-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 90
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
docs: Manufacturing as a Service KIT 24.05 #878
docs: Manufacturing as a Service KIT 24.05 #878
Conversation
...are Development View/Manufacturing Capability/manufacturing-capability-aspect-model.info.mdx
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
Manufacturing-as-a-Service (MaaS) scenarios focus on connecting buyers having a request for specific manufacturing process steps or products to be manufactured with the appropriate manufacturing supplier, who has the corresponding capabilities and resources. This connection depends on the capabilities that are offered on the supplier side and that are required on the buyer side. | ||
|
||
The Manufacturing Capability API defines how to share the manufacturing capabilities, e.g. to onboard them to a Manufacturing Network Registry. Manufacturing Network Platforms and MaaS Manufacturer Application can use the Manufacturing Capability API to onboard their manufacturing capabilities in the Manufacturing Network Registry (see figure). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Who operates the services such as Manufacturing Network Registry or the Marketplace? Are these services part of a MaaS business app?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The services can either be operated by the company that develops and offers a MaaS application, or be connected by other operators (e.g. Smart Factory Web from Fraunhofer IOSB).
|
||
The Manufacturing Capability API defines how to share the manufacturing capabilities, e.g. to onboard them to a Manufacturing Network Registry. Manufacturing Network Platforms and MaaS Manufacturer Application can use the Manufacturing Capability API to onboard their manufacturing capabilities in the Manufacturing Network Registry (see figure). | ||
|
||
The Request for Quotation API defines detailed requirements, deadlines and evaluation criteria for obtaining quotations from potential manufacturers for specific products or services. The necessary capabilities can be derived from the defined RfQ, which can subsequently be used in the MaaS Manufacturer Application for feasibility analyses or calculations (see figure). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you also describe how the APIs work with the EDC? Should we also include the EDC in your RefArc?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We do not want to specify this, as otherwise we would always have to update the KIT in future when a new EDC version is released. We have therefore made the note "As illustrated in the deployment view, the software components of this whitebox will usually be hosted and owned by different companies. Thus, each communication between the components on this whitebox level is protected by Eclipse Dataspace Connectors (EDCs). Moreover, EDC and asset discovery are applied as described by the Digital Twin KIT."
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ | |||
--- | |||
id: manufacturing-capability-aspect-model |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
General reminder: Did you check if you need legal attributions for your pictures (esp. for the pictures with the Siemens logo)?
https://eclipse-tractusx.github.io/docs/release/trg-7/trg-7-07
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I will check this with the Siemens colleagues and provide feedback as soon as possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@danielmiehle i checked with my colleagues and the pictures are all unrestricted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for the great addition! I finally feel like I really understand MaaS. One overarching comment - from an outside reader perspective, the adoption and architecture page read quite similar and I'm a bit confused, which one is the one to go to as an interested reader that is looking for a starting point - maybe you could provide a bit of guidance to readers at the beginning of each page.
|
||
The following diagram covers the general business process addressed in the CDME. | ||
|
||
![Figure - Business process considered for CDME. Out of scope steps have not been elaborated and are therefore not covered by the technical architecture. (Schoeppenthau et al. 2023).](resources/image-2023-11-2_13-54-35.png) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It might just be me but this image and others fail to render in the rich diff - please verify for all images.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
|
||
##### Catena-X Core Components | ||
|
||
As illustrated in the deployment view, the software components of this whitebox will usually be hosted and owned by different companies. Thus, each communication between the components on this whitebox level is protected by Eclipse Dataspace Connectors (EDCs). Moreover, EDC and asset discovery are applied as described by the [Digital Twin KIT](https://eclipse-tractusx.github.io/docs-kits/category/digital-twin-kit). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You might also want to add a reference to the Connector KIT, if you highlight the EDC.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
link to Connector KIT has been added
|
||
#### 5.2.2 Marketplace / MaaS Buyer Application - MaaS Portal | ||
|
||
The Siemens MaaS Portal is the prototypical implementation of a federated marketplace in CDME. It is a cloud-based Mendix application and connects offer and demand within a manufacturing network of networks. The prototypical environment also acts as the MaaS Buyer Application. A user account management organizes the access and menu workflow. The MaaS Portal further offers a request configuration, including a user account-specific request history. After searching for potential suppliers, the graphical user interface plots a list of suppliers or shows them in a map view, including all filter criteria information for supplier selection and quotation request. In addition, users can obtain information about the network partners and the onboarding process. The idea is to also offer a marketplace for digital services, supporting the order management and execution process. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a reference to a commercial platform in Open Source - are you sure, you want to include the company name? A reference implementation should be Tractus-X, not company-owneded.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@HFocken I don't understand why a reference implementation shouldn't be company owned. Our architecture was implemented using the low-code platform Mendix from Siemens (which is the only reference to a commercialized product). The MaaS portal itself is not a commercial product but just a demonstrator.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A reference implementation should never be company owned and this would be the only case where this would be done that way (according to our knowledge) - we established the category "success stories" for that reason. Reference implementations should not be branded but as open and accessible as possible.
