This topic contains 8 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Simon Smith Simon Smith 7 months ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #4289
    Profile photo of Wes JordanWes Jordan
    Member

    Excited to see this get off the ground.

    A few quick questions to get started:

    1) Is there a mechanism for suggesting error corrections to the extent spec (email aside)?

    2) What’s the time-frame on fleshing out the missing comms protocol information (things like EventAck, the Handshake packets, etc.)?

    3) Ditto the next sections of the specification (ala error handling)?

    4) Security? Is the model going to be “use TLS” and push the configuration management into the vendor/value add space?

    #4292
    Profile photo of Dan BaileyDan Bailey
    Keymaster

    Thanks for your questions
    1) You can use the “contact” link at the footer at bottom of the website http://omlcommunity.com/contact/. This will allow you to send comments using the web form. “Technical Support” drop down option would be perfect for comments relating to specification (although all of the options will also reach us).
    2) The hand shake messages you can find in the specification section of the guide in the “protocol” group (it is the last grouping at the bottom). The “EventAck” message is missing and we will get this added as soon as possible. In the meantime we can send you the spec for this message via e-mail.
    3) The OML error messages are in the specification page under the “Error Responses” (towards the bottom of page). The error response messages are sent by an OML producer when different errors occur. We will add more detail about this flow to the next version of the guide. In the meantime we can send you some details to you via e-mail.
    4) TLS sockets should be used to prevent “man-in-the-middle” attacks / sniffers for the events/ commands passed between the endpoints.

    #4343
    Profile photo of DEEPAK H NDEEPAK H N
    Member

    Great for seeing this!

    Just wondering through, few quick doubts:

    1) Is “OML” this will become format like ODB++ or Methodology?
    2) If so how this is different from IPC-2581? Any relation?
    3) Is it made applicable to other vendors of EDA tool like Zuken, Cadence, Altium, Ansys, etc?
    4) What are the prime OML standard specifications over IPC-2581 standard?
    5) Is IPC-2581 standard supported in Mentor? Any plans..

    Thanks!

    Regards,
    Deepak

    #4371
    Profile photo of Dan BaileyDan Bailey
    Keymaster

    Thanks for your questions and apologies for delay in response.

    1) Yes, OML is a standard format. However OML is focused on data exchange for equipment at the manufacturing shop-floor, whereas ODB++ is relating to the exchange of PCB design data. The standards focus on different areas.
    2) As mentioned above, the focus of OML is manufacturing data, whereas IPC-2581, like ODB++ is relating to the exchange of PCB design data.
    2) OML is available as a fully open standard for all vendors, companies or individuals.
    3) The OML standard is not part of IPC-2581. As mentioned above, the standards focus on different areas.
    5) We recommend this question is raised on the Mentor ODB++ website. http://www.odb-sa.com/

    #4394

    Hi
    Need to understand more on OML integration to MES layer where can i find it? Also can we do away with OPC in case we use OML?
    Thanks
    Kartik

    #4395
    Profile photo of Dan BaileyDan Bailey
    Keymaster

    Hi Kartik,

    Thank you for your questions.

    Regarding MES integration, this is quite a wide topic and we would be interested to know which areas of MES you are interested in specifically. Generally speaking, most of the OML specification is applicable for different aspects of MES integration. You can download the full OML specification from the download section on this site. For example the “Item Data” OML messages can be used to drive MES or ERP back flushing with accurate material usage. The “MES Material Integration” is focused on synchronizing and validating material at the shop-floor equipment with MES systems close to real time. For product traceability data, there are also OML messages defined in the specification. If you have a specific use case, we are more than happy to discuss them with you to see where OML can fit.
    Regarding OPC standard, OML is capable of the same basic goals such as providing simple data collection. However, OML also provides a clear definition of the data content itself. This is currently focused on electronics assembly, but OML is also flexible for custom extension. OML is also bi-directional meaning you can control hardware or equipment or respond to requests from equipment, as well as simply collecting data. It is difficult to guarantee something is directly replaceable by OML, without seeing the detail. Again we are happy to discuss your specific needs.

    #4554
    Profile photo of Simon SmithSimon Smith
    Member

    We are manufacturers of Selective Soldering equipment and are interested in a possible implementation of OML. I notice from looking at the documentation that ‘Factory Resources’ is all based around SMT Assembly machines. Is there any plans to add additional messaging, equipment types etc. for other equipment?
    Thanks
    Simon

    #4578
    Profile photo of Dan BaileyDan Bailey
    Keymaster

    Hi Simon,

    Thanks for your question. This is interesting. OML does include more than the SMT Assembly machines, for example test and inspection machines, and also some lower level capture from scanners, and input/output and so forth. This was the starting focus and the longer term goal is to cover all the key types of shop-floor equipment, and soldering is of course always present. OML does not yet define dedicated messages for the different types of soldering machines, but we believe it will certainly add to value to OML to add support for this. If you have examples of the data your equipment can support, then we would be very interested to review that together with you, to see how it could be defined as part of future version of OML. If this proposal sounds reasonable, please e-mail us and we can try to setup a short discussion.

    • This reply was modified 7 months ago by Profile photo of Dan Bailey Dan Bailey.
    #4580
    Profile photo of Simon SmithSimon Smith
    Member

    Thanks for the reply Dan. From another source I have been given Michael Ford’s contact details. As he is based in the UK, like myself, I will contact him next week and talk to him. I think there is definitly some mileage in looking at adding Selective Soldering to OML.
    Once again thanks for you reply.
    Simon

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.