Standard profits: Make2Pack and ISA88 
Recent Posts
- Make2Pack in Europe, working prototype automation object, 2 meetings
- WBF gets technical director; learn automation, controls in Barcelona or Chicago? OMAC, WBF in Durham
- Interdependence within ISA88; automation object and state diagram updates
- Why automation training is a good thing; brush up your skills with…
- ISA Make2Pack-2009 Calendar: Version Oct. 17, 2008
- European events, opportunities, review ISA88 series
- PackML ISA Technical report from Make2Pack is finally available!
- Skills gap: Standards, workforce development, and Automation Federation
- Proposed 2009 calendar for Make2Pack Part 5, related meetings
- Dayton Day 3 and OPC: Data integration, instruments, pharmaceuticals
Recent Comments
- Willie Lötz on PackML ISA Technical report from Make2Pack is finally available!
- Francis on Dayton Day 3 and OPC: Data integration, instruments, pharmaceuticals
- Francis on ISA88 Technical report discussion uncovers new ground for future standards update, Part 1 of 4
- Francis on Is that a Sequence or is that a Recipe? The answer is YES!
- Francis on What is Recipe Control?
Most Commented On
- Mode is a many-splendored thing (6)
- It’s elemental Mr. Watson: control system terms (2)
- Dayton Day 3 and OPC: Data integration, instruments, pharmaceuticals (1)
- ISA88 Technical report discussion uncovers new ground for future standards update, Part 1 of 4 (1)
- PackML ISA Technical report from Make2Pack is finally available! (1)
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
Blog
Link This | Email this | Blog This | Comments (0)
Making control programming easier, no matter what language you are using
I have been struggling with how to equate what benefits the ISA88 Part 5 concepts will bring to the automation industry, and don’t feel I’m making much progress in how to express them. Maybe an exchange of ideas could help us all! There are many who think the Part 5 concepts are just more of the same that the IEC 61131-3 standard already delivers. Or more of the same as the EDDL effort delivers. I do not agree, and here is why:
It seems to me that the programming languages and function blocks available to industry today do not impose any recognizable structure or methods in their use to satisfy automation requirements. When evaluating an automation solution using today’s tools it seems that one must first learn the implementers “LANGUAGE” and syntax to understand how the “words” represented by function blocks and EDDL and other great tools are organized and directed to deliver the solution. Is the language read from left to right and top to bottom? Or bottom to top and right to left? Of does it start in the center and serial outward counterclockwise? Often more time is spent in deciphering the “LANGUAGE” of the implementer than understanding the application and how the recognizable function blocks and EDDL components are used.
Use the ISA88 Part 1 equipment and control models to help provide a recognizable structure. Then apply the bounding concepts of Part 5 to 1131 and EDDL, and others languages, objects and programming. Doing so creates a repeatable and recognizable form that guides implementers to more recognizable solutions that are flexible, repeatable, reusable, and more easily updated by anyone familiar with the standard. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
Do you know what I mean? Thoughts? Questions? Please use the comment tool below.
Related information: ISA104 and ISA103 committees will demo EDDL and FDT at ISA Expo 2008. a ISA104 Committee does Electronic Device Description Language (EDDL) and ISA103 covers Field Device Tool (FDT).
PLCopen provides guidelines on function blocks for motion control.
Making control programming easier, no matter what language you are using
August 13, 2008
I have been struggling with how to equate what benefits the ISA88 Part 5 concepts will bring to the automation industry, and don’t feel I’m making much progress in how to express them. Maybe an exchange of ideas could help us all! There are many who think the Part 5 concepts are just more of the same that the IEC 61131-3 standard already delivers. Or more of the same as the EDDL effort delivers. I do not agree, and here is why: It seems to me that the programming languages and function blocks available to industry today do not impose any recognizable structure or methods in their use to satisfy automation requirements. When evaluating an automation solution using today’s tools it seems that one must first learn the implementers “LANGUAGE” and syntax to understand how the “words” represented by function blocks and EDDL and other great tools are organized and directed to deliver the solution. Is the language read from left to right and top to bottom? Or bottom to top and right to left? Of does it start in the center and serial outward counterclockwise? Often more time is spent in deciphering the “LANGUAGE” of the implementer than understanding the application and how the recognizable function blocks and EDDL components are used.
Use the ISA88 Part 1 equipment and control models to help provide a recognizable structure. Then apply the bounding concepts of Part 5 to 1131 and EDDL, and others languages, objects and programming. Doing so creates a repeatable and recognizable form that guides implementers to more recognizable solutions that are flexible, repeatable, reusable, and more easily updated by anyone familiar with the standard. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
Do you know what I mean? Thoughts? Questions? Please use the comment tool below.
Related information: ISA104 and ISA103 committees will demo EDDL and FDT at ISA Expo 2008. a ISA104 Committee does Electronic Device Description Language (EDDL) and ISA103 covers Field Device Tool (FDT).
PLCopen provides guidelines on function blocks for motion control.
Posted by David Chappell on August 13, 2008 | Comments (0)
Advertisement
Advertisements
