SIMICA o P1636 PAR discuss, prepare, or submit? o P o P Final Discussions on All Topics Review Old Action Items Review New Action Items Set Agenda for 11-C Meeting Adjourn Revision content and strategy discussion Minutes Tuesday, 14 June The meeting was called to order at 9:06 by Tim Wilmering. The meeting began with a quick security briefing. Everyone then introduced themselves. Chairs Report Since the last meeting, the AI-ESTATE standard was published. The DTIF User s Guide invitation to ballot has been released.

2 The minutes were reviewed and revised. John S. moved to accept the minutes as revised. Simon J. second. The motion passed without objection. The action items and open issues were then reviewed. For liaison reports, there was only an SAE report. Tim attended the first meeting of the SAE Health Management Committee. It was organizational in nature. There were 30+ people in attendance representing US and UK (as well as some European). Mike Roemer is the chair. Several areas were brainstormed, and 8-10 subareas selected. Leaders were appointed for each subarea. Tim is remaining low key (as much as he can) for this work. Tim is part of a systems subarea (with Andy Hess). The SAE is also rushing together a book on health management. Each chapter is pages providing a Health Management 101 perspective. The first draft is complete and the final draft is in work. Tim is doing a Systems Engineering chapter. The goal is to have the book ready for the SAE Aerospace Conference in Toulouse. P User s Guide Discussion Simon Jessop started by presenting a couple slides providing an overview of the draft for Section 5 in the User s Guide. This is entered as Log 501. The discussion of the section took up a good bit of the afternoon. The markup of the discussed section is being entered as Log 502. At the end of the day, we discussed next steps on the User s Guide. It was suggested that we have monthly telecons with any interested party participating, but especially Simon, Tim, and John. For the first telecon, Simon will incorporate the changes from Log 502 and flesh out sections 1-5 based on committee comments. Then Simon will review the document to identify areas where help is needed for discussion during the monthly telecons. Wednesday, 15 June P Test Results Discussion The working group started working on the Test Results information model. This work continued throughout the day unabated. The committee was provided with a set of draft XML schemata for P and P These schemata were purported to contain the changes agreed to in the 11-A DMC meeting (Orlando). The group reviewed the 11-A changes. Other changes, in addition to the 11-A changes, were noted in the schemata. A document was provided (Log #503) that, helpfully, reconciled changes in the schema from v3.05 through v4.03. A number of changes were noted in the reconciliation document and in the 4.03 schema

3 that were not discussed in DMC session. The committee proceeded to review these changes for suitability for inclusion into the standard. Thursday, 16 June The session began by completing administrative tasks. Discussion resumed on the review of changes to the Test Results schema. 1. V4.03 includes an attribute documentrequirementid on the Action complex type. The DMC recommends this not be included for several reasons, including duplicating information across parts of the information architecture (Test Description and Test Requirements), thus weakening the architecture and raising long-term consistency issue, and standardizing on a capability that has no evidence of broad industry support. Note also this can be handled through the extension mechanism. 2. V4.03 includes an attribute callername to complex type TestGroup. It is to be a user friendly name for a calling routine associated with the invoked test group. The DMC recommends this not be included for several reasons, including a lack of formal association with the calling program or call tree (if there is one), the fact that Test Results data is dependent upon tests but in general does not speak to the specific implementation (this is addressed by ATML standards). In addition, this appears to be standardizing on a capability that has no broad industry support. Note also this can be handled through the extension mechanism. 3. V4.03 includes attribute type added to complex type Reference. The explanation and annotation are insufficient to understand its use. Unless better explained and justified, the DMC recommends this attribute not be included. In addition, the schema includes an entire structure to document the reference; therefore, this appears to be superfluous. In addition, this appears to be standardizing on a capability that has no broad industry support. 4. There was a mismatch in the enumerations of OutcomeValue and SessionActionOutcomeValue. The reconciliation document harmonized the outcome values with The DMC reviewed this change and recommends that we incorporate the revised enumerations. The information model was updated to include the revised set. In addition, in preparation for harmonization across DMC, ATML, and other SCC20 standards, the outcomes were moved from the Test Results schema to the SIMICA Common ( ) schema. 5. V4.03 includes attribute referenceid added to complex types Outcome and SessionActionOutcome. This was not documented in the February minutes; however, the DMC reviewed this change and agrees that it would be a useful addition to the schema. This addition will support linking across 1636 and 1671 schemata to support consistency across the information architecture and maturation of the test and diagnosis process. 6. V4.02 added Diagnosis to TestResults to provide a top-level view of the final set of indictments associated with the session. V4.03 removed Diagnosis. The

4 DMC reviewed this change and noted that no justification was given for its removal. It is not clear how to proceed. 7. The reconciliation document indicated that the Marked several attributes as being explicitly optional instead of using default value for required. The attributes were not identified; therefore, the DMC cannot take action on this change. As such, there is now a mismatch between the XML schema and the information model with no straightforward way to resolve short of a tedious review of the entire model. 8. In February, it was agreed to change ItemInstance to SystemInstance. The reconciliation documents points out that one has been missed (specifically on UUT). This needs to be corrected in the XML schema. The meeting adjourned at 10:42.

