STEP Convergence Whitepaper

Whitepaper

Development of a Convergent Modular STEP Application Protocol Based on AP 203 and AP 214:

STEP AP 242 – Managed Model Based 3D Engineering

Version 1.0 2009‐11‐05

PDES, Inc.

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 1

Table of content

1 Executive summary ...............................................................................................................................5

2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Context of the start of the activity................................................................................................ 8

2.2 History of the Convergent AP activity........................................................................................... 8

2.3 Basic requirements of the aerospace and defense industry ........................................................ 9

2.4 Basic requirements of the automotive industry .........................................................................10

2.5 Scope of the standards ...............................................................................................................10

3 Benefits of and Business drivers for a convergent AP based on AP 203 ed2 / AP 214 ed3................11

3.1 Benefits of Developing a Convergent Application Protocol........................................................11

3.2 Usage scenarios and use cases ...................................................................................................12

4 Requirements for the convergence of AP 203 and AP 214.................................................................22

5 Scope of the proposed AP 242............................................................................................................28

5.1 Functionalities both in AP 203 and AP 214.................................................................................28

5.2 Functionalities in AP 203 only.....................................................................................................28

5.3 Functionalities in AP 214 only.....................................................................................................29

5.4 New functionalities .....................................................................................................................29

6 Migration strategy ..............................................................................................................................30

7 Impact on complementary standards and applications .....................................................................31

7.1 OMG PLM Services......................................................................................................................31

7.2 SASIG ECM Recommendation.....................................................................................................32

7.3 NAS 9300 / EN9300 standard, for long term archiving and retrieval of 3D digital aerospace product information ...............................................................................................................................34

7.4 Consistency with ISO 3D light visualization specifications..........................................................36

8 Risk management for the convergent AP ...........................................................................................37

9 Project Plan .........................................................................................................................................40

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 2

9.1 Project organization....................................................................................................................40

9.2 Financial principles......................................................................................................................41

9.3 Deliverables.................................................................................................................................41

9.4 Costs............................................................................................................................................44

9.5 Scheduling...................................................................................................................................47

9.6 Responsibilities ...........................................................................................................................50

10 Summary – next actions..................................................................................................................52

11 Annexes...........................................................................................................................................54

Annex A AP 242 Detailed Scope ............................................................................................................54

List of figures

Figure 1 – Usage scenarios covered by AP 242.........................................................................................13 Figure 2 – Business Object Model and AM 442..........................................................................................24 Figure 3 – Implementation scenarios supported by AP 242.......................................................................26 Figure 4 – Dependencies between AP 214 edition 3 and OMG PLM Services, V2.0 ................................32 Figure 5 – Alternative implementation forms for ECM interfaces ...............................................................33 Figure 6 – EN9300 Part structure ...............................................................................................................35 Figure 7 – Project Organization ..................................................................................................................41 Figure 8 – Distribution of costs over work packages ..................................................................................46 Figure 9 – Distribution of costs in terms of priority......................................................................................46 Figure 10 – Project plan..............................................................................................................................49 Figure 11 – Distribution of costs over time..................................................................................................50

List of tables

Table 1 – Details of usage scenarios as business drivers..........................................................................18 Table 2 – Details of extended functionality as business drivers .................................................................21 Table 3 – Responsibilities ...........................................................................................................................51

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 3

History

Version Date Summary of the change Name

V0.1 2009‐08‐18 Initial version P. Rosche / JYD

V0.2 2009‐08‐25 Version with comments of 25th Aug teleconf

V0.3 2009‐09‐01 Version with comments of 1st Sept teleconf

V0.4 2009‐09‐28 Version with workshop results Max Ungerer

V0.5 2009‐10‐20 1st Draft for Review with major chapters included Max Ungerer

V0.5.1 2009‐10‐21 Main comments done by ASD SSG members Jean‐Yves Delaunay

V0.5.2 2009‐10‐27 Incorporation of review comments Max Ungerer

V0.5.3 2009‐10‐28 Interim version with comments and decisions from 2009‐10‐27 conf call

Max Ungerer

V0.5.4 2009‐10‐30 Ch. 1 include; figures improved; minor changes Max Ungerer

V0.6 2009‐11‐02 Final Draft for review Max Ungerer

V0.6.1 2009‐11‐03 Final Draft for review with comments Max Ungerer

V0.9 2009‐11‐04 Final Draft with review comments included Max Ungerer

V1.0 2009‐11‐05 Final Version Max Ungerer

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 4

1 Executive summary The competitive nature of the global marketplace has forced manufacturers to reduce expenses and become as responsive as possible to changing market requirements. Successful design and manufacturing enterprises and their supply chain partners must invest in the latest model based development and product lifecycle management solutions in order to remain competitive. Model based development and product lifecycle management include a wide variety of functions that must share data. If these functions are provided by tools from the same software vendor, then system integration is achieved by virtue of a single common data exchange framework defined by that vendor. Complete coverage of all functions desired in an enterprise is rarely achieved by a single vendor, however, is difficult to maintain over time, and customers became dependent from that vendor.

Companies today design, manufacture, and provide support for their products as part of a global, distributed enterprise. Acquisitions, mergers, preferred supplier relationships, and a desire to use best‐in‐class solutions result in a disparate set of software applications rather than a monolithic solution. Even very large companies have found it cost‐prohibitive to consolidate the entire enterprise on a single CAD/CAE or PDM/PLM system. Large OEM1s initially tried to deal with supply chain integration issues by insisting that all their suppliers use specific software solutions. This approach to integration limits the suppliers’ freedom to use tools that are most efficient for their business and adds cost as suppliers must maintain different systems for each customer.

A successful approach to support new capabilities and control costs is to implement data exchange standards that allow companies to integrate all phases of the product lifecycle using the most cost effective solutions regardless of the solutions adopted by other parts of the enterprise. Low cost CAD systems, viewers, and 3rd party engineering analysis and computer aided manufacturing (CAM) systems make it possible for even small companies to compete in a high technology environment on a cost competitive basis.

The STEP standard focuses on product data representation to support CAD/CAE and PDM data exchange, system integration, visualization, and long term preservation of product information. The automotive and aerospace industry in the US and Europe helped establish organizations to ensure the overall consistency of CAD and PDM information interoperability specifications. Two STEP standards that are widely implemented are AP 203 maintained by PDES, Inc. and AP 214 maintained by ProSTEP iViP and SASIG2. AP 203 is primarily supported by the aerospace and defense industry. AP 214 is used primarily in the automotive industry. Both standards are widely used in the supply chains of many industrial sectors.

Both the AP 203 and AP 214 standards have recently issued new revisions. AP 203 developers worked with industry users to identify information requirements to support new functionalities, such as, 3D Product Manufacturing Information (which includes Geometric Dimensioning & Tolerancing),

1 Original Equipment Manufacturer 2 Strategic Automotive product data Standards Industry Group

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 5

composites design data, and data quality. PDES, Inc. and other AP developers also introduced a new modular architecture for STEP to improve integration across AP implementations and substantially reduce standards development time and maintenance. ProSTEP iViP has identified similar needs and potential interest for a modularization of AP 214. The two standards share common data structures, but have some differences. Rather than pursue costly parallel development and maintenance efforts, developing a new, convergent STEP standard has been proposed.

This new standard is an opportunity to introduce new functionality, optimize development and maintenance resources, and strengthen the acceptance and support of STEP by the main manufacturing industries.

This whitepaper summarizes the business requirements, use cases, and benefits for industry on the one hand, and provides the detailed project planning (resources, deliverables, scheduling, costs, financing, project organization and responsibilities) on the other hand to enable the relevant organizations and industry stakeholders to decide whether to start a related initiative or not.

The major technical impact of the convergence effort will be in the areas of PLM integration, PLM services, Long Term Archiving (LTA), Model Based Development (MBD), supply chain integration, engineering design data exchange including composites, advanced Product Manufacturing Information (PMI), mechatronics, and systems engineering. The new STEP standard will be complementary to popular visualization formats, such as Adobe and JT, and will support advanced data content, such as advanced PMI, composites, and mechatronics.

The vision of the ASD3 Strategic Standardization Group (SSG) is of a consistent set of full 3D configured product model based standards for product information exchange, visualization, long term archiving, sharing, and quality control. Certain capabilities provided by AP 214 that are not included in AP 203 are of interest to the group in achieving that vision. Continued separate development of AP 203 and of AP 214 represents a risk to the realization of this vision.

