Log In
Home
05/24/2017
Offline
Hi,
I plan to develop a product using the modular device feature of the OPC UA for Devices specification. The modular device node has a SubDevices component of type ConfigurableObjectType. The ConfigurableObjectType specifies that it is mandatory to model a component of the ConfigurableObjectType called SupportedTypes. The SupportedTypes node is specified to maintain the set of DeviceTypes that can be added to the Modular Device.
For me this is a problem because in my use case the modules are not known for the modular device (top-Device) before the sub modules are attached to the it. Why is it mandatory to know what module types that can be instantiated as sub devices to the modular device?
Would it be possible for me to leave SupportTypes folder empty, i.e. no reference to any device types? If not, am I allowed to use same device type for all sub devices? In that case I could define a “generic” device type for all sub devices my product can support. The reference from the SupportTypes folder to this generic device type can be removed once the maxiumum number of sub devices have been instantiated.
Best regards,
Jonas Green.
Could you please report a Mantis issue as described here: https://opcfoundation.org/reso…..-tracking/. Select the project “Part 100 – Device Integration (DI)” and simply copy the text of this post. The working group will begin with a new revision of the DI spec later this year or early in 2018 and the Mantis issues will be an intitial list of issues to work on.
The solution with the “generic” device type sounds reasonable and will not violate the specification. However, it needs be mentioned in the modular device section. What you call “generic” device type will have to be the supertype of all module device types for the top-Device.
05/24/2017
Offline
Karl-Heinz Deiretsbacher said
Could you please report a Mantis issue as described here: https://opcfoundation.org/reso…..-tracking/. Select the project “Part 100 – Device Integration (DI)” and simply copy the text of this post. The working group will begin with a new revision of the DI spec later this year or early in 2018 and the Mantis issues will be an intitial list of issues to work on.The solution with the “generic” device type sounds reasonable and will not violate the specification. However, it needs be mentioned in the modular device section. What you call “generic” device type will have to be the supertype of all module device types for the top-Device.
Thanks for the response, I have reported it in the issue tracker.
1 Guest(s)
Usage Policy