You can highlight that you used Mendix to establish the reference implementation, but otherwise UNTIL 10:30am TODAY:
- Either remove the brand name from the Reference implementation title here
- Move the whole section to "success stories"
Thank you!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you!
Within the Manufacturing-as-a-Service KIT, two main standards were defined: | ||
|
||
- Manufacturing Capability Model and API - for declaration of offered and required manufacturing capabilities | ||
- Request for Quotation Model and API - for manufacturing demand configuration |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does it make sense to link to the standards here again?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A link to the standard section has been added
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for the contribution. Only minor remarks from my side regarding some inconsistencies with the referenced data models.
model: <https://github.com/eclipse-tractusx/sldt-semantic-models/tree/main/io.catenax.request_for_quotation/2.0.0> | ||
An aspect model defining detailed requirements, deadlines and evaluation criteria for obtaining quotations from potential manufacturers for specific products or services. Manufacturing-as-a-Service (MaaS) scenarios focus on connecting buyers having a request for specific manufacturing process steps or products to be manufactured with the appropriate manufacturing supplier, who has the corresponding capabilities and resources. Sharing information about the demand with all required configuration and contact data is necessary for potential suppliers to evaluate the request and formulate an offer. A common description of the request for quotation based on a standardized semantic definition is therefore key for facilitating such an information exchange between Catena-X participants. This ensures an open network for every Catena-X member to join and enables interoperability between the partners. | ||
|
||
Link to the semantic data model: <https://github.com/eclipse-tractusx/sldt-semantic-models/tree/main/io.catenax.request_for_quotation/2.0.0> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should be aligned with CX-0129 Request for Quotation (v2.0.0), as it refers to urn:samm:io.catenax.request_for_quotation:3.0.0 as the data model for R24.05.
Edit: The data model v3.0.0 seems already to be references in the other sections of this KIT, too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
model references have been updated
model: <https://github.com/eclipse-tractusx/sldt-semantic-models/tree/main/io.catenax.manufacturing_capability/2.0.0> | ||
An aspect model representing manufacturing capabilities, based on the concepts for products, processes, resources and capabilities, as well as their relations to each other. Sharing information about the required and available manufacturing capabilities in an interoperable manner is fundamental for any MaaS solution providing basic and value-added services such as automated search and matchmaking. | ||
|
||
Link to the semantic data model: <https://github.com/eclipse-tractusx/sldt-semantic-models/tree/main/io.catenax.manufacturing_capability/2.0.0> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should be aligned with CX-0115 Manufacturing Capability Exchange (v1.0.0), as it refers to urn:samm:io.catenax.manufacturing_capability:3.1.0 as the standardized data model.
Edit: The data model v3.1.0 seems already to be referenced in the other sections of this KIT, too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
model references have been updated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM - thanks for your updates. Ready to merge!
Hello @HFocken, thank you very much for your feedback. We understood it and implemented it as far as possible, so that the adoption view is the entry point to the KIT. In addition to the vision, mission and business value, the architecture and standards are discussed at a high detail level. The Architecture View goes much deeper into detail. What would be your suggestion? I would like to avoid extensive changes. Best regards |
@dominikoeh this branch has conflicts - please fix it |
bdfb92a
Merge Conflict has been resolved |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Sorry but we needed to revert this merge because Hannos concerns / feedback regarding commercial reference implementation in open source need to be fixed first. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for implementing the change requests! Good to go!
Description
Pre-review checks
Please ensure to do as many of the following checks as possible, before asking for committer review:
@danielmiehle @maximilianong @jSchuetz88