Automotive stakeholders in the development of STEP include SASIG, JAMA4, Odette International, VDA5, ProSTEP iViP, as well as Chinese and Korean automotive industry associations. The automotive sector implements AP 214 and various derivatives of the standard. The OMG6 PLM services that are based on AP 214 are a mature, operational technology. The AP 214 Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerance (GD&T) model is widely used, as is the engineering change capability. The automotive industry supply chain is currently focused on visualization as one of the supply chain enablers. Advanced data structures developed for STEP standards will help drive new visualization capabilities.

3 AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe 4 Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association 5 German Association of the Automotive Industry 6 Object Management Group

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 6

A critical priority in the aerospace sector (and increasingly in automotive) is the need to address long‐term product model maintenance (archive). Because of the recent gains in visualization technology, it is no longer acceptable to just maintain the STEP product model and native CAD model. Traceability between the reference STEP product model and the visualization product model is a requirement because the visualization industry has not adequately addressed long‐term product data archiving issues.

Improved supply chain integration is a prime motivation for both sectors. The AP 214 model is the source for the OMG PLM services model. The OMG PLM services XML schema is based on direct compilation of AP 214. The OASIS7 PLCS XML schema is based on AP 239, which is a modularized AP and shares many data structures with AP 203. There is great potential for aerospace to re‐use the OMG PLM services in addition to the OASIS PLCS services. Product Manufacturing Information (PMI) capability is critical to future supply chain activities. STEP needs to be extended based on recent changes to ISO 16792 Technical product documentation — Digital product definition data practices and the relevant ASME8 standards. Both AP 214 and AP 203 would eventually need to be updated to maintain compatibility with these specifications.

Other areas of interest to both the aerospace and automotive industry are mechatronics, parametrics, electronics, sustainability, data quality, and the exchange of material data for compliance with environmental regulations. Developing a convergent standard will add new, important capabilities to STEP. The convergent standard will substantially reduce development costs due to a single development infrastructure and utilization of the new, rapid development and publishing environment. The rapid development and publishing environment will allow standards developers to create extensions in smaller batches (lean development). Smaller batch size will result in lower cycle time, leading to broader adoption of STEP.

7 Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards 8 American Society Of Mechanical Engineers

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 7

2 Introduction

2.1 Context of the start of the activity All new development efforts in the aerospace and automotive industry are based on 3D model based design methods, extensive use of the global supply chain and heterogeneous commercial off the shelf CAD and PDM systems. This has resulted in increasing business requirements for the interoperability of CAD‐PDM information, in order to achieve the development efforts on or under budget, on time, and with a high degree of quality.

The development of the initial editions of AP 203 and AP 214, which commenced in the early 1990’s, were focused on product data exchange. New processes have resulted in specialized functionalities for exchange, integration/sharing through Service Oriented Architecture SOA9, visualization, and long term preservation of 3D design information. For this reason, the US and European aerospace industry has set up organizations to ensure the overall consistencies of open PLM standards, with the development of policies for CAD and PDM information interoperability. ProSTEP iViP has identified similar needs and potential interest for the modularization of AP 214, in order to simplify updates with the new STEP functionalities such as 3D PMI.

The convergent AP project is an opportunity to optimize resources and strengthen the acceptance and dissemination of this new STEP standard by all industries worldwide. In the case of failure, the aerospace and defense industry on the one hand, and the automotive industry on the other hand, may diverge to develop and maintain different ISO standards.

2.2 History of the Convergent AP activity For 20 years a significant amount of effort has been made by the aerospace and automotive industry to develop the ISO STEP standards. AP 203 edition 1 was published in 1994, primarily driven by aerospace and defense requirements and developed and maintained by PDES, Inc. AP 214 edition 1 was published in 2001, driven primarily by automotive requirements, and developed and maintained by the ProSTEP iViP and SASIG organizations. Harmonization has been ensured by the use of agreed methods and recommended practices for the exchange of CAD and PDM information under the coordination of ProSTEP iViP and PDES, Inc.

Nevertheless, since 2004, 5 main technological breakthroughs have occurred:

1) AP 203 edition 2 is a significant improvement over AP 203 edition 1, covering 90% of the content of AP 214, and it is based on the improved ISO TC 184/SC 4 modular approach. The AP 203 edition 1 information model has been extended to include:

a. complex configuration management based on specifications of AP 214,

b. 2D drawing information (from AP 202 and AP 214),

9 Service Oriented Architecture

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 8

c. 3D composite design (from AP 209).

d. Requirements information (from AP 210 and from AP 233)

2) The development of the OMG PLM Services, based on the AP 214 ARM information model, and the PLCS PLM Services, based on AP 239, providing SOA capabilities for PDM integration within the OEMs and within the Supply Chain.

3) The development of DEXs10 as a method to define subsets of an AP with associated Recommended Practices

4) The emergence of usage of Reference Data Libraries (RDL)

5) The accelerated development of 3D lightweight visualization formats since 2007.

6) The strong involvement of the US and European aerospace industry in the LOTAR project to develop an international standard for long term preservation of 3D design product information.

7) The setting up of coordination structures within the AIA11 and the ASD, to ensure the consistency of e‐business standards, based on a similar interoperability architecture framework. Both organizations have identified the interoperability of integrated CAD and PDM information as key tasks, and have established project teams to address these issues (AIA EDIG12 and ASD SSG “PLM working group”).

The ASD SSG working jointly with ProSTEP iViP, and NIST working jointly with PDES, Inc. have identified an opportunity for a convergent AP, based on AP 214 edition 3 and AP 203 edition 2.

The first teleconference occurred on the 9th of July 2009. Additional teleconferences were set up in August and in September, resulting in the organization of a 3 day international workshop on the 23rd – 25th of September 2009 in Darmstadt Germany.

As a response to these initial activities, ISO TC 184/SC 4 has reserved a part number for the convergent AP: ISO 10303‐242. There are no further plans on the ISO level yet. Further action shall not happen before the convergent AP project is accepted by the stakeholders. Nevertheless, for convenience reasons in the remainder of this whitepaper, the term “AP 242” is used for the convergent AP.

2.3 Basic requirements of the aerospace and defense industry The main technical requirement for AP 242 is to become the cornerstone standard of the cross‐process capabilities for interoperability of core engineering design information under configuration management, that is to say,

10 Data Exchange Specifications 11 Aerospace Industries Association 12 Engineering Data Interoperability Group

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 9

• providing specifications for exchange and long term archiving,

• providing a consistent business object model used for PLM web services, and

• being the reference for the mapping to ISO 3D light visualization specifications.

AP 242 shall rely on the modular approach in order to ensure the consistency with other modular APs, covering the full product life cycle and the main disciplines:

• AP 233 (“Systems Engineering”),

• AP 209 (Analysis and simulation),

• AP 239 (“Product Life Cycle Support”),

• AP 210 (“Electronic assembly, interconnect and packaging design”).

2.4 Basic requirements of the automotive industry The main automotive technical requirements for AP 242 are the following:

• to provide all the functionalities of AP 214 ed3,

• to manage the upward compatibility of AP 214 and the OMG PLM Services,

• to provide possible scope extensions (via the modular approach) for e.g. shape quality, parametrics, requirements management, etc.,

• to gain broad worldwide acceptance of the new standard by users and vendors,

• the broad availability of software products supporting the new standard.

2.5 Scope of the standards AP 242 version 1 will provide at least all the functionalities covered by the AP 203 ed2 and AP 214 ed3. It is sought to include the “Shape Quality” modules, derived from STEP Part 59 and based on the SASIG PDQ guidelines. Extensions should be mutually agreed upon by the stakeholders of the development of the project.

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 10

3 Benefits of and Business drivers for a convergent AP based on AP 203 ed2 / AP 214 ed3

3.1 Benefits of Developing a Convergent Application Protocol Combining AP 203 and AP 214 into a single convergent information model provides benefits to both the user and vendor communities, and the automotive and aerospace industry. Some of the benefits identified are found below.

ProSTEP and PDES, Inc. combined their resources for testing CAD system implementations of the STEP standard 10 years ago. This combined testing forum is called the CAx Implementor Forum (CAx‐IF). The objective of the forum is to accelerate CAx translator development and ensure that user's requirements are satisfied. The development of AP 242 would take a similar approach to the CAx‐IF but with participation from a broader group of organizations. This collaboration from a large number of organizations and industries provides a larger resource pool than would be possible otherwise and would spread the cost across a wider group of organizations. This broader collaboration would also result in acceptance across a broader range of industries.

