Your E-mail and Presentation "Machining features and Machinin g Process Features"

[Martin Hardwick]

Len,

What new units of functionality are needed to cover Macro
planning? Can they be added to AP-224 or AP-238?

Do you have names for COTS Macro and Micro planning systems
that will use the new AP?

I do not want to be hostile but linking data together that supposedly
could not be linked before is the "bull" that was used to justify AP-232
and ended the unity on how to implement STEP in PDM.

Martin


At 11:02 AM 1/10/2002 -0500, Len wrote:
>We at RAMP think there is a 3rd.  It covers the exchange between the Macro
>process planning systems and the Micro process planning systems.  We also
>see it as the data repository for process plans, as well as the product data
>that links together the As designed data (AP224) and the AS manufactured
>data (AP238) and the AS inspected  data (AP219).
>
>Len
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Martin Hardwick [mailto:hardwick at steptools.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:29 AM
>To: Alan Crawford; 'chiaki sakamoto'; Friedrich Glantschnig
>Cc: Alan Crawford; David Loffredo; Frederick Proctor; Len
>Slovensky(AP224); Suk-Hwan SUH; Jochen Wolf; Peter Mueller; Yong Tak
>Hyun; Stefan Heusinger; kisinami at coin.eng.hokudai.ac.jp;
>step-manufacturing at steptools.com
>Subject: RE: Your E-mail and Presentation "Machining features and
>Machinin g Process Features"
>
>
>
>Dear All,
>
>My own opinion is that AP-224 is the input to process planning and
>AP-238 is the output.
>
>If AP-238 is NOT the output of Process Planning then what is, and
>what is the name and functionality of the system that reads in the
>new output and writes out AP-238?
>
>Potentially there are lots of applications that want to use the output of
>process planning but do these applications have information requirements
>that are not satisfied by AP-238 or could not be satisfied by making a
>minor enhancement to AP-238?
>
>In PDM STEP did itself a lot of harm by continually inventing new
>Application
>Protocols for trivial reasons- first AP-203 then AP-232 then AP-214 then
>PDM Schema then PDM Modules and now PLCS. As an expert it is very unclear
>to me why this was necessary. I really hope we can avoid making the same
>mistake in manufacturing. Manufacturing is divided into CAD, CAM
>and CNC systems how many AP's do we need? My answer is 2.
>
>Martin Hardwick
>
>
>
>At 02:48 PM 1/10/2002 +0000, Alan Crawford wrote:
>
>>Dear Chiaki Sakamoto
>>
>>Thank you for distributing your set of slides on the machining process
>feature.  The diagrams, in particular Fig. 1 will be a significant help in
>identifying the migration of design data in a form ready for machining
>processes.
>>
>>For AP224 the features are design representations prepared in a way useful
>for manufacture but that the features are independent of the method or
>processes used to manufacture.  In AP238, the features in a part file need
>to represent a component in the complete form for that operation, on that
>workcentre.  An updated approach is required for process planning in STEP,
>to establish the machining sequence.  Evidently one new task for process
>planning is to prepare the feature information in a form required for each
>workstation, it will also be important to exclude some features not required
>until later in the manufacturing sequence.
>>
>>As the scope of STEPNC is extended to consider that more than one machine
>for the manufacture of a component [the general case], the requirement for
>in-process features to describe part-machined features is evident.
>>
>>Best regards
>>
>>Alan Crawford
>>
>>LSC Group Ltd, Concept House, Victoria Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
>7HL, United Kingdom
>>
>>email:  alc at lsc.co.uk
>>Tel:    + 44 (0) 182 770 8582
>>Fax:    + 44 (0) 709 236 3698
>>mobile:         + 44 (0) 797 456 4773
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: chiaki sakamoto
>[<mailto:chiaki_sakamoto at keg.komatsu.co.jp>mailto:chiaki_sakamoto at keg.komats
>u.co.jp]
>>Sent: 07 January 2002 08:37
>>To: Friedrich Glantschnig
>>Cc: Alan Crawford; David Loffredo; Frederick Proctor; Len Slovensky(AP224);
>Suk-Hwan SUH; Jochen Wolf; Peter Mueller; Yong Tak Hyun; Martin Hardwick;
>Stefan Heusinger; kisinami at coin.eng.hokudai.ac.jp
>>
>>Subject: Re: Your E-mail and Presentation "Machining features and Machining
>Process Features"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Dear Mr.Glantschnig,
>>
>> Thank you for your comments on my proposal.
>>
>> My explanation was not enough.
>>So I added Fig.2 and its explanation in the attached file.
>>
>> I think we have common understanding about Process Data Model.
>>
>>Chiaki Sakamoto
>>Komatsu Engineering
>>
>>(See attached file: Machining Process Feature.ppt)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Friedrich Glantschnig" <fglantschnig at swissonline.ch> $BF|;~(J: 2002/01/03
>>20:07:39
>>
>>"Friedrich Glantschnig"
><fglantschnig at swissonline.ch>$B$5$s$KJV?.$7$F$/$@$5$$(J
>>
>>$B08 at h(J  :   $B:dK\(J $B at i=)(J
>>cc  : "Alan Crawford" <ALC at lsc.co.uk>, "David Loffredo"
>>      <loffredo at steptools.com>, "Frederick Proctor"
>>      <frederick.proctor at nist.gov>, "Len Slovensky\(AP224\)"
>>      <slovensky at scra.org>, "Suk-Hwan SUH" <shs at postech.ac.kr>, "Jochen
>>      Wolf" <j.wolf at wzl.rwth-aachen.de>, "Peter Mueller"
>>      <peter.mueller at erlf.siemens.de>, "Yong Tak Hyun"
>>      <hyt at wzl.rwth-aachen.de>, "Martin Hardwick" <hardwick at steptools.com>,
>>      "Stefan Heusinger" <stefan.heusinger at isw.uni-stuttgart.de>
>>$B7oL>(J  :   Your E-mail and Presentation "Machining features and
>Machining
>>      Process Features"
>>
>> << File: ATT29790.txt >>  << File: Internet HTML >>  << File: Machining
>Process Feature.ppt >>
>>
>>
>>*************************************************
>>COMPANY NOTICE
>>This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and
>>privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If
>you
>>are not the intended recipient (or authorised to receive information for
>the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all
>copies
>>of this message. If this e-mail contains attachments, you should ensure
>they are checked for viruses before opening them.
>>*************************************************
>>This e-mail originates from LSC GROUP LIMITED. Registered in
>>England & Wales No 2275471
>>Registered Office: Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1 4SG
>>*************************************************
>