ivs-kuleuven / mtcs-models

Models of the Mercator Telescope Control System, written in the Ontoscript DSL.

MTCS-models

Models of the Mercator Telescope Control System, written in a DSL (Domain Specific Language) called Ontoscript.

Ontoscript is available at: https://github.com/IvS-KULeuven/Ontoscript

When the models are executed, they are converted into json-ld files.

These json-ld files can be read by OntoManager: https://github.com/IvS-KULeuven/OntoManager

OntoManager is a web-based application that provides convenient access to the models. It can be used to

• query the models
• convert the models into web-pages (e.g. for documenting system requirements, electric systems, software, ...)
• convert software models into source code (Python and IEC61131-3 to be imported by TwinCAT)
• analyze the models by reasoning (requires SPIN API by TopBraid)

mtcs-models's Issues

Ontomanager generating code. XML file structure

To be checked on Testing-Ontomanager brach:
https://github.com/IvS-KULeuven/MTCS-models/tree/Testing-Ontomanager

Updating the software.coffee file for a subsystem, for example "services" subsystem. The
compiling or generating code process works fine in OntoManager, then the new XML file is loaded into the PLC software and compiled without errors.
The "problem" is that after starting the PLC, running the new version, it lost the configuration about this subsystem, the config variables related with "services".
Entering in the "Config" tab we can see that most those variables are at 0.0 and checkboxes at "False".
It seems to be related with the struct of the config section in the XML file generated by Ontomanager. Twincat and PLC XML parser seems to be sensitive to variables' order.

I'll try to explain my tests:

• This is the sequence of the first test:
  Starting with a PLC code (TwinCAT) that works correctly.
  Generating "mtcs_services" model in Ontomanager.
  Loading this new generated model in TwinCAT.
  Compiling all in TwinCAT and sending to PLC.
  It works, although with small errors because it "losses" several configuration data in
  config tab. Inserting manually these data everything works perfectly.
  Removing services.xml file in the PLC
  Saving XML file from config tab.
  Everything works fine, even after restarting, etc.

• Second test, to try to find the cause of the problem:
  Generating again "mtcs_services" from exactly the same source coffeescript model in
  Ontomanager.
  Loading this new generated model in TwinCAT.
  At this step I already