The development of the convergent AP provides an opportunity to add new capabilities not currently found in AP 203 or 214. Some of these capabilities would be product data quality, support of cable and wire harnesses, systems engineering, composites design and manufacture, and product management data sharing in a Systems Oriented Architecture.

The modular approach improves the interoperability of Application protocols. Applications based on different application protocols can share their data. Error corrections and minor changes to APs can be much faster due to the establishment of the modules database (STEP Part 1000). ISO has simplified the maintenance process to publish new versions faster.

Throughout the 10 years of CAx‐IF testing there have been a number of instances where AP 203 and AP 214 have represented an identical concept in a slightly different manner. This mismatch caused CAD and translator developers to have to develop approaches that would handle the differences in the models. Developments of these “dual” approaches have caused an additional burden on the vendors from the standpoint of a higher development cost. Therefore vendors would prefer supporting only one AP. The message from the automotive and aerospace industry worldwide to implement the new AP will be the single target for vendors.

Another issue that has impacted users and vendors alike is the time phased functionality mismatch between AP 203 and AP 214. Since AP 203 has become a modular data model, changes to it are made in a relatively timely manner. Changes to AP 214 have been more phased to correspond to ISO standards releases. Development and implementation of the convergent AP will alleviate this mismatch in functionality. Another aspect of this has to do with the harmonization between the two standards. Due to the different architectures of AP 214 and 203, harmonization of the two standards has been time

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 11

consuming and difficult in some instances. Time consuming harmonization between the two data models will no longer be necessary with creation of the convergent AP.

For the long term archival of design data, STEP provides the best alternative due to a number of its attributes:

• STEP is both human and computer interpretable

• The STEP standard does not change as often as commercial software used in industry and government

• STEP is software independent

• STEP is an international standard

Due to these reasons and more, STEP has been chosen by various aircraft certification bodies as the product model to use for the long term archival of technical data. By development and implementation of the convergent AP, commercial aircraft manufacturers will only have to support one product model since they sell their products globally.

This concept is an enabler of globalization, and the result would be a truly International Standard.

Many first, second, and third tier suppliers support numerous industries. Over the years the use of AP 214 has been more common in the automotive industry, and AP 203 has been more prevalent in the aircraft industry. From a CAD standpoint, the implementation scope has been nearly identical between these two APs. Supplier confusion has been common due to receiving different STEP standard files from OEMs in different industries. Creation of the convergent AP and software development by vendors will cease this confusion. Additionally, most if not all OEMs today are global industries. Therefore the convergent AP can be seen as an enabler of globalization.

While at the Application Interpreted Model (AIM) level of AP 203 and 214 are very similar, at the Application Reference Model (ARM) level, they are considerably different. CAD systems have implemented at the AIM level through the STEP physical file format, Part 21. Product Data Management (PDM) systems lend themselves more to ARM implementations using XML due to the less granular nature of their business objects. To make the convergent AP as useful as possible, it will contain a mapping from the ARM of AP 424 to the business object model of AP 242, which will be mapped to an implementable XML schema. The convergent AP will provide a unified approach to Product Data Management information exchange.

3.2 Usage scenarios and use cases The business drivers for a convergent AP are based on the following usage scenarios and use cases. Figure 1 gives an overview on the usage scenarios.

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 12

Manufacturer

Supplier

Customer

1. 3D Model based design3. Long term archiving 6. Domain integration

(Engineering analysis, Manufacturing simulation, Inspection planning, etc.)• Supplier data exchange

• Data sharing on SOA basis

• Supplier data exchange• Data sharing

on SOA basis• Engineering

VisualizationManufacturer

Supplier

Customer

1. 3D Model based design3. Long term archiving 6. Domain integration

(Engineering analysis, Manufacturing simulation, Inspection planning, etc.)• Supplier data exchange

• Data sharing on SOA basis

• Supplier data exchange• Data sharing

on SOA basis• Engineering

Visualization

2. Supplier data exchange4. Data sharing

on SOA basis5. Engineering

Visualization

Figure 1 – Usage scenarios covered by AP 242

1. 3D Model based design

Product design with a 3D master model including all the information typically on technical drawings, e.g. product manufacturing information, within this 3D model in order to avoid technical drawings completely.

Business driver for automotive and aerospace: Save efforts for drawing creation and gain efficiency, e.g. for downstream processes, by a unique 3D model based master design that covers all the information.

2. Supplier data exchange

Business driver for automotive and aerospace: The supply chain gains importance (increasing work share and responsibility) for the final product. Therefore an efficient and complete exchange and/or sharing of the product definition is important. The most efficient method is to base the exchange and/or sharing on one standard.

3. Long term archiving

Business driver for aerospace:

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 13

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 14

Documentation of aerospace and defense products have to be available more than 50 years, therefore long term archiving based on 3D model design is a strong requirement.

4. Data sharing on SOA basis

Business driver for automotive and aerospace: The extension of complete support of the product life cycle for design, manufacturing and support in service to include exchange with customers (airlines, fleet, …) in the service life cycle, is necessary. Therefore compatibility both with the OMG PLM Services and with AP 239, which is the AP for product life cycle support, (PLCS) is required.

5. Engineering Visualization

Business driver for automotive and aerospace: Since the number of data consumers is much higher than the number of data creators (internal and external suppliers) an engineering visualization strategy based on a lightweight visualization format can save significant license costs for data consumers while increasing the availability of 3D product data for all kinds of applications.

Business driver for aerospace: Use of one single standard AP 242 for the long term archive provides a consistent mapping to separate performance‐optimized visualization formats.

6. Other usage scenarios, including

o Design to Engineering Analysis

o Design to Manufacturing data exchange

o Design to Manufacturing simulation

o Design to NC planning

o Design to Inspection planning

Table 1 gives the details of the usage scenarios, the priorities and the benefits of a convergent AP.

Business driver Description Auto Priority

Aero Priority

Vendors Coverage Benefit of convergence Business driver

Usage Scenarios 3D Model based design

High High High ‐ for PMI

3D Model based development

No drawings High High Medium High Low

3D PMI High High High Medium High ‐ single PMI model. Shared resources to extend model

PMI 1.0 PMI 2.0

Supplier data exchange

High High High ‐ for recommended practices and XML implementation form

Common data format for supply chain

suppliers have multiple customers

High High Low High

Medium ‐ Some benefit since vendors support only one AP ‐ less confusion for users

PDM data exchange High High Depends on vendor

High

High ‐ Combined resources for single AP and common set of recommended practices. Business Object Model to XML schema (many users want XML data exchange format)

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 15


Aero Priority


Incremental assembly structure exchange

More related to recommended practices. Some extensions to model may be needed

High High Depends on vendor

High Medium ‐ would not need to develop in AP 203

Incremental CAD model and properties exchange

Micro changes Low Low Low Medium Low ‐ not a high priority

Long term archiving Medium High

High ‐ for model extension efforts and for target of a single LTA standard

Documentation of aerospace and defense products have to be available > 50 years. Product liability is important for automotive, too. Therefore long term archiving based on 3D model design is a strong requirement

3D Long term data archiving

PDQL part of this.

Medium High Medium High

High ‐ very important to users. Single AP less confusing. Share resources to extend model as needed

Data quality assurance

STEP Part 59. CAD 3D geometry. Important for long term data archiving

High High High

Modules completed. Not yet implemented

High ‐ would be added to converged AP. Reduced effort (would not need to add to both APs)

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 16


Aero Priority


Data sharing on SOA basis

High Medium

High ‐ combined resources and common set of PLM Services for the complete lifecycle

Extend life cycle for design ‐ manufacturing ‐ support in service, to include exchange with customers (airlines, fleet, …) in the service life cycle (AP 239 compatibility is required)

PLM Services (PLM SOA)

Sharing of PDM information. Current model used for OMG PLM services. PDM is subset of PLM.

High Medium‐Low

Depends on vendor

High

High ‐ Combined resources for single AP and common set of PLM services for complete lifecycle. Business Object Model to XML schema.

Engineering visualization

High High

Low ‐ specific visualization formats (e.g. JT) used, High ‐ share resources for kinematics

Use of ONE standard (AP 242) for the long term archive requires a consistent mapping to a separate performance‐optimized visualization format(Visualization formats JT, U3D and PRC are considered)

STEP to visualization

Other industry formats used for visualization

Low: JT as PAS used

High Low High Low ‐ single AP provides minor benefit.