5 Attendees Name Affiliation Day 1 Tim Wilmering John Sheppard Simon Jessop Damon Brown Day 2 Boeing Timothy.j.wilmering@boeing.com X X X Montana State University Day 3 John.sheppard@cs.montana.edu X X X Impact Tech Simon.jessop@impact-tek.com X US Air Force Damon.brown@robins.af.mil X X X Joe Stanco SSAI jstanco@ssai.org X X X Anand Jain National Instruments Mike Seavey David Sharone Northrop Grumman Anand.jain@ni.com Michael.seavey@ngc.com Lockheed Martin David.sharone@lmco.com X X X Action Item Summary Old Action Items 10A-01: (Was Issue 08D-02) Simon J., Alicia, Darryl, Tony A., John S., and Steve B. to document problems, issues, concerns, and/or difficulties in using the AI-ESTATE standard. Information will be used in the development of the User s Guide document. While this item will be directed to the users guide some effort will be applied to gaps in the services or in the models where, for instance, a required model feature may not be needed for all users. (ongoing) Action Item 10C-22: Mike S. to prepare and maintain draft of P and provide to DMC membership for review as drafts are completed. Status: Closed (ongoing) Action Item 11A-1: Simon to complete a strawman draft of sections 1-4 of the 1232 User Guide and forward to John and Tim by March 1. Status: Closed

6 Action Item 11A-2: John and Tim to review and comment on Sections 1-5 of the 1232 User s Guide and complete prior to first telecom of working group. Action Item 11A-3: Simon to complete a strawman draft of section 5 of the 1232 User s Guide and complete prior to 11B meeting. Status: Closed Action Item 11A-4: Tony to revise XML schema based on 11-A input. Status: OBE Action Item 11A-5: John and Tim to complete information model based on 11A input. Action Item 11A-6: John and Tim to complete SIMICA Common Information Model based on 11-A input. Action Item 11A-7: Tony to create SIMICA Common XML schema based on information model and 11-A input. Re-assigned to Mike Seavey or his designee. Action Item 11A-8: Tim and John to compare the XML Schema to the information model to ensure consistency. Status: Closed New Action Items Action Item 11B-1: Simon to incorporate the changes from Log 502 and flesh out sections 1-5 based on committee comments. Action Item 11B-2: Simon to review the document to identify areas where help is needed for discussion during the monthly telecons. Action Item 11B-3: Mike S. to remove documentrequirementid from Action in the v4.03 schema. Action Item 11B-4: Mike S. to remove callername from TestGroup in the v4.03 schema. Action Item 11B-5: Mike S. to remove type from Reference in the v4.03 schema. Action Item 11B-6: Mike S. either to justify removal of Diagnosis from TestResults or to restore it in the v4.03 schema. Action Item 11B-7: Mike S. to identify all of the attributes that were changed to be optional in the v4.03 schema.

7 Action Item 11B-8: Mike S. to change the type of UUT from ItemInstance to SystemInstance in the v4.03 schema. Open Issues Issue 07B-1: The current order constraint in 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. Issue 09B-01: Post-2010 revision of AI-ESTATE to include constructs, facilities, and services to support PHM (especially prognostics). Specific examples that must be covered include gray-scale health and time-to-fail. Issue 09C-01: It is unclear that the subcommittee has the resources, knowledge, background, etc., necessary to standardize on operational context for either diagnostics or prognostics. For that matter, given that context is domain specific, we are not sure that it is even possible. Status: OPEN Low Priority Issue 10A-01 Deprecation issue -- there are elements such as hardwareitem in 2007 Test Results that are replaced by, for instance, c:hardwareinstance. These replacements will break existing applications if proper namespace management is not used. The old Test Results namespace for 2007 will be made available on the SCC20 website for some period of time to support deprecation. New applications should map to the 2009/2010 version of the namespace uses the OID namespace management mechanism. Should 1636 standards use this for consistency, or should they follow ATML namespace conventions.??? A possible solution would be to create an OID for Test Results (and eventually one for SIMICA Common) and map the OIDs to the ATML namespaces, thus preserving both approaches. It is also possible that no mapping is required, depending on whether the OID is even necessary without a Part 28 XML schema being derived. Status: OPEN High Priority

