The dust is far from settled after the explosion of the Internet of Things (IoT) onto the industrial scene just a few years ago. Many questions remain on a number of issues—ranging from mundane system integration issues to complex, cross-company security measures. As a result, some confusion still surrounds IoT and the organizations positioning themselves to support it.
One of the clearest examples of this confusion could be seen in the line of questioning recently presented to Stefan Hoppe, vice president of theopc基金会，在接受德国工业媒体网站的采访中。Hoppe给我发了一个面谈的翻译，帮助清除了大西洋这一方面可能也存在的任何类似的误解。
One of the issues brought up in the interview was the impression that theIndustrial Internet Consortium (IIC)is much further ahead in developing an IoT framework than its German Industry 4.0 counterparts, despite Industry 4.0’s earlier start and support by the German of government.
Hoppe cleared up this misunderstanding by noting that the “content and recommendations of theRAMI 4.0 paper (Reference Architectural Model Industrie 4.0)were completed quite some time ago, although under the auspices of the associations they were not allowed to be published.” Hoppe says the reason the papers were not published earlier is that, according to their statutes, “the associations (connected to RAMI 4.0) may not issue specific recommendations.”
Despite the restrictions on its release, Hoppe says that, for a strategy paper such as RAMI 4.0, “such recommendations are essential to minimize a proliferation of technologies and interfaces. Therefore, after the restructuring of the (RAMI 4.0) platform under political leadership, the paper was released at Hanover Fair 2015.”
Comparing the IIC framework and RAMI 4.0, Hoppe says that beyond the “list of issues that should be taken into account or examined” in the IIC’s framework, “RAMI 4.0 contains a concrete list of key technologies as a recommendation for action for different layers of the reference architecture, includingOPC统一架构（UA）for the communication layer.”
Speaking of OPC UA, two technology areas creating some of the greatest confusion in industry around IoT areDDS（数据分发服务）—often referenced by IIC—and OPC UA. The confusion surrounding these technologies stems from the fact that both are promoted as protocols enabling interoperability between devices, machines, and systems. According to Hoppe, “DDS offers deterministic communication and is therefore comparable toProfinetorEtherCAT。The aim is fast data exchange within the systems. OPC focuses on interoperability—the exchange between systems. Above all, OPC UA offers security and configurable access control to interfaces and data. This is crucial for machine services.”
他补充说，IIC会员这样的一般电气，思科，微软，甲骨文和西门子都是“热衷于使用OPC UA”，并且他“不知道已经实现了DDS的自动化领域中的任何控制器或现场设备”。但是，目前正在进行讨论来连接两种技术。最近在柏林举行会议“澄清opc ua是否应通过DDS运输层认可，”Hoppe说。即使市场尚未要求这一联系，“专家正在研究OPC UA和DDS之间的网关，我们使用Sercos和Ethercat。毕竟，这是有意义的，以便将任何DDS设备与OPC UA集成到全球IOT社区中。“
Another point brought up in the German media interview with Hoppe questioned the connection between IIC and the Object Management Group (OMG). To help clarify questions about this relationship, I reached out to Dr. Richard Soley, who happens to be chairman and CEO of OMG as well as executive director of IIC.
“The Object Management Group (OMG) isthe parent company of the Industrial Internet Consortium (IIC),” says Soley.“This organization (OMG) has been in existence for 26 years and has a strong track record of innovation and membership all over the world.Besides its decades-long dedication to standards, the OMG has a long history of hosting non-standards-related communities dating back to the Service Oriented Architecture Consortium and including consortia focused on software quality, green computing, business process management, cloud computing, and now the industrial Internet. IIC is an independently run group and has separate standards liaisons not only with the OMG, but with about a dozen other organizations including GS1, JTC 1, OASIS, The Open Group, and the Open Interconnect Consortium. Decisions on what standards are to be used in testbed development are decided upon by the organizations leading a testbed and not the Industrial Internet Consortium itself.”
In my communications with Dr. Soley and Tom Burke, OPC Foundation president and executive director, they both were eager to spotlight the high degree on ongoing cooperation between their organizations.
“理查德，我和我们各自的组织将在我们各自的组织之间正规化非常重要的联络员时共同努力，”伯克说。“OPC基金会牢牢支持IIC和OMG的活动，并期待OPC基金会和OMG之间以及OPC基金会和IIC之间的非常富有成效和主动的工作关系。我们已经在OPC和OMG之间进行了技术开发，并且在我们各自的伙伴关系之间将很快成为一些营销和技术创新。“