Kinematics Medium Medium Low Medium (in 214 now)

High ‐ share resources to extend current data model

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 17

1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 18

driver Description Auto Priority

Aero Priority


Other usage scenarios Low Medium

Design to Engineering Analysis

FEA, Thermal, save analysis results (AP 209)

High High Medium High Medium ‐ benefit from modular architecture

Design to manufacturing data exchange

Low Low Low High Low

Design to manufacturing simulation

Assembly sequence, discrete event (manufacturing layout)

Medium Medium Medium Medium Low ‐ out of scope?

Design to NC planning Low Low

Depends on vendor (CAM vendors High)

High ‐ geometry, PMI, form features

High ‐ form features in new AP. Single PMI model.

Design to inspection planning

CMM programming. Inspection features?

Low Low Low

Medium ‐ geometry and PMI available

Medium ‐ single PMI model would be benefit. Potential future priority.

relevant business driver for automotive and aerospace relevant business driver for aerospace only

Table 1 – Details of usage scenarios as business drivers

V.:

Business

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 19

The business drivers for AP 242 are based in addition on the following extended functionality that may be addressed by AP 242 or via compatibility with existing APs.

1. Mechatronics

Business driver for aerospace and automotive: Aerospace and defense as well as automotive products include mechanical, electrical / wire harness, electronic and software components and systems. These have to be designed and verified in an interdisciplinary approach.

Therefore the compatibility with AP 210 and with AP 233 is required.

2. Other functionality

o Shape quality

Business driver for automotive: In automotive industry worldwide product data quality standards are essential for collaboration in a global environment. Therefore SASIG has invested significantly in the SASIG PDQ Guidelines that are incorporated in the STEP Standard as STEP Part 59. “Shape quality” modules, based on STEP Part 59, can be included in the Convergent AP in order to make this functionality available for applications.

o Macro cost calculation development

o Sustainability (recycling, environmental impact)

o Composites design and production

Business driver for aerospace: New aerospace and defense products are all designed using composite materials. These have to be exchanged with suppliers; therefore the compatibility to AP 203 ed2 and AP 209 is required.

o Piping and other routed systems

Table 2 gives the details of the extended functionality, the priority and the benefits of AP 242.


Aero Priority


Extended functionality

Mechatronics High High

High ‐ gain compatibility with AP 233 (Requirements) and AP 210 (Electronics)

Mechatronics systems including mechanics, electrics / wire harness, electronics and Software have to be designed and verified in an interdisciplinary approach (AP 233 Systems Engineering compatibility is required)

Mechatronics Requirements management

Very High

High Depends on vendor

Medium

High ‐ Combined resources for single AP. Gain compatibility with AP 233 and AP 210

Wire Harness

Wire harness. AP 212. Piping? Part of mechatronics?

High High Medium

Low ‐ in AP 212, but not in modules or AP 214

Other functionality Medium / None

Medium / High

High ‐ for composite materials, gain compatibility with AP 203 e2, AP 209 and AP 235

New aerospace and defense products are all designed using composite materials. These have to be exchanged with suppliers (AP 203 ed2 ‐ AP 209 compatibility required)

Macro cost calculation development

Link cost to detailed design

Medium Medium

Medium ‐ cost attribute in AP 214

Sustainability (recycling, environmental impact)

Medium Medium Medium Low? High ‐ share resources to extend current data model

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 20

1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 21

driver Description Auto Priority

Aero Priority


Composites design and production

None High Low High (in AP 203)

High ‐ would be added to converged AP. Compatibility with AP 209 important.

Piping and other routed systems

Important for ship building.

None Depends on vendor

relevant business driver for automotive and aerospace relevant business driver for aerospace only

Table 2 – Details of extended functionality as business drivers

V.:

Business

4 Requirements for the convergence of AP 203 and AP 214 The proposed AP 242 is a replacement of the existing AP 203 and AP 214 while remaining upward compatible with these two APs. Therefore it has to be generic enough on the one hand to address both aerospace and automotive applications and to avoid industry specific terminology. On the other hand, the contents, functionalities and features of the two existing APs (e.g. definition, constraints, or examples) must be supported.

The requirements for the proposed AP 242 are described in the following:

• Support of AP 214 definitions, constraints and examples

AP 214 is much more detailed and precise than the modular APs with respect to definitions, constraints and examples. Therefore this information has to be preserved. Some of this AP 214 content may go into the module 442, the main module of AP 242. But also the application modules of the 1000 series used by AP 203 edition 2 have to be reviewed and enhanced by the existing AP 214 definitions, examples and constraints in order to use those modules in the context of the convergent AP.

• Business Object Model

Due to the modular approach the modeling style for application objects defined in a module based Application protocol is much more generic than in a monolithic application protocol. As an example, the definition of the AP 214 application object Item is split within AP 203 over several objects like Product and Part. AP 214 shows on about 90 diagram pages all ARM concepts in a comprehensive way. The objects on the particular diagram pages are logically grouped by domains. This grouping is supported by a color scheme. This comprehensive ARM of AP 214 should be preserved in the new AP 242 for several reasons. Among them are:

o The ARM is used for the communication with domain experts.

o The ARM is the basis for SOA standards like the OMG PLM Services and ARM based business applications.

Therefore the addition of the concept of a Business Object Model to the STEP architecture is proposed. A business object model is an information model which is on the same level of granularity as the AP 214 ARM. It uses the vocabulary of the STEP modules. For example, in the business object model you might find the object Part with explicit attributes id, name and description. The object Product would then not be in the business object model. The business object model can be transformed in an XML schema with the same granularity.

The business object model provides a view on the AP 242 ARM Long Form. Consequently the business object model should be defined as an EXPRESS model with a mapping to the ARM of AP 242. The business object model and the mapping to the AP 242 ARM will be part of AP 242. The documentation form (EXPRESS‐G only, EXPRESS, complete with textual definitions and

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 22

examples, normative or informative part, additional clauses and annexes) has to be discussed in detail yet.

The introduction of the business object model is a new capability in the documentation of an application protocol. The starting point for the development of the business object model should be the current AP 214 Edition 3 ARM, which provides the right granularity of objects, but not the vocabulary consistent with STEP modules. The business object model shall have the granularity of the AP 214 ARM and be consistent with the information content / vocabulary of AP 242 ARM. The 242 ARM will look more like the current AP 203 edition 2 ARM to preserve the consistency with other modular APs. The intention is to define a single business object model for AP 242 with a mapping to AP 214. But it might be necessary to define several business object models for different business areas.

The business object model should be complemented by a Business Object XML Schema for SOA applications. This XML schema should be derived from the business object model EXPRESS by an XML configuration specification according to ISO 10303‐28 and be compatible to the OMG PLM Services Informational Model. There should be exactly one configuration specification defined in AP 242 to avoid different variations of the AP 242 Business Object XML Schema.

AP 242 would have 2 implementation forms:

o Part 21 files conform to the AP 242 MIM Longform schema,

o XML files conform to the AP 242 Business Object XML Schema.

The relationship between the two implementation forms is explicitly given in AP 242 by the mapping specification (ARM to MIM, clause 5.1), the mapping from the business object model to the ARM (new annex in AP 242), and the XML configuration specification (business object model to XML schema, new annex in AP 242). On this basis implementations can be realized to convert AP 242 Part 21 files into XML files and vice versa.

Figure 2 gives the details of the business object model approach and its position in the STEP architecture.

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 23

AP 214 ARM

DefinitionsObjects

DefinitionsConstraintsExamples

AP 203 ARM

Part 442

ARM Long Form

MIM Longform(implementable)

Modules

Complete EXPRESS-GDefinitions

Permissive lists Examples

ModulesView

(Mapping)

Business ObjectXML schema(implementable)

ARM Short Form

Constraints

Business ObjectModel

(Entities, Information model definitions, EXPRESS-G)

Compatible to OMG PLM

Services

Mappingspecification

Part 28 configuration

AP 242

Figure 2 – Business Object Model and AM 442

• Scope

AP 242 compliant applications shall be able to exchange design structure with mechanical and composite contexts.

AP 242 shall be extensible to cover upcoming new STEP extensions (e.g., 3D PMI "full semantic representation", 3D parametric, 3D Kinematics).

AP 242 shall be consistent with ISO TC184 product data quality standards (part 59).

• Compliance with the STEP overall framework

AP 242 shall be compliant with the list of other modular STEP standards (AP 233, AP 209, AP 239, and AP 210).

• Activity diagram

AP 242 shall contain a generic activity diagram. The processes may be specialized by each manufacturer community, according to their needs and priorities in specific STEP Recommended Practices.

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 24

• Documentation

AP 242 shall be fully documented, with generic examples or preferably concrete examples of automobile and aerospace allowing to ease the understanding by the users.

