by Gary Mintchell | Sep 16, 2016 | Automation, Internet of Things, Interoperability, Operations Management, Technology
September 14-15 found me back in Chicago for the International Manufacturing Technology Show (IMTS) and an IIoT conference sponsored by OMG and IIC. I’ll have several reports even though I fly to Sacramento Sunday for the Inductive Automation Ignition Customer Conference. (I’m writing this on Friday, but it may not get posted.)
Tom Burke, OPC Foundation President and Executive Director, stopped me as I walked the aisle. He talked about the cool things happening with OMAC. I do not know the technical details, but OMAC wishes to specify (not sure of exact technical term) OPC UA into its PackML as its communications protocol.
Turns out this is much more significant than I gleaned from the press release. By the time I waded through the marketing general statements, I gave up on reading the rest. For some reason, marketing and/or PR people seem to want to hit every buzz word in the beginning of a release in order to show relevance or something and then bury the good stuff almost off-hand in the bottom of the text.
This is a significant advance for interoperability. There remains a stance in the industry for point solutions that may be based on open standards, but are explicitly not interoperable—everything is held within the kimono, so to speak. Interoperability benefits an entire industry. The more that end users buy according to interop, the faster the pace of adoption will be.
IIoT and Pack Expo
Look for OPC Foundation (booth N-4702), PLC Open (booth N-4703), and OMAC (booth N-4800) at Pack Expo the first week of November. Be sure to vote first! Personally, I am torn between going to a single-supplier event or this one. Both are too expensive for the lone entrepreneur. I’ll wind up with one, though.
The OPC Foundation provided a couple of bullet points about its news:
- the results of joined collaboration between OPCF with OMAC about PackML mapping into OPC UA namespace
- the results of joined collaboration between OPCF and PLCopen about IEC61131-3 PLCopen Client FB to allow initiating an OPC UA connection from inside the controller
OMAC and IIoT
Here is the news from OMAC. “The Organization for Machine Automation and Control (OMAC), OPC Foundation, and PLCopen are working together to help advance communications protocols necessary for the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) to succeed.
Interoperability among devices and machines that use different protocols is a significant challenge in realizing the full potential offered by the Industrial Internet of Things. By collaborating on companion specifications to the standards and protocols they’ve already developed OMAC, OPC Foundation, and PLCopen can advance the quality and efficiency of data sharing and communication at the machine and production line and up through the enterprise. Collaborative efforts by standards organizations, such as OMAC, OPC Foundation, and PLCopen, align with the Industrial Internet Consortium’s goal to ultimately identify and define building blocks for interoperability that make smart factories and IIoT possible.
“Standards are needed to support communications from machine-to-machine and from the plant floor to interfaces that will allow large scale data analytics and information transfer,” says John Kowal, a member of OMAC’s Board of Directors, co-chair of the Industrial Internet Consortium’s Smart Factory Task Group, and business development director for B&R Industrial Automation Corp. “It just makes sense for these organizations which have individually done so much to advance automated manufacturing to collaborate and avoid redundant developments.”
Here’s how the three automation standards leaders are bringing their efforts together. One of OMAC’s major initiatives has been promotion of the ISA-TR88.00.02 automation standard commonly known as PackML. The second generation was released last year. Manufacturers and machine builders worldwide have implemented ISA-TR88 on various control platforms to increase speed to production, ease packaging line integration and improve reliability. While PackML defines machine modes, states and tag naming conventions, it does not specify a communications protocol.
The OPC Foundation’s Unified Architecture (OPC UA) is an industrial interoperability framework. It delivers information modeling with integrated security, access rights, and all communication layers to provide plug and play machine-to-machine (M2M) communication inside factories. It is scalable across the plant floor and from sensor to IT enterprise and cloud scenarios. OPC and PLCopen recently worked together to define a set of function blocks to map the IEC 61131-3 global standard for industrial controls programming to the OPC UA information communication model. The latest version was released earlier this year. IEC 61131-3 is the only global standard for industrial control programming and is recommended by OMAC in its Packaging Guidelines document.
