PCC_Invitation_08_October_2013

PCC Meeting for discussion and deciding on further WP3 + WP7 strategy Dear openETCS Partners, I would like to invite all of you for that meeting in Braunschweig, held at DLR.

We are now at a point, where we have to make a decision on how to proceed with tools activities as well as start the modeling activities. Most of us will be effected and therefore I highly recommend that at least one representative from each partner should attend this meeting. Therefore I would like to do that in the framework of an PCC Meeting, since that committee has the power to make binding decisions.

What is the situation?

ITEA2 Review + Feedback Mr. Haggenmüller (ITEA2 CEO):

• Analyze OPEES as a way to organize an open source community
• Value the input to the ETCS standards coming from the project
• "We warmly recommend the consortium to reduce the efforts on methodology (model based methods, bench marking, etc.) in order to focus on the train safety and concrete project goals (standard shared API and reference implementation)"

ERA:

• Formalizing of the entire SRS expected, not just focus on OBU (identical to what EUG was saying)
• Formalization of SRS is needed urgently and need to become basis for further development of the SRS
• Real-Time-interaction between OBU Model and Way Side Model expected to clear up inconsistencies
• High quality OBU reference implementation expected, in order to gain wide acceptance in the sector
• A high quality reference OBU could help to drastically reduce time and cost for acceptance, certification and authorization for OBUs and way side installations,

Esterel Technologies (SCADE maker):

• Might consider join the project
• Will make sure that each artefact created by SCADE will have open format and can be maintained by alternative OSS product
• will find solution for "very long term software support" ==> SCADE might be used as "interims ad hoc Plan B" tools chain, later substituted by OSS tools coming from WP7

Shift2Rail initiative of some rail manufacturer for absorbing large scale FP7 funding:

• Working package with goal to "formalize SRS" (not just an SSRS-vehicle)

Eclipse/Polarsys Workshop at DB:

• Polarsys succeeds OPEES+TOPCASED
• Tools from TOPCASED are in a process of getting adopted by Polarsys (IPR, QA, maturity, ...)
• Long term strategy by AIRBUS to migrate from SCADE to OSS tools from the Polarsys project
• Many commonalities and similar goals with WP7

All those inputs have and will have in the future an effect on our project and need to be considered, since we are "agile", we can react on it:

WE NEED A "FAST TRACK FORMAL SPECIFICATION & EXECUTABLE MODEL & OBU SOFTWARE CREATION PROCESS"

These might be the consequences and we have to find agreement:

1.) A fully fledged openETCS OSS tools chain " certifiable for SIL4 code generation" will not be ready soon enough to get a formal specification and a executable Model and OBU reference software in time. However there is SCADE and at least Papyrus. 2.) In order to accomplish a formalized specification, with at least some reasonable part of strictly formal specification and an executable OBU SW before the end of 2015, we have to start with that work right now.. 3.) That means WP3 cannot wait for WP7 to be completed in order to start working. Modeling has to start right now.

That means:

• WP3 has to start (formal+semi formal) modeling and produce code by using SCADE asap..
• WP3 also should continue complete EFS content for modeling and provide a code generator to generate code as quick as possible and been used for V&V for SCADE and future OSS tools chains.
• We have to concentrate and provide WP3 modeling resources to cover these two activities.
• WP7 has to coordinate with Polarsys and start developing the tools chain, but without pressure to be used in the short term by WP3.

That might have other implications:

• WP2 ==> "D2.3: Process definition" + "D2.6: Requirements for the model" + "D2.8: Set of requirements for tools " may need an update

First draft process modification to get to a "fast track formal model creation process":

• 20130802_openETCS_Formalizing_after__1st_ITEA2Review.jpg.zip

That has been evolved from the above one in between: (which might still need some fine tuning)

I would like to discuss this with you and want to come to an decision, whether we can go that path or what we might to have changed.

For the further course of this project it is crucial to come to some consensus and a clear decision .

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,

Klaus-Rüdiger

Details of the Agenda can be found at: https://github.com/openETCS/validation/wiki/Workshop-on-%22Results-on-VnV-and-Secondary-Toolchain%E2%80%9D

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,

Dr. Klaus-Rüdiger Hase Project Leader openETCS