• Compliance with 3D visualization formats

The formats for visualization may have different data models, but a documented mapping from the AP 242 data model shall be part of a 3D light visualization specification.

• Consistency with LT archiving

AP 242 shall fulfill the requirements for LT archiving of aerospace and automotive product information. The upward compatibility of the information model shall be ensured (version management of the Long form of the ARM, AIM and the business object model).

The aerospace industry, as contributors to the AP 242 project and of the LOTAR international project, shall be a sponsor for the configuration management in order to ensure the upward compatibility of the STEP modules.

• Implementation

AP 242 shall allow for both MIM Longform and XML implementations on the business object model level. However, recommendations and rules are required, when which implementation form should be used. E.g., ARM for composite materials. Such recommendations shall be defined outside of the standard in AP 242 Recommended Practices (see below).

AP 242 shall describe the implementation technology without any ambiguity. Example: the standard shall contain both the Business Object XML schema and the XML configuration specification. There shall be exactly one Part 28 configuration specification within AP 242. Currently for STEP modular APs, multiple different XML schemas are allowed and might be implemented.

AP 242 shall use the concept of strong classification (as currently defined in AP 203 ed2 and AP 214 ed3, e.g. permissive list values for relation types) for clearly defined domains like geometry, or analysis. These kinds of classifications shall be explicitly defined in the standard. For product structure and other PLM/PDM type information AP 242 shall enable the use of an externally augmented classification built upon a framework template like ISO 22745, ISO 13584, or other RDLs.

Figure 3 shows the implementation scenarios that shall be supported by AP 242.

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 25


3D Model based design(without drawings) Supplier data exchange

Manufacturer Supplier

STEP AP242PDM+CAD

Visualization(PDF, JT)

ESBESB (AP242 XML + web services implementation form)

ConversionQuality check

PDM 1

CAD 1

PDM 2

CAD 2

RDLISO 13584ISO 22745

Web Clientsimple Viewer

Data consumer(information)

Offline DataExchange


3D Model based design(without drawings) Supplier data exchange

Manufacturer Supplier

STEP AP242PDM+CAD

Visualization(PDF, JT)

ESBESB (AP242 XML + web services implementation form)

ConversionQuality checkConversion

Quality checkPDM 1

CAD 1

PDM 1

CAD 1

PDM 1

CAD 1

PDM 2

CAD 2

PDM 2

CAD 2

RDLISO 13584ISO 22745

Web Clientsimple Viewer

Data consumer(information)

Offline DataExchange

Long term archiving(LTA)

Figure 3 – Implementation scenarios supported by AP 242

• Recommended Practices

Generic AP 242 recommended practices shall be developed, common to all types of industries. Example: update of existing CAD Recommended Practices, if required.

Recommended Practices shall be coordinated and developed according to a joint procedure between the stakeholders of the AP.

Common rules shall be defined for the use of an implementation form (Part 21 files conform to the AP 242 MIM Longform schema, XML files conform to the AP 242 Business Object XML Schema) as reference for the implementation, according to units of functionalities/modules/conformance options). E.g.:

o CAD 3D with PMI exchange and LTA : MIM Part 21

o Composite materials exchange and LTA: Business Object XML

o PDM now: exchange and LTA: MIM Part 21

o PDM future: exchange, sharing and LTA: Business Object XML

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 26

• Organization

There is a strong need to set up a single international organization in charge of the coordination of AP 242 and of the associated common recommended practices. The organization model for the steering committee and for the procedure of coordination has to be defined.

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 27

5 Scope of the proposed AP 242 Generally speaking AP 242 is the successor of AP 203 and AP 214. The new AP will replace the two existing ones. The user and vendor community of both existing APs would expect that none of the functionalities, which are currently defined in the two standards, disappear. Therefore the scope of AP 242 shall be at least the union of the AP 203 edition 2 scope and the AP 214 edition 3 scope. I.e. the first edition of AP 242 shall be a superset of AP 203 edition2 and AP 214 edition 3.

5.1 Functionalities both in AP 203 and AP 214 The following functionality is already covered by AP 203 ed2 and AP 214 ed3 and shall be retained in AP 242:

• Product / part / item (tool)

• Product management data (person, organisation, …)

• Product / item structure

• Document management

• External file reference

• Product / item properties

• Effectivity

• Work / change management

• Product / item classification

• Specification control

• 3D element structure

• User‐defined attributes

• 2D/3D drawing

• 3D annotation

• 2D/3D visualization

• 2D geometry

• 3D wireframe

• 3D surface

• 3D BREP solid

• 3D CSG

• 3D GD&T

• 3D tolerance

• 3D surface condition

• 3D form feature

5.2 Functionalities in AP 203 only The following functionality is contained in AP 203 ed2 only and shall be retained in AP 242:

• Catalogue

• Requirements

• 3D construction history

• 3D composite design

• Chemical substance

• Tabular measurement values

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 28

5.3 Functionalities in AP 214 only The following functionality is contained in AP 214 ed3 only and shall be retained in AP 242:

• Cost calculation

• Process planning

• 3D kinematics

• Machining features

5.4 New functionalities Under the umbrella of AP 242 there are several functionalities with strong industry interest, which exist neither in AP 203 nor in AP 214 yet:

• 3D shape quality

• 3D parametric / geometric constraints design

• 3D kinematics assembly

• 3D GD&T at assembly level

• Sustainability information

• Access rights / digital rights management (DRM)

• Software / mechatronics

• 3D electrical harness

• 3D piping

For “3D parametric / geometric constraints design”, “3D kinematics assembly”, and “3D shape quality” already application modules exist which are candidates for inclusion into AP 242.

Note: for 3D electrical harness, the success of AP 242 may result in the modularization of AP 212, taken into account the VDA KBL/VEC 13 specifications.

More details on the proposed functionalities including AP 203 / AP 214 consistency analysis are listed in Annex A.

13 Kabelbaumliste (Harness Description List) / Vehicle Electric Container

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 29

6 Migration strategy A strategy for the smooth migration to the new AP 242 has to be developed. Confusion of users and vendors arising from dealing with 3 APs (AP 203 ed2, AP 214 ed3, AP 242 ed1) should be avoided (“war of 3 popes”). There must be a clear message, that

• AP 242 replaces the APs 201, 202, 203, 204, and 214,

• There is no further development or maintenance on the “old” APs. I.e., they have to be “frozen”.

The deprecation of AP 201, 202, and 204 is already proposed as the scope of these APs is covered by AP 203 edition 2. However, the message of a withdrawal after the publication of AP 242 to the outside market has to be considered. Implementations and products which claim conformance to AP 203ed or AP 214 ed3 must remain valid.

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 30

7 Impact on complementary standards and applications This chapter outlines the impact of the convergent AP to complementary standards and applications. The complementary standards in focus are:

• OMG PLM Services

• SASIG Recommendation for cross company Engineering Change Management (ECM)

• NAS 9300 / EN9300 standard, for long term archiving and retrieval of 3D digital aerospace product information

• 3D light visualization specifications

In each of the following sections a brief overview is provided, followed by the description of the dependencies and a discussion of potential impacts.

7.1 OMG PLM Services OMG PLM Services is a standard for sharing and exchange of product data in various application scenarios. It defines a platform independent reference model for supporting a variety of product lifecycle management services. This platform independent reference model consists of a so called Informational Model, specified using the XML schema notation, which is based on the AP 214 data model and a so called Computational Model which defines web‐services providing online access to the data and allowing internet based sharing and exchange scenarios. Version 2.0 is the current release of this standard.

The Informational Model of OMG PLM Services 2.0 is derived from a subset of the ARM of AP 214 edition 3. The following Units of Functionality (UoF) of AP 214 comprise this Informational Model:

• S1 Product_management_data

• S3 ‐ Item_definition_structure

• S4 ‐ Effectivity

• S5 ‐ Work_management

• S6 ‐ Classification

• S7 ‐ Specification_control

• S8 – Process_plan

• PR1 ‐ Item_property

• E1 ‐ External_reference_mechanism

In total the scope defined by theses nine UoF contains 233 Application Objects. The Informational Model of OMG PLM Services itself is derived from these 233 AP 214 Application Objects using the so called configuration mechanism of ISO 10303‐028. This configuration, defined in Annex L.2 of AP 214, specifies

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 31

a generative mapping that produces an XML Schema containing an XML representation of the 233 Application Objects. This XML Schema is identical to the Informational Model of the OMG PLM Services.