To take their efforts to the next level, OMAC and the OPC Foundation have established a taskforce to develop a companion specification for ISA-TR88/PackML and OPC UA by the end of 2016. The task force led by Sari Germanos, open automation manager for B&R Industrial Automation, includes members of OMAC and OPC Foundation from around the world. Participation is open to interested members of either organization.
“A standard communication protocol, used consistently across the industry, is vital for realizing the full benefits of automation standards such as ISA-TR88, which then can be a valuable data source for smart factories and the IIoT,” says Dr. Bryan Griffen, OMAC Chairman and Nestlé Group Engineering Manager. “A companion specification between ISA TR88 and OPC UA fills this need and builds on the work completed with PLCopen earlier this year. The opportunities to transform manufacturing as hardware and software solutions are integrated through consistently applied, standardized protocols are extraordinary. We’re pleased to be a part of those efforts worldwide.”
“Today, there is more reason than ever to believe that communications standards will proliferate, as the IIoT drives the need to flatten network communication architectures,” says OPC Foundation Director Thomas Burke. “Along with organizations like OMAC and PLCopen, we’re actively engaged to do just that.”
“By collaborating and ensuring the standards we’ve developed work together we ensure transparent and fully secured communication right out of the box with standardized access between any OPC client and server via a secure channel, independent from network architecture and protocol or machine type and controls,” says PLCopen Managing Director Eelco van der Wal.
by Gary Mintchell | Aug 26, 2016 | Interoperability, Standards
This snippet from the conversation shows some of the urgency:
The first is that the kinds of technologies that have access controls for copyrighted works have gone from these narrow slices (consoles and DVD players) to everything (the car in your driveway). If it has an operating system or a networking stack, it has a copyrighted work in it. Software is copyrightable, and everything has software. Therefore, manufacturers can invoke the DMCA to defend anything they’ve stuck a thin scrim of DRM around, and that defense includes the ability to prevent people from making parts. All they need to do is add a little integrity check, like the ones that have been in printers for forever, that asks, “Is this part an original manufacturer’s part, or is it a third-party part?” Original manufacturer’s parts get used; third-party parts get refused. Because that check restricts access to a copyrighted work, bypassing it is potentially a felony. Car manufacturers use it to lock you into buying original parts.
This is a live issue in a lot of domains. It’s in insulin pumps, it’s in voting machines, it’s in tractors. John Deere locks up the farm data that you generate when you drive your tractor around. If you want to use that data to find out about your soil density and automate your seed broadcasting, you have to buy that data back from John Deere in a bundle with seed from big agribusiness consortia like Monsanto, who license the data from Deere. This metastatic growth is another big change. It’s become really urgent to act now because, in addition to this consumer rights dimension, your ability to add things to your device, take it for independent service, add features, and reconfigure it are all subject to approval from manufacturers.
We are all familiar with lock in. Heck, I’ve been in some product development meetings where some of these things came up. “How can we keep customers with us and away from the competition?” they ask.
Meanwhile the customer says, “I’m pretty happy with your product now. But what if you start acting like Mylan and its EpiPen? I find myself locked in, and now I am susceptible to frequent price increases. Or what if your quality begins to dip? Not to mention, what is your incentive to innovate any longer?
And so, the inevitable dance continues.
I’m not opposed to big companies with comprehensive product offerings. Sometimes there is a lot of innovation. It takes a lot of money to invest in developing some of these products. Customers appreciate this. They welcome partners. They just want to see competition and alternatives. But sometimes the customer voice gets lost.
