Background
File Format
Test Data Identification
Participant Identification
Implementers Agreement
Demonstration Products
The AP 216:2003 Implementers Forum started at 8 am on Tuesday, March 02, 2004. The team is looking to start formal testing with AP216 and will later proceed to other APs (215, 218, 227).
The meeting opened with a background discussion of previous AP 216 demonstration and implementation projects. AP 216:2003 Ship Moulded Forms was published August 1. The US Navy has an AP 216:2003 translation to get ship moulded form data into LEAPS and ASSET and back out of LEAPS. Some ISE members have tools based on the IS balloted AP 216 schema that had some minor changes before publication. eMSA has some software developed to the DIS version of AP 216.
The NSRP Systems Technology Panel has some money to administer a ship AP Implementers Forum. AP 216 is ready for production software implementation and it is simpler than some of the other APs so will make a good software validation test case. We can use the lessons from this implementers test forum to help decrease time and increase quality of future implementations of more difficult ship APs.
The goal of the NSRP Systems Technology Panel AP 216 Implementers Forum is to enable shipyards and software vendors to develop and validate AP 216:2003 translation software so the ship industry can economically share hullform data between partners and customers with confidence in its accuracy.
PDES, Inc. has provided guidance on their CAX Implementers Forums and we will be basing the NSRP Systems Technology Panel Implementers Forum on their approach.
File formats were discussed (part 21 and part 28). Part 28 Edition 2 will be going to CD ballot at the end of March. It reduces the options from the first edition but that solution means that groups can use any XML approach they want to. Edition 2 is not upward compatible, therefore, with the first edition. The team decided that Part 21 would be the best exchange mechanism for starting the AP 216:2003 software testing. Participants will exchange Part 21 with the other test team members. If a company wants to use Part 28 (XML) input and output formats then they will be responsible for acquiring the in-house or commercial software tools needed to do the transformation between Part 28 files and Part 21 files within their organization.
The US Navy LEAPS AP 216:2003 translator project funded by the Navy e-Business Program Office updated ESTEP hullform data developed by Intergraph to conform to the published versions of AP 216:2003. The data is for the TRW841 Torpedo Retriever that is publicly available. The original file was generated by Intergraph and reviewed and edited by Electric Boat, STEP Tools, Atlantec-ES, and Product Data Services Inc. Annex A is a zip file of the LEAPS test case file the Navy used along with 2 file graphics.
The AP 216:2003 file was distributed for test use/comment/enrichment. EPM and JMSA reviewed the data and their comments were reviewed against the LEAPS test file. Some of the comments are informative but some identified incorrect application of the standard.
Annex C is a file containing JMSA comments on their analysis of the test file in Annex A. JMSA presented comments from its review of the AP216 Test File:
— Schema name should be capitalized
— “Application_protcol_definition” is necessary (i.e. AP216:2003 IS)
— “Product_category” is necessary (i.e. “navy ship”)
— Some Class and Group_relationship are missing
— Ship_moulded_form class is necessary
Annex G contains the EPM Technology error report for the AP 216 file.
Jochen had run his EXPRESS validation and identified several “errors” in the AP216 test file. Some of these are still valid in the Part 21 file because of the way the STEP implementations are done for Shipbuilding; some actually indicate desired changes to the Integrated Resources to accommodate Shipbuilding.
So we need to address issues like:
Some of the errors raise interesting questions. Should T 23 submit a Standards Enhancement Discrepancy System (SEDS) report against an Integrated Resource part so only local coordinates are not required? We only want global coordinates in a ship product model data exchange. For now we can comment out sections of file and explain why. Another question is the lack of an SC4 approach for identifying CCs.
The EPM and JMSA comments will need to be taken into account to create a valid AP 216:2003 file. It was agreed that we should use the corrected file as a start in our testing but it also needs enrichment.
The current test file is very simplistic with a hullform, bulkheads and decks. There was no preference as to what might be added to enrich the example (eg deckhouse, shaft supports, shafts, screws, skegs, rudders, bow thrusters, etc). Since the test data consists of a surface model and most systems can deal with surface data, the decision was made to use Conformance Class 4 for the software implementation testing.
EMSA could provide two sets of Test Files. One would be very simple, just testing a few attributes; the other will be a more complicated, complete test. Tim Turner will check on the availability of funding to create and validate the Part 21 files for these models.
The TWR Hull Form will be another Test Case. The current model is a fairly simple Hull Form, but this could be enhanced (by NSWCCD) to add thinks like rudders, or shafts, or screws, etc.