The following figure outlines the steps for producing the XML schema thus showing also the dependencies between AP 214 edition 3 and OMG PLM Services, V2.0

ISO 10303-214,Annex KAP214 ARM EXPRESS

ISO 10303-214, Annex L.2

P28 Configuration

ISO 10303-214,Annex M

XML Schema identical to Informational Model of

OMG PLM Services

ISO 10303-028,XML representations of

EXPRESS schemas and data, using XML

schemas

produces

Mapping: AP214 ARM EXPRESS PLM Services XML Schema according to ISO 10303-028, Chapter 10

Figure 4 – Dependencies between AP 214 edition 3 and OMG PLM Services, V2.0

These dependencies imply that any change of the ARM portion of AP 214 in the areas mentioned above, e.g. during the course of developing the convergent AP, will directly result in a different XML Schema produced by the P28 mapping.

If, on the one hand, modifications on the ARM Level of AP 214 caused by the convergent AP are moderate, it might be possible to modify the P28 configuration of annex L.2 in order ensure that the generated XML Schema remains identical to the Informational Model of the OMG PLM Services 2.0. On the other hand, if the ARM of the convergent AP differs considerably from the ARM of AP 214 edition 3 (e.g. modification of the data model structure, replacement of existing of introduction of new concepts), then it is likely that no P28 configuration might exists which is able to compensate the difference. In such a case, the development of a new version of the OMG PLM Services might provide a fallback solution. The border of the adaptability is determined by the power and possibilities offered by the P28 configuration options.

7.2 SASIG ECM Recommendation The SASIG ECM Recommendation provides a framework for the cross‐company engineering change management, thus enabling collaborating partners to communicate e.g. change request and change orders between their internal change processes and change management systems according to a defined ECM reference process with dedicated synchronization points and according to a well defined

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 32

data model. Version 2.0 released mid of 2009 is the current release of this SASIG Recommendation. It relies on Version 2.0 of the OMG PLM Services and on the AP 214 edition 3.

Currently the ECM Recommendation allows for three alternative possibilities for the representation of ECM data (implementation forms) within the cross‐company communication:

• EC XML Schema: an XML representation of the ECM Requirements Data Model that captures the information needs in the form of an end user terminology.

• Subset of the AP 214 ARM Data Model in EXPRESS: the elements of the ECM requirements data model are mapped to in total 60 Application Objects of the AP 214 ARM data model.

• OMG PLM Services: Through the mapping of the AP 214 ARM data model (see section 7.1 of this document) it is also possible to use OMG PLM Services for the communication of the change related data.

The following figure depicts the derivation of the three alternative implementation forms from the ECM requirements data model.

representedas

ECM Requirements

Data Model

EC XML Schema

AP214 ARM (subset)

PLM Services Informational Model (subset)

alternative allowed implementation forms

representing the information requirements

uses Annex L.2 of ISO 10303-214

Figure 5 – Alternative implementation forms for ECM interfaces

For those applications using the EC XML schema, no impacts caused by the convergent AP does exists, since this alternative is not bound to AP 214 / OMG PLM Services at all.

Applications based on an AP 214 ARM implementation of the ECM protocol or of an implementation based on the OMG PLM Services are directly impacted by a potential modification of the AP 214 ARM

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 33

caused by the convergent AP. The mapping of the ECM requirements data model to AP 214 ARM uses the following AP 214 eight UoFs and 60 Application Objects in total:

• S1 (17 Application Objects): item, item_version, design_discipline_item_definition, specific_item_classification, alias_identification, date_and_person_organization, date_time, date_and_person_assignment, person_organization_assignment, date, person, person_in_organization, organization, approval, approval_status, address, date_time_assignment

• S3 (3 Application Objects): single_instance, quantified_instance, next_higher_assembly

• S4 (2 Application Objects) duration, event_reference

• S5 (8 Application Objects): activity, activity_relationship, work_request, work_request_relationship, activity_element, project, project_assignment, project_relationship

• S6 (5 Application Objects): general_classification, classification_association, class_attribute, general_classification_hierachy, classification_system

• S7 (7 Application Objects): product_class, product_class_relationship, product_function, product_component, class_structure_relationship, product_structure_relationship, complex_product_relationship

• E1 (8 Application Objects): document, document_version, digital_document, digital_file, document_assignment, document_type_property, external_file_id_and_location, document_location_property

• PR1 (10 Application Objects): cost_property, mass_property, general_property, property_value_representation, string_value, simple_property_association, item_property_association, process_property_association, numerical_value, unit_component

This implies that any modification, in the areas mentioned above, that results from the transition from the AP 214 ARM to the AP 242 BOM will result in a change of the mapping from the ECM requirements data model to the business object model of AP 242.

7.3 NAS 9300 / EN9300 standard, for long term archiving and retrieval of 3D digital aerospace product information

The archiving of 3D design product information and making this information available in the event of product liability litigation poses a challenge – not only with regard to regulatory restraints. The LOTAR project group develops a standard for the long‐term archiving of digital product data in the aerospace industry. The objective is to establish methods, processes and a data model for archiving of 3D design aerospace product information, such as CAD 3D with PMI and PDM information. The LOTAR project is a

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 34

joint activity between the US and the European aerospace industries, under the supervision of the AIA and of the ASD Stan associations. The results of the project are the harmonized NAS9300 and EN9300 standards, respectively for the US and the European aerospace industies The LOTAR project group decided to organize the documents in different packages and parts (see Figure 6).

Figure 6 – EN9300 Part structure

This modular based concept provides a higher degree of usability and adaptability. The packages are as follows:

• The Basic Parts provide an overview of the essential information on long time archiving and retrieval of 3D Design aerospace product information .

• The Common Process Parts define the main process steps of archiving and retrieval of 3D Design aerospace product information in a detailed and common manner.

• The Data Domain Specific Parts contain requirements and definitions for specific types of data related to long time archiving and retrieval. So far descriptions for CAD 3D with PMI model data and PDM data exist.

The domain specific parts ‐ EN9300‐1xx ‐ LTA of 3D CAD contain fundamentals and concepts of LTA of CAx, Explicit CAD Geometry, Explicit CAD Assembly Structure, Geometry, and Dimensions & Tolerance. Since these parts are AIM based (AP 214 CC2), no negative impact is expected.

The domain specific parts – NAS 9300 / EN9300‐1xx – LTA of 3D CAD contain fundamentals and concepts of LTA of CAx, Explicit CAD 3D Geometry, Explicit CAD Assembly Structure, Product and Manufacturing Information (PMI), including 3D Dimensions & Tolerance. Since these parts are AIM based (common to AP 214 CC2 and AP 203 ed2), no negative impact is expected.

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 35

The domain specific parts – NAS9300‐2xx / EN9300‐2xx –“LTA of PDM” will contain fundamentals and concepts of Long‐term Archiving (LTA) of Product Data Management (PDM) data, PDM data from an "as designed" view, from an “as planned” view, and from an as “delivered/maintained” view. The first part, EN 9300‐210 “LTA of Product Management Data in an as designed view”, is currently in an early stage of work. This document will probably be based on PLCS (AP 239 edition 2) and AP 203 ed2/ed3 or the convergent AP, with a requirement of consistency between these APs The remaining parts forming the PDM series of documents have not yet been started. But it is likely that they will also be based on PLCS, if the fist part of the PDM‐related parts is based on it. Because of this fact, there will be a task to ensure the compatibility with the convergent AP.

7.4 Consistency with ISO 3D light visualization specifications The suite of consistent STEP modular standards covering the full product life cycle and the main technical disciplines shall be the primary solutions for interoperability of PLM product information. As such, AP 242 standard shall be the cornerstone for interoperability of the CAD and PDM information, and the new ISO specifications for visualization of 3D light product information shall contain the mapping from the AP 242 information model.

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 36

8 Risk management for the convergent AP With a project the size and complexity of AP 242, risks have to be expected in various areas. The following risks, the probability of them occurring, their severity, and the mitigation strategy are detailed below. For the probability and severity, the following abbreviations apply:

L = Low M = Medium H = High

Risk Probability Severity Mitigation

Strategy Risk of large numbers of business objects and implementation models (for automotive, for aerospace, etc.)