8 Issue 10A-02 There is an issue of how to harmonize SIMICA Common and ATML Common. Status: OPEN High Priority (STATUS: PAR document in work to address this issue. Awaiting creation of SCC20 task group to harmonize across all working groups.) Issue 10C-01 Although ATML Common contains a WorkOrder complex type, the SimicaCommon.xsd still includes a WorkOrder complex type and it has different attributes. Our SIMICA Common information model matches the correct version in ATML Common. WorkOrder should be deleted from SIMICACommon.xsd and be replaced with a reference to WorkOrder in ATML Common. Status: CLOSED After reviewing both the XML and information model in and ATML Common, we found that the two versions of Work Order were consistent. Issue 10C-03: Need rules to enforce levels and mutual dependencies between RepairItem-FunctionItem-Failure-Fault mapping in 1232 CEM. Issue 10C-04: In AI-ESTATE the current semantics won t support representing multiple disjoint ambiguity groups. Issue 10C-05: 1232 FailureDistributions are currently expressed in terms of time, however some applications express FailureRates in terms of cycles. AI-ESTATE should support this. Issue 10C-06: AI-ESTATE DLM EXPRESS needs to be updated with constraints that limit easily identified nonsense rules. Issue 10C-07: AI-ESTATE FTM EXPRESS needs a rule to ensure the tree is acyclic. Issue 10C-08: AI-ESTATE CEM needs to be examined to determine role and use for FailureMechanism. Issue 10D-01: The current version of the DCM does not support recording multiple repeated outcomes for a test or action at a single step. Some reasoners may make use of this information, in which case we need to provide a way to track the history of those observations. Whether and how we want to record multiple observations will be addressed in a future revision.

9 Issue 10D-02: The current version of the DCM does not support recording the number of resources utilized at a single step. Some reasoners may make use of this information, in which case we need to provide a way to track this value. Whether and how we want to record resource quantity will be addressed in a future revision. Issue 10D-03 - Test Results and the ATML standards try to support too many use cases and therefore have numerous optional elements. Mike Seavey suggests that for long term solution of reducing the number of elements we may need to subdivide the schema for different applications, each of which would appear in a different dot standard. Another solution would be to have a single standard with schemas to support subdomain application use cases. We need to think about this for Test Results and possibly MAI. Status: OPEN High Priority New Issues: Issue 11B-01 Test Results, MAI, and AI-ESTATE all make use of similar concepts related to Action, Test, Repair, and Diagnosis. Currently, the semantics, as defined in each of the respective standards, is different (sometimes subtly and sometimes not). As a SIMICA Common and eventually SCC20 Common are developed, these will need to be harmonized. Issue 11B-02 Test Results and MAI both have constructs for Repair/Repair Action. They probably need to be harmonized. They will also need to be harmonized with the Repair Action in AI-ESTATE. As a SIMICA Common and eventually SCC20 Common are developed, these will need to be harmonized. Log Items Items Logged at 11-A Meeting Log # 498 John Sheppard 1232 Grey Scale presentation Log # A TestResults Information modeling notes Log # A TestResults XML Schema notes Items Logged at 11-B Meeting Log #501 Section 5 Overview Slide for P (S. Jessop, 6/14/11) Log #502 Markup of Section 5 (Committee, 6/14/11)

10 Log #503 Test Results Reconciliation Document, v3.05-v4.03 (T. Lopes, 6/15/11) Standards Development Roadmap Project Task Date Due P User s Guide (expires 12/31/13) First Draft (Doorbell Problem) September 2011 Complete First Draft (Expanded case studies) January 2012 Final Draft April 2012 Ballot May 2012 Ballot Resolution July 2012 Commence Recirculation September 2012 Standards Board Approval December 2012 P (PAR expires 12/2013) Complete information model July 1, 2011 Complete XML schema July 1, 2011 Final draft document July 1, 2011 Go to Ballot August 2011 Negative Ballot Resolution October 2011 Recirculation January 2012 Submit to Standards Board February 1, 2012 Standards Board Approval March 2012

11 P (PAR expires 12/2014) Complete information model July 1, 2011 Complete XML schema July 1, 2011 Final draft document July 1, 2011 Go to Ballot August 2011 Negative Ballot Resolution October 2011 Recirculation January 2012 Submit to Standards Board February 1, 2012 Standards Board Approval March (no PAR) Amendment/revision to support OWL TBD Create PAR September 2011 Prepare initial OWL ontology January 2012 First draft March 2012 Final draft June 2012 Ballot July 2012 Ballot resolution August 2012 Recirculation October 2012 Standards Board approval December (no PAR) Amendment/revision to support OWL 1636 (no PAR) Amendment/revision to support OWL TBD TBD

12 Proposed 11-C Agenda (Friday, September 16, 2011, Baltimore, MD) Call to Order Approval of Agenda Reports o Chair's report o Secretary's report o Liaison Reports (CS, I&M, AES, SAE) o Brief Presentations P User s Guide o Draft Review P1636 SIMICA o P (Ballot resolution) o P (Ballot resolution) o P (OWL PAR) Final Discussions on All Topics Review Old Action Items Review New Action Items Set Agenda for 12-A Meeting Adjourn