Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [auto-iwg] Open Measurement Data WG vs. Auto WG?
Werner -

that’s all good questions that you are asking. 

Let me give you some background. In the past couple of month, the openMDM community (http://openmdm.org/) has worked with the EMO to transform it’s current organization into an Eclipse Working Group. There were many good reasons to consider this transformation, one being the open governance model of the Eclipse Foundation WG concept and the services provided by the Eclipse Foundation. In addition, the group had decided that the future open measured data projects should be developed as Eclipse projects under the EPL.

You also rightfully state that the ASAM is not really recognized outside the Automotive industry. This is (mostly) correct. And one of the goals of the working group is to promote adoption of ASAM in other industries, for example aerospace, ship building and so on. The group hopes that this can be achieved in a similar way as the TopCased project transformed into the Polarsys working group and was starting to reach out into other systems engineering domains.

So mostly the drivers of the openMDM initiative (namely the German OEM’s Audi AG, Daimler AG and BMW Group) drove the idea of this transformation.

Why do they propose an independent working group rather than participating in an existing one like Auto WG, Polarsys, Science or IoT? 
The answer is related to the CPR institutions design principles of the Nobel prize winner Elinor Ostrom, which state that a successful CPR needs to have clearly defined boundaries and rules etc. In our case this means that the open measured data management WG had requirements  regarding the governance processes for their working group that are not applicable to other WGs at Eclipse.

Taking all this together led us to the conviction that the creation of (yet) another WG was the right approach. Having worked very closely with the openMDM team I fully agree and support this approach.

Hope this helps.

Regards / Liebe Grüße,

Ralph Mueller

Director, Eclipse Foundation
Mobile: +49 177 449 0460
Office: +49 6251 789545


Am 26.06.2014 um 23:44 schrieb UOMo <uomo@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

All,

As both Mike and also UOMo comitter Chris Senior (in a JSR 363 related mailing list) mentioned the idea of a ASAM Open Measurement Data Working Group, I was wondering how it relates to this one? (Automotive)

There is practically no standard or member of ASAM outside the Automotive industry and current Auto WG Members, so what is the rational behind (yet) another WG here?

The propposed charter (https://www.eclipse.org/org/workinggroups/mdmwg_charter.php) mentions no other WG although it seems almost every other like Auto, IoT or PolarSys as well as Science, (if the "Measurement" is related to general Measurement units, like http://www.asam.net/fileadmin/documents/News/11_30_AMS_jBEAM-ODS-Novi-2012.pdf among otehr ASAM documents strongly suggest) should be.

NetCDF which above PDF refers to includes a "fork" of JSR 108, the first of 3 Unit JSRs, you can consider it a great-grandfather of JSR 363/Unit-API.

So where Open Measurement Data WG was open to include existing (Technology) projects similar to what we heard about Science recently, it sounded like a good match for OUMo. 

Question is, why are none ot the other WGs including this one are not mentioned so far?

Cheers,
Werner
_______________________________________________
auto-iwg mailing list
auto-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/auto-iwg

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Back to the top