M H The team will have a strict rule to develop business object models for AP 242

Lack of consistency for complementary standards such as OMG PLM services or OASIS PLCS services

M H The proposed architecture of the AP provides a solution for consistency with complementary standards

Technical Failure to map between AP 242 long form ARM and the business object model

M M Careful design of the business object model will ensure the mapping is possible

Possibility of an upward compatibility problem with the AP 242 AIM long form relative to the AP 214 edition 3 and/or the AP 203 edition 2 AIM Long forms

L H

1) Correct the mapping 2) Correct the module 3) Raise a ballot comment against AP 239 DIS (Only in an extreme case)

Upward compatibility problem for the business object XML schema against the OMG PLM services V2

M M Bi directional mapping between both standards will be performed to ensure upward compatibility

Lack of “big picture” for the relationship / complement between the STEP standards?

M M The AP 242 team will actively participate in the SC4 modules development activities

Lack of compatibility of modular AP 233 and AP 239, with the detailed design modular APs, by difference in styles of modeling (explicit enumeration of classification vs. extendable classification capabilities by RDL)

H M

The AP 242 team will raise comments against the AP 239 DIS and AP 233 DIS versions Careful consideration of technical alternatives

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 37


Planning

AP 242 not available in the time requested by stakeholders (timely availability of funding)

H H

1) The stakeholders will provide resources as required due to their commitment to the creation of the convergent AP.

2) Careful preparation of the project plan

3) Project management resources will be made available by committed organizations

Recommended practices for AP 242 not available for timely implementation

H H

1) Available resources from stakeholders will be made available for development of recommended practices

2) Most of the CAD recommended practices will only take minor updates

Lack of AP 242 interface implementation by main PLM vendors

M H

1) Timely involvement of IT vendors 2) Timely availability of

recommended practices and sample files

Organization

Unbalanced sharing of responsibilities and/or resources between aerospace and automotive industry, US, European, and Asian regions

M H

1) committed joint ownership between the relevant international associations

2) Memorandum of Agreement between all committed organizations

3) Regular communication at the management and technical levels

Unclear procedures for development and evolution of the convergent standards and recommended practices

L M / H Committed joint ownership between the relevant international associations

Lack of identification or acceptance of stakeholders of existing APs

M / H H Committed joint ownership between the relevant international associations

Problem with different cultures and/or communities coming together to create a convergent AP

M H Regular communication at the management and technical levels

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 38


Cost

Lack of funding for development of the AP 242

H H

1) AP 242 development will not start until a minimum amount of funding is available

2) Committed organizations will pursue funding aggressively

Lack of funding for development of the AP 242 Recommended Practices

H M

1) AP 242 recommended practices development will not start until a minimum amount of funding is available

2) Committed organizations will pursue funding aggressively

3) Most of the CAD recommended practices will only take minor updates

Quality / performance

Lack of quality of the documentation of the modular AP 242

M H

Every effort will be made to ensure the documentation for AP 242 will be of a high quality and understandable to the appropriate communities

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 39

9 Project Plan

9.1 Project organization The project coordination should be shared by the US (PDES, Inc.) and Europe (ProSTEP iViP).

A steering committee will be established with representation from the stakeholders. Only associations who contribute to the funding will become member of this steering committee. The following organizations have been identified so far:

US International Europe

Aerospace AIA ASD

Automotive SASIG

General PDES, Inc. ProSTEP iViP

The technical tasks will be divided between working groups. Proposed working groups are:

• AP document and modules coordination Working Group

• Business Object Working Group

• PMI Working Group

• Other Working Groups

Project coordinators set schedule, assign tasks to working groups, organize meetings, etc.

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 40

ISO SC4 TC184 Project ISO Member Representatives

ProjectCoordination

SteeringCommittee

Working GroupWorking GroupWorking GroupWorking Group

ParticipatingOrganizations

Contractors

Funding

Technical ExpertsResources

Representatives

Figure 7 – Project Organization

9.2 Financial principles The total costs (workload in person days, see 9.4) will be shared equally between the US and Europe. Each coordinating organization (i.e. PDES, Inc. and ProSTEP iViP) is responsible for its own costs.

For version 1 of AP 242 the aerospace industry will bear the larger portion of the costs. A ratio of 65:35 is proposed. For the maintenance and subsequent versions of AP 242 an equal sharing of costs between the aerospace and automotive industry is proposed.

The US funding will be managed by PDES, Inc. The European funding will be managed by ProSTEP iViP. Due to the different financing and funding models of the two organizations (for example, within PDES, Inc. member companies contribute with human resources) the resources requirement in this whitepaper are in terms of human resources, not US dollars or Euros. The funding of AP 242 will be organized within PDES, Inc. and ProSTEP iViP, rsp.

Both organizations will provide individual budget sheets to their stakeholders. These budget sheets shall be based on the principles above and the organisation’s funding model. The budget sheets are required by November 5th, 2009.

9.3 Deliverables The main deliverable is a new modular application protocol – AP 242, and any associated new components of the ISO TC 184/SC 4 standards (modules, reference data, …). The project plan includes

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 41

the delivery of NWI/CD document, its submission for CD and DIS ballot, and the resolution of any comments received.

Besides the document itself Recommended Practices have to be updated and STEP interfaces tested. These tasks are part of the project, too.

Set of modified application modules

For AP 242 several modules have to be modified and new versions submitted to the Part 1000 maintenance process. The following modules are identified so far:

1001, 1003, 1004, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1019, 1020, 1022, 1023, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1030, 1032, 1033, 1036, 1040, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1046, 1047, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1068, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1115, 1116, 1118, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1124, 1126, 1127, 1129, 1130, 1131, 1132, 1134, 1147, 1164, 1206, 1215, 1216, 1242, 1248, 1249, 1262, 1291, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1316, 1321, 1323, 1327, 1330, 1345, 1347, 1350, 1364, 1365, 1403, 1480, 1507, 1509, 1510, 1512, 1514, 1651, 1652, 1654, 1661, 1672, 1715, 1725, 1749, 1764, 1778.

New application modules

For AP 242 several new modules have to be created and submitted to the Part 1000 maintenance process. Modules for the following functional areas have already been identified:

• Form features (Machining features)

• 3D Kinematics

• Process planning

• Cost calculation

• Change

• PMI enhancements

• Sustainability

• 3D parametric / geometric constraints design (priority 2)

• 3D GD&T at assembly level (priority 2)

• 3D electrical harness (priority 3)

• 3D piping (priority 3)

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 42

Part 442: The AP 242 main module

For the AP itself, a new module has to be created, which includes among others the EXPRESS long form and global rules.

Part 242: AP 242

The major parts for the new AP document are

• Scope

• Clause 4: Information requirements

• Clause 5: Module interpreted model

• Clause 6: Conformance requirements

• Annex: Activity diagram

• Annex: Business object model

• Annex: Mapping AP 214 ARM to business object model

• Annex: Business Object XML schema

• Annex: Mapping business object model to XML schema

• Supplementary material

Improvement of the STEPMOD infrastructure

The new concepts introduced by AP 242 (e.g. the business object model) require modification to the scripts, XSLTs, etc. provided on Sourceforge.

Updated Recommended Practices

The replacement of AP 203 and AP 214 by AP 242 has impact on existing Recommended Practices in the PDM and CAx area. The following documents need an update:

• CAx‐IF Recommended Practices

• SASIG PDQ Guidelines

• SASIG ECM Recommendation (priority 2)

• SASIG Assembly Data Exchange Recommendation

• OMG PLM Services Usage Guide (priority 2)

• PDM Schema Usage Guide

• VDA CC8 Recommended Practices on Variant Control Configuration (priority 2)

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 43

9.4 Costs The costs are calculated on basis of the identified technical work. The technical work can be broken down in several categories. The following tables show the estimated costs in person days (PD). The tasks are prioritized according to

• P1: Modules, AP 242, Update of CAx‐IF and Assembly data exchange Recommended Practices

• P2: Parametric and assembly GD&T modules, update of remaining Recommended Practices

• P3: Wiring harness and piping

9.4.1 Maintenance of the 1000 series

The cost for the modification of existing application modules and the creation of new modules is based on an analysis of AP 203 edition 2 and AP 214 edition 3:

• There are 199 AP 214 application objects which will imply the modification of existing modules (definitions, examples, EXPRESS, EXPRESS‐G, …). There are 314 examples in the application object definitions. To identify and initiate the necessary work in the 1000 Parts, in summary 40 PD are calculated for this task:

o 20 PD for issue documentation (bugzilla, etc.)

o 15 PD for the documentation of modified modules

o 5 PD for review and closing

• There are 72 modules identified which require modification. For each module, 1 PD is calculated.

• The inclusion of the functionalities which are currently exclusive to AP 214 require the creation of 14 new modules. For each new module 5 PD are calculated.

