[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  


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