Davy Demeyer’s Post

if you like I can share an article that summarises the basics of AAS for industry

https://github.com/aas-core-works needs to be mentioned here, which IMHO provides a stable SDK especially for .net

thanks for sharing Davy, I heard a vague mention about a new Industry 4.0 middleware project in Germany, and now I know its name: Eclipse BaSyx ! cc Marc Akoto you'll find this interesting in relation to our conversations earlier this week.

Yes! "Asset administration shell" is basically a very German way of saying "digital twin". It sounds less fancy, but it actually works and is ready to be used. A whole ecosystem is forming around it. Glad you found it and good that you spread the word.

Germany strongly pushes AAS , with reference architecture like RAMI , but there is also highly overlapping initiatives for I4.0 by EU itself like EU data space.. the problem with many of these is each create their own siloes at the end needing their own interfaces.. So the question is, which standard would turn out to be USB for I4.0?

The AAS infrastructure opensource toolkits are fine to start with. As other comments discuss as well, there’s not one single standard to cope with. That’s why there is a need for fully integratable ecosystems like #activedb. They support many standards via interfaces or plug-ins, so that you can concentrate on the features and connections between your digital twins, without the need to be stuck in compromises that each standard and non-standard like all the pure iot cloud solutions still have. Best-of-breed internally, standards conformance in-and-out on top. This gives the additional benefit that you can use all the emerging tools that natively support one or the other standard directly. As an example, you can use #aas product-tracking and #co2-footprint definitions and still manage that twin from an #opcua capable MES-system. I don’t think that one single standard will emerge. But we don’t care. But, to come back to the original post: people working inside IDTA working groups are pretty pragmatic. Most of the definitions are easy to use and make sense to common people!

AAS remains one of the worst naming decisions in industrial software history though. 😎

Happy to hear you like what we implemented in BaSyx 😎

AAS was a few years old and very much associated with R&D, so it is natural that it is not so easy to visualise this. They are still developing their capabilities and are gradually integrating into the market, for now they are very focused on the machine part but we are integrating the process part. Next year AAS will become central in Europe because of the Green Deal regulations. I leave you more sources of information on the subject from organisations (Digital Twin Consortium, IDTA, BASYX or Fiware )that are very involved in the subject 😉 : https://github.com/Engineering-Research-and-Development/iotagent-aas https://industrialdigitaltwin.org/en/content-hub/submodels https://github.com/digitaltwinconsortium/AAS-Repository https://github.com/FraunhoferIOSB/FAAAST-Service

AAS is International standard IEC 63278-1 (more parts to follow). Also ratified as European standard EN IEC 63278-1, i.e. adopted without changes in EU and some other European countries, e.g. Norway and Switzerland.