Metrics were mentioned as an important part of the test effort. The PDES, Inc testing used area, volume, and center of mass as measurements on the accuracy of an exchange. These should be good metrics for AP 216. It was suggested that we add generation of frame tables as part of our measurements to determine if we had an accurate AP 216:2003 exchange. People were urged to send suggestions to Burt for any metrics they would like to see checked in the validation of the AP216 exchanges.
Intergraph, SENER, and EB participated in the meeting over a speaker-phone connection.
Although the Systems Technology Panel test meeting administration is funded by the NSRP, the AP 216 software testing is open to all participants. Annex B identifies organizations that have indicated interest in participating in the AP 216:2003 Implementation.
The results of the testing are not to be disclosed by the participants. It is not a competition but a cooperative event aimed at increasing all the participants contribution to their to shipbuilding customer’s productivity.
Formal Implementation forums will be conducted by the NSRP Systems Technology Panel beginning in Newport News, VA on May 6, 2004. Potential vendors include Intergraph, Atlantec (for TRIBON), STEP Tools (for CATIA), SENER (for FORAN), LEAPS, Proteus (for FastShip).
NAPA was identified as a potential participant from Europe, although they may not have kept their translator up to date. There is much more interest among the Europeans in AP218 than in AP216.
People interested in participating in the Implementers Forum testing should contact Burt Gischner who is the Systems Technology Panel Chairperson.
An Implementers Agreement Guideline will be developed for AP 216:2003 CC4 based on earlier demonstrations. It was discussed as to whether the ISE (ESTEP) Implementation Agreements should be adopted as T23 Implementation Agreements. They must be reviewed in detail to see if they are applicable to the IS Version of AP216, and to see if they apply to general exchanges and translators.
Participants will adhere to the Implementers Agreements or identify their individual divergence for the other participants. The Agreement will be posted on the T 23 web page as a template for future production exchanges.
Conformance Class 4 of AP216 (Moulded Forms with Surface Representation) will be the initial focus for the AP216 Implementation Forum. It was pointed out that at some point we may want to expand to test Hydrostatics information (Conformance Class 1).
AP214 distinguishes conformance class in its schema name by appending a “_CC#” to the Schema Name. This pattern is not followed in the Shipbuilding APs or in AP227.
A draft agreement for AP 216 and 218 based on previous ISE exchanges is in Annex F.
The NSRP Systems Technology Panel AP 216 Implementers Forum hopes to achieve several things in the test effort.
The next NSRP Systems Technology Panel meeting will be at Newport News, VA in May. May 6 has been identified for the AP 216 CAX Implementers Forum. Software vendors and users are encouraged to bring their tools to that meeting for a n-way CAX exchange to help everyone rapidly test and fix hullform exchange software. The meeting will be at the Omni Hotel.
People interested in attending should contact Burt Gischner who is the Systems Technology Panel Chairperson.
Ron Wood presented a description of the ISE plan at the Open Technical Forum on Monday night. Annex D contains the presentation
Burt Gischner presented the AP 227 status at the meeting. Annex E contains the status of the process plant document for T 23 members.
The 43rd
SC4 meeting is scheduled for Bath, England, on 2004-07-04/09. We will continue the NSRP Systems Technology
Panel AP216 Implementers Forum at that meeting. T23
members are interested in liaison with manufacturing, plant spatial
configuration, and other APs identified in the T 23 plan. Individual T 23 members can liaison with those
projects to represent the ship building community and report on their
activities at the Bath England meeting.
The draft
agenda is:
8:00 Plenary
10:30 Liaison Meetings
5:00 Adjourn
12:00 Lunch
3:00 Break
5:00 Adjourn
eMSA Technical Coordination Meeting
8:00 Liaison meetings
5:00 Adjourn
8:00 Plenary
Future SC4
meetings are planned for:
|
44th |
2004-10-03/08 |
Seattle WA, USA |
|
45th |
2005-02-27/03-04 |
Lillehammer, Norway |
|
46th |
2005 (Summer) |
Valencia, Spain |
|
47th |
2005 (Fall) |
China |
Annex A - t23-annex-a-test_case_e_v3_IS-2004-03.zip is a file containing 3 files
Annex B - t23-annex-b-216-2003-test-participants-2004-03.ppt
Annex C - t23-annex-c-216-JMSA_test-case-comment-2004-03.ppt
Annex D - t23-annex-d-ISE_open_tech_forum-2004-03.ppt
Annex E - t23-annex-e-T25-AP227 Report-2004-03.ppt
Annex F - t23-annex-f-draft-Implementers_Agreement-2004-03.doc
Annex G - t23-annex-g-EPD_test-case-comment-2004-03.txt