When to submit the NWI for AP-238

[Martin Hardwick]

Pascal,

I have been thinking about this issue. There are a number of
alternatives:

1. Submit NWI then DIS
2. Submit NWI/DIS
3. Submit NWI/CD then DIS

The problem with option 1 is that we would be asking the countries
to vote on the NWI before seeing the AP document and there is a
high chance of confusion about the roles to be played by
ISO 14649 and AP-238.

Option 2 is not allowed by ISO.

Therefore, I think Option 3 is best. The ARM model for AP-238 is
already agreed in ISO 14649 and I think the quality of the work
we have done could justify going to DIS immediately, BUT we will
be the first AP to reference an ARM model defined by another standard
so I expect SC4 will want to review how it is done and a CD
ballot result of Yes with comments is probably the most efficient
way of doing this.

You are right that we need to get on with it. Fortunately,
David Loffredo assures me that the document will be ready by the end
of the January so even with the usual unexpected delays we should
have it submitted by the Myrtle Beach meeting.

Does anybody have any comments?

Martin



At 06:07 PM 1/11/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>Martin,
>
>
>Although I don't want to interfere in this US debate, may-be a way to solve
>the issue about pre-eminence of AP238 on AP213 ed2 is to not delay any more
>the NWI approval procedure for AP238.
>
>Otherwise, if a NWI for AP213 ed2 is proposed, countries would have problems
>to understand why a project officially proposed to ISO should be rejected
>because of a project that has not been yet officialized 2 years after the
>start of its PWI.
>
>
>Regards,
>Pascal Huau
>Association GOSET
>107,111 avenue Clemenceau
>92000 Nanterre
>France
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Martin Hardwick" <hardwick at steptools.com>
>To: "Jesse L. Crusey" <crusey at scra.org>; "Alan Crawford" <ALC at lsc.co.uk>;
>"'chiaki sakamoto'" <chiaki_sakamoto at keg.komatsu.co.jp>; "Friedrich
>Glantschnig" <fglantschnig at swissonline.ch>
>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>; "Stefan Heusinger"
><stefan.heusinger at isw.uni-stuttgart.de>; <kisinami at coin.eng.hokudai.ac.jp>;
><step-manufacturing at steptools.com>
>Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 4:07 PM
>Subject: RE: Your E-mail and Presentation "Machining features and Machinin g
>Process Features"
>
>
>>
>>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> AP-238 is used to exchange data between process planning (aka CAM systems)
>> and CNC systems. For a CNC system AP-238 is the new input replacing the
>> very old RS274D (G code) standard.
>>
>> Advantages of AP-238 as an input to the CNC include:
>> * 3D geometry
>> * Features (as defined in AP-224)
>> * Sequencing language for operations that allows nested, conditional and
>>   concurrent operations
>> * Geometric (AIC 519) and parametric tolerances
>> * Tool requirements (so the CNC can pick best available tool)
>>
>> There has been a tremendous effort in SC1 over the last 5 years to get
>> International Consensus on the information requirements for AP-238.
>> They are defined in ISO 14649 which is now at FDIS.
>>
>> In my view AP-213 has been sitting on the shelf for 5+ years because
>> very few systems want to write AP-213 data and no systems want to read
>> this data.
>>
>> I am very scared that the new AP-213 will try to become relevant by
>> being an alternative method for exchanging data between CAM and CNC
>> systems. Someone is already calling the new AP-213 STEP-NC.
>> The Army has been told it is STEP-NC and so has Focus Hope.
>>
>> This will hurt the International consensus painfully built
>> by SC1, and open Pandora's box because if one team is allowed to
>> define a redundant manufacturing AP for CAM to CNC exchange then
>> any group should be allowed to do so.
>>
>> Martin Hardwick
>>