[X3D-Public] Model Based Enterprise and X3D?

cbullard at hiwaay.net cbullard at hiwaay.net
Fri May 31 05:58:07 PDT 2013

Then Computer-aided Acquisition Support and finally Commerce At Light  
Speed (Really.).  CALS followed the same path as SGML/HyTime:  before  
any piece could be implemented solidly, the committee driven  
consultancies dipping again and again into the Beltway Bucks Bonanza  
kept making layer after layer of ever more inclusive and abstract  
turtles.  The web was like blues coming to crush be-bop jazz:   
uber-simplified gencoding on top of a properly layered  
model-view-controller client-server over a properly layered network  

It isn't that simple always wins; it is that running code beats  
incomplete specifications.  Lesson learned.

X3D as JSON would "look" like refactored VRML yes?

The model-based enterprise where the CAD model drives logistics has  
been doable for two decades or more.  Folks using say Solid Edge do  
this every day.   The gnarly bit is to understand the point is to  
finally publish books which skips over all the other illities that  
need to be supported as well as the orthogonal but money hungry  
marketing tasks and that the CAD model has to be de-densified for  
that.  The Cortona folks have this down to a science and a good set of  
tools for it,

The tasks that stifle these efforts are the intermediate dataset  
standards chosen by each culture within the enterprise that support  
it's names and properties from it's point of view (all the way back to  
1992 Contexts and Units as Guha et al described them; thanks Dan  
Brickley for reminding me of that).  So a contract comes in with CDRLs  
citing a bewildering and often incompatible for just plain wrong set  
of vocabularies.  Education about the application of FPIs would be a  
big help.

The work at schema.org to unify searching systems might inform such an  
effort but again, the trick is to declare and retain a super-focused  
scope of end item requirements.   Progress has been made but we still  
can't cleanly unify mil efforts for this and project to project, gig  
to gig, we are forced to put glue in the form XSL and other bits of  
code to bridge the domains.

Is it a good idea?  Of course.  Is it a new idea.  Hardly.  Like many  
things, iteration and rediscovery and rebranding eventually result in  
heroes who are proclaimed inventors and will have their fifteen  
minutes.  Same as it ever was.


Quoting John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com>:

> CALS -- Computer Aided Logistic Support.  Our branch was head by Bruce
> Garner and Don Vickers (of HMD fame).  Don tried to get me to adopt SGML as
> a distributed user interface protocol.  If we had been a bit more nimble
> and not so focused on s-expressions, web forms could be much more two
> way--which is what is finally being done with JSON today.  Don't make the
> same mistake with X3D that was done with HTML forms.  Make upload and
> download protocols very similar.  Make X3D a push protocol like Ajax,
> Comet, and new environments coming out like node.js.  Has anyone proposed
> supporting the JSON Schema effort and a JSON encoding for X3D?
> On May 30, 2013 3:53 PM, <cbullard at hiwaay.net> wrote:
>> 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<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
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> X3D-Public mailing list
>> X3D-Public at web3d.org
>> http://web3d.org/mailman/**listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org<http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org>

More information about the X3D-Public mailing list