[X3D-Public] Model Based Enterprise and X3D?
cbullard at hiwaay.net
cbullard at hiwaay.net
Thu May 30 13:53:02 PDT 2013
CALS The Sequel.
It's a very old wine in a brand new bottle. Because of being
centered on S1000D data sources (data modules typical of technical
manuals), they might make it work. The S-series is in a pretty good
state of development.
1. Heavily encumbered by Consortium interests and high costs.
2. Thickly documented like bad stereo instructions.
The good news is parts of this are well-implemented by systems such as
the US Navy Common Source Database (NCSDB). So they have a good
running start on the Navy side. There is a bit more conflict on the
Army side with vested interests not supporting S1000D and relying on
MIL-M-40051C for most TM production.
Still, things are farther along than the late 1980s and early 90s when
this idea was last pushed hard. Note that X3D/VRML97 are already
approved 3D types for US Navy projects involving S1000D. My sense of
it is there are few compelling reasons to create, deliver an sustain
an IETM using 3D models given the needs for field usable TMs. Good
idea but the delivery requirements are expensive and difficult to
justify.
len
Quoting "Charles P. Lamb" <CLamb at acm.org>:
> Are any of you familiar with "Model Based Enterprise"? I've only
> just heard of it because the S1000D Steering Committee has recently
> established a Model Based Enterprise Task Team. I've only just begun
> learning about it. There is a website
> http://model-based-enterprise.org/default.aspx . It apparently is a
> U.S. Army Research Laboratory initiative to extend CAD data through
> all stages of a product including documentation. Right now it seems
> they are using 3DPDF as a delivery format. Perhaps they should be
> approached about considering X3D or X3DOM?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charles P. Lamb
More information about the X3D-Public
mailing list