P1 P2 P3 TotalReview and modification of existing modules 112 112Creation of new modules for AP 214 functionality 100 100Creation of new modules for AP 214 functionality 10 35 45STEPmod improvement 25 25Development of a navigation utility 5 5Reviews 20 20

262 10 35 307

Task Workload (PD)Modification and creation of Application Modules (1000 series)

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 44

9.4.2 Development of AP 242 and application module 442

P1 P2 P3 TotalMain clauses 13 13Annexes 151 151Supplementary material 10 10Reviews 30 30

204 0 0 204

Task Workload (PD)AP 242 development

9.4.3 Update of Recommended Practices

P1 P2 P3 TotalPDM Recommended Practices 10 70 0 80CAD Recommended Practices 10 0 0 10

20 70 0 90

Workload (PD)Update Recommended Practices

Task

9.4.4 Testing of STEP interfaces

The testing of the STEP interfaces will be performed by the implementor forums within their usual test rounds. Therefore no additional costs are listed here.

9.4.5 Workshops

Several workshops have to be planned for the project. E.g. Kick‐off meeting, SC 4 meetings, review meetings. The calculated costs are 56 PD.

9.4.6 Project Management

For the project management 60 PD are calculated.

9.4.7 Total costs

P1 P2 P3 TotalModification and creation of Application Modules 262 10 35 307AP 242 development 204 0 0 204Update Recommended Practices 20 70 0 90Workshops 56 56Project management 60 60

602 80 35 717

Workload (PD)Total costs

Main work package

Figure 8 shows the distribution of costs with respect to the main work packages.

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 45

Figure 8 – Distribution of costs over work packages

Priority 2‐3 tasks represent a 20% of the total cost (see Figure 9).

Figure 9 – Distribution of costs in terms of priority

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 46

9.5 Scheduling The project is divided in 5 main sections:

• work around the modules,

• redaction of the new AP (development of AP 242 and AM 442),

• definition of recommended practices,

• interface testing protocols, and

• project management.

The overall project including ISO ballot, priority 2 and 3 tasks is 18 month.

The pure development phase of the priority 1 tasks for the new AP242 ready for a first Ballot at SC4 is scheduled for 15 month after M0.

Besides the logical dependencies between the different tasks two other factors that impact the project schedule have to be taken into account:

1) The availability of the resources. We are relying on a limited amount of human resources, around 10 persons, each of them having other activities in the time frame of the project.

2) The necessary iterations which will be needed to reach consensus between the AP242 stakeholders and also between the development team and the SC4 working groups (WG 3, WG 12).

The schedule starts from the hypothesis that the work shall not be distributed over too many people to benefit from the best expertise through the whole project. It is suggested to consider having 4 main experts of AP203, AP214 and the modules architecture producing the real work + extra man power for the project management and some specific tasks. The workload is distributed among the experts to get monthly load between 35% and 75% on a single expert.

To allow the consensus iterations reviews and approvals tasks are included at the end of each major section in the project plan. The review and approval tasks are concurrent with the end of the development tasks and extend the development tasks schedule by a few weeks/months.

Milestones

Starting with a M0 at project launch, the following milestones are on the critical path:

• M0 + 3mo: End of review of existing modules

• M0 + 3mo: Start of Business Object Model definition

• M0 + 7mo : End of redaction for main document scope, clause 4 and 6

• M0 + 7.5mo : Approval of modules modifications

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 47

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 48

• M0 + 10.5mo : End of priority 1 new modules from AP214

• M0 + 10.5mo : End of Business Object Model definition

• M0 + 12mo : End of Express‐G schemas for 242 module

• M0 + 12mo : End of mappings between ARM and BOM, AIM and BO‐XML schema

• M0 + 12mo : Start of reviews and comments answers phase with stakeholders and SC4

• M0 + 12mo : start of ISO ballot process

• M0 + 18mo : End of project

Concurrently with these milestones, the other tasks are not on the critical path and have the following expected schedule

• Update of the priority 1 recommended practices from M0+8mo to M0+10 mo

• Update of the priority 2 recommended practices from M0+13mo

• Update of the CAx‐IF and PDM‐IF from M0+15mo to …

• Priority 2 new modules development from M0+16mo

The complete set of tasks is detailed in Figure 10.

1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 49

Figure 10 – Project plan

V.:

Regarding the costs distribution in time, the total amount of priority 1 tasks is scheduled between M0 and M0+15mo (see Figure 11).

Figure 11 – Distribution of costs over time

9.6 Responsibilities The following project coordinators are proposed: Phil Rosche, PDES., Inc. and Max Ungerer, ProSTEP iViP.

The following table shows the responsibilities for the particular tasks:

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 50

Task Coordination Co-coordination

Review , Classification AP 214 ARM objects PS-iViPModification of modules PDES, Inc.Process planning modules PS-iViP3D PMI modules PDES, Inc.3D Kinematics modules PS-iViPForm feature modules PS-iViPPart 442 module PDES, Inc.ARM EXPRESS-G longform PS-iViPParametrics modules PDES, Inc.Assembly GD&T modules PDES, Inc.3D electrical harness modules PS-iViP3D piping modules ?STEPmode infrastructure PDES, Inc.

Scope & introduction PDES, Inc.Clause 4 PS-iViPClause 6 PDES, Inc. PS-iViPAAM PS-iViPBusiness object model PS-iViP PDES, Inc.Mapping AP 214 ARM --> AP 242 BOM PS-iViPMapping AP 242 BOM --> XML schema PS-iViP PDES, Inc.Mapping AP 242 BOM --> AP 242 ARM PS-iViP PDES, Inc.Supplementary material PDES, Inc.

SASIG ECM recommendation PS-iViPSASIG Assembly exchange recommendation PS-iViPUsage guide of OMG PLM services ?VDA CC8 Rec. Practices PS-iViPPDM schema usage guide PDES, Inc.CAX Rec practices PDES, Inc.SASIG PDQ guidelines ?

PDM PDES, Inc. / PS-iViPCax PDES, Inc. / PS-iViP

Project management PDES, Inc. / PS-iViPLinks with ISO TC184 SC4 PDES, Inc. / PS-iViPLinks with automotive associations (SASIG) PS-iViPLinks with A&D asso. (AIA, ASD SSG) PDES, Inc.MoU between SASIG, ASD, AIA, ProSTEP iViP & PDES, Inc. PDES, Inc. / PS-iViPCommunication PDES, Inc. / PS-iViP

Modification and creation of Application Modules (1000 series)

AP 242 development

STEP interface testing

Project management

Update Recommended Practices

Table 3 – Responsibilities

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 51

10 Summary – next actions Global manufacturing enterprises have a unique opportunity to develop a new information model for 3D engineering. The goal of the new information model was put quite succinctly in the Executive Summary of this document as:

This new standard is an opportunity to introduce new functionality, optimize development resources, and strengthen the acceptance and support of STEP by the main manufacturing industries.

To achieve this goal, a number of things are required:

• Cooperation from more than one industry

• A global alliance of committed organizations

• Collaboration among various communities

o Users

o Software vendors

o Standards developers

We have learned some important lessons during the development and implementation of AP 203 and 214, mainly:

• Software vendor involvement at every stage of the development process is key

• The standard has to keep evolving, both with changes and extensions

• It is difficult to keep two information models synchronized

• User requirements are the main driver behind the information model

• The standard by itself is not sufficient, recommended practices and interoperability testing are required

The path to realization of this new global information model is seen as basically two steps:

I. Agreement by the various organizations that the development is required

II. Funding the development

Agreement by all organizations that the development is required needs to occur by the end of 2009. The decision to fund the effort, and make those funds available needs to occur in the first quarter of 2010.

PDES, Inc. and ProSTEP iViP have enjoyed a long and mutually beneficial relationship over the years. The two organizations have worked closely on standards harmonization and implementation. One of the foremost requirements for AP 242 is to be developed and implemented in a timely manner. The reasons for this are that resources are finite, and companies have plans that include AP 242. To realize the goal

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 52

of the development and implementation of the new information standard, broader participation is required, both on an industry and a global level.

If there are any questions about this whitepaper, they should be directed to one of the following two persons:

Max Ungerer ProSTEP iViP +49 6151 9287 361 [email protected] Phil Rosche PDES, Inc. +1‐843‐760‐3593 [email protected]

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 53

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

11 Annexes

Annex A AP 242 Detailed Scope Separate Excel sheet STEP‐Convergent_AP_TECHNICAL‐WORK_V10.xls

V.: 1.0 – Update: 2009‐11‐05 54

Documents

STEP Convergence Whitepaper