Actual discussion on AP213+ or second edition

[Martin Hardwick]

Len,

The web site for AP-238 information is:

http://www.steptools.com/library/stepnc/tech_resources/

On this site you will find the mapping tables and the 
EXPRESS long and short forms. You will not find the ARM
for AP-238 because this is defined by 14649 and will be
referenced in AP-238.

Currently we are documenting the short form. The major
outstanding task is making the EXPRESS-G for the AIM.
When this is complete we will have a document that can
either go for a combined DIS/NWI or CD/NWI ballot. We
would be interested to hear the opinion of the team over
which is best DIS/NWI or CD/NWI. 

Martin Hardwick



At 11:02 AM 1/14/2002 -0500, Len wrote:
>Friedrich Glantschnig,
>I ask your patients with AP213 interest.  There are many thing going on in the area of product data and manufacturing.  My company has an interest in exchange of data that is not currently contained in AP224 AP214, or ISO 14649.  Martin has asked if we could enhance AP238 with my requirement needs.  So my task between now and the next SC4 meeting is to review the ISO 14649 document and the AP213 document.  I want to try and determine if it is possible to add my requirements to ISO 14649 or if indeed there needs to be an AP213.  I look forward to discussions on this topic at the SC4 meeting.  I am interested in all points of view so that the interest of all are met.
> 
>I do have one problem with reviewing documents and maybe someone can help.  I can't seem to find any AP238 documents at all.  Is there anything available that I can review to better understand it's scope.
> 
>Regards,
>Len Slovensky  
>-----Original Message----- 
>From: Friedrich Glantschnig AMT [mailto:fglantschnig at swissonline.ch] 
>Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 2:50 PM 
>To: Jesse L. Crusey; Pascal Huau; Alan Crawford; Martin Hardwick; Yong Tak Hyun; David Loffredo; Mueller Peter; Frederick Proctor; Chiaki Sakamoto; Len Slovensky(AP224); Jochen Wolf 
>Cc: Alain Bezos(GOSET); Erdos Gabor; Gröpper; Stefan Heusinger; Takeshi Kishinami; Dimitris Kiritsis; Kramer Tom; Willy Maeder; Suk-Hwan SUH; Young Bob 
>Subject: Actual discussion on AP213+ or second edition
>
>13.1.2002 
>  
>Dear all 
>As the convener of ISO TC184/SC1/WG7 I followed the actual discussion on purpose scope and needs for a revised AP213+ with interest and some dismay. 
>When I heard from Dr. Sakomoto on Jan. 03-2002 about the new intentions to include ISO 14649 / AP238 in the new AP213+, I gave Dr. Sakomoto a first, spontaneous  answer, which I include (Italic text below) for these who did not got a copy.  
>Further I agree fully with the statements given by Martin Hardwick in this discussion. 
>  
>Dear Dr. Sakomoto 
>Thank you very much for your contribution to the feature discussions. Your presentation in slide 2 can certainly help to understand the situation we are facing, but I can not agree to your postulations.  
>After month of discussions the conclusion was that we have not a basic problem with features only some small problems with terminology and a clear assignment what has to be done in each field of application. I think we have cleared this with the new annexe A in Part 1 of ISO 14649. 
>  
>We can only standardize models, data formats and interfaces, but never the process itself with its immense variety and individual resources. So we don't need an AP213 in the context you stated.  
>It is very dangerous to create redundant, not really needed standards. Maintenance and harmonization will be jeopardized. We have AP238 for full compability with the STEP environment 
>The machining technology takes place at the machines and ISO 14649 / AP238 defines all needed technology, the operations, workingsteps and tools.  
>If a new AP213 has to be done for whatever reasons are behind it, then it should not deal with machining technologies or repeat the standards set in ISO 14549 / AP238. The first AP213 was a kind of resource management, but between we have Mandate or partly AP214, which covers these aspects better. 
>If you want to deal in AP213+ with non CNC machinery and existing NC-controllers, fine, but then you must be aware, that it will be a very difficult task. In this field we use old but improved standards and also de-facto standards and an immense number of well working vendor specific solutions.  A new standard can nothing change in this well established and individually high sophisticated environment.  
>  
>In the CAM Systems the machining data is prepared using input from the design systems. As we have proved most (not all) of the design features can also be used for the needed volume removals and in nearly all cases the geometry data provided by the design features. So we have all what is needed for a through going data chain. 
>  
>In this context it still very unfortunately to use the term "machining features" for design or product features what they really are. It was always a misleading term and it would help if AP224 could make a change at one of the future updates. We would then not need extended redundant terms as "machining process features" 
>  
>This is my personal view and I think we will have to discuss your proposal at the next SC4 meeting in Myrtle Beach for a final clearing. 
>  
>With friendly greetings F. Glantschnig Convener WG7 
>  
>So far my first comments. I got an answer from Len, that he is tasked to work on the new AP213 and that for changing the term "Machining Features" in AP224 a SED must be issued. 
>I got also an answer from Dr. Sakomoto in which he explains in more details what is the intention of AP213 and I agree to this only, as far it is related to planning decisions and resource management, but not to include ISO 14649 / AP238 in AP213. I still think nobody can accept redundant standards, with all the problems I mentioned already in my first answer. In this connection we must also accept the arguments of Martin Hardwick, that data used in such a standard must be accepted and used by a majority of users, must be read in standard databases and interchangeable in user systems for any further benefits versus all existing and mostly well working systems in the wide area of Manufacturing planning. 
>  
>In spite of all arguments against it,  there maybe a place for a new AP213+ between AP224 and ISO14649 / AP238 for an extended planning of resources and their assignment for the manufacturing of one specific product, including tools, fixations, transport media etc.  but not set-ups, as these are directly related to the machining process.  
>It could also handle technology and data for non NC-Machining processes as treatments (hardening, honing , polishing, painting etc.), casting, forging, sawing etc in connection with the preparation of raw materials. It could also handle and assign inspection processes, but not measurement data and the measurement process itself. It could assign robots in the manufacturing process and deal with data for the robots operations, but not with the creation of this data. It could plan ev. needed intermediate assembling. Finally it could cover resource management for existing NC-machines and their program data, which are at the time not integrated in the future direct data chain CAD-CAM-CNC as  
>it will be with ISO 14649 / AP238. 
>To illustrate this I modified the Data flow diagram send by Len Slowensky  (see attached file). 
>  
>But once more. It will be a big and a very complex job to do such an AP and it would have to be done extremely well in offering real advantages to the millions of users worldwide, with their existing and partly high sophisticated individual systems in use. 
>We have to keep in mind the variety in resources, the variety in manufacturing methods for very similar products, the investment costs for smaller companies to be able to use such new planning methods  
>You will also face redundancy with existing standards as Mandate, AP214. But as these standards are not yet really implemented in the general manufacturing environment and Mandate do not handle technology,  there may be ways for harmonisation. from the beginning of work. 
>ISO 14649 / AP238 is a real interfacing standard with thoroughgoing data compability, and it can be used in the environment of existing Manufacturing planning. It will solve existing problems in interchangeability of NC-data and in the end it will reduce costs and it supports PDM data in STEP. 
>  
>I hope this to be a constructive contribution in the certainly ongoing discussions. 
>  
>Friedrich Glantschnig  AMT 
>  
>