Sometimes I look at the situation as an independent analyst/writer not beholden to anyone and decide someone has to speak up for the customer.
by Gary Mintchell | Aug 25, 2016 | Internet of Things, Interoperability, Podcast
Interoperability enables growth of an industry, innovation, and great benefits for users. We see it broadly in the Web and more specifically in industry with OPC. It is topic to which I return frequently. We can talk about all the components of the “Industrial Internet of Things” whether it be devices, databases, big data analytics, visualization, but without interoperability the IoT will be severely hampered.
Dave Winer developed outlining applications to help writers of prose and code organize their thoughts. He also developed RSS and knows something about interoperability and the politics of standards.
In this podcast, Winer talks with Allen Wirfs-Brock about how JSON came to be and the back story about how Tim Bray (a developer of XML) came to be interested in its evolution. “Along the way we get a lot of interesting tidbits about how JavaScript and JSON evolved,” says Winer.
Data is like air
This all reminded me of some previous blog posts about data wants to be free. Moira Gunn, host of TechNation, an NPR show and also a podcast, discussed this topic in her opening “Take Five” essay in that podcast. She said, “Like air, data just flows. The power of data lies in its being replicated over and over.” She was thinking about Google and the attempt to have your past eradicated. But the concept also works for us.
Interoperability
I was thinking about my thoughts voiced yesterday about the use of open technology. Arlen Nipper, co-developer of MQTT, likes to tout that his middleware powers the Internet of Things. He says this because MQTT is the backbone of Facebook Messenger.
Ah, there is my point about the use of open technologies. Messenger is a closed silo. Try to move your data. Try to use your data in another application. Try to text someone from another app to an address in Messenger. Nope. Can’t do anything. Facebook wants you captured completely within its silo.
What’s that old phrase? Buyer Beware?
by Gary Mintchell | Aug 24, 2016 | Automation, Podcast
New podcast. Following up on my popular podcast on “Why Big Companies Hate OPC UA Embedded”, I review recent writing on OPC UA, REST, MQTT and Sparkplug relative to needed interoperability. I focus on watching how companies implement REST and MQTT–whether they are using an open transport to move proprietary data types, or whether they are truly embracing what end users want-true interoperability.
by Gary Mintchell | Aug 15, 2016 | Data Management, Internet of Things, Interoperability, Manufacturing IT, Operations Management
Programming the Industrial Internet of Things is getting interesting. After the Opto 22 news on REST and Node_RED along with the Inductive Automation conversation on using MQTT middleware and Sparkplug for data description, I’ve dived into these technologies.
These things are all standards and widely used. Some have been around for a little while. I’ve got to say that Node_RED is really cool. And as open source, it has a fantastic library of functions.
How used?
So, my next question is, “How are these used?”
And mainly I am comparing to OPC UA.
I have been in conversation with several people from the OPC Foundation. They told me, “OPC UA is about multivendor secure reliable interoperability for data and information integration from the embedded world to the cloud. It’s more than just a communication protocol for moving data between points a and b.”
Granted, OPC UA is based upon XML technology, not JSON. It is XMPP. There were probably many good reasons for using this at the time the specification for OPC UA was being designed. For one thing, it is secure. Build in. And security is a major point of discussion when you talk with OPC people.
But, let’s talk about the multivendor and interoperability issues. When data is described in OPC UA, any other OPC UA device knows what is in the information packet. That is a power that many vendors–but especially end users–were searching for. Interoperability is the method that many industries have used for growth and innovation. Think railroads or cargo containers, for example.
So, even though REST, Node_RED, JSON, MQTT, and Sparkplug are all in themselves open, I throw the ball back into their court.
Is the principal use of these technologies for tying proprietary applications and devices together so as to lock out competition? To what degree is there an industry movement to describe devices and information in an industry-wide manner such that an interoperability of devices may be obtained?
I suppose there is a side note that I hear from some quarters about using open technologies, but using them in such a way that a customer is locked into one system integrator. Although this does not look so complex as to lock a customer in, it’s a question I need to ask.
I guess as the ad says, “Inquiring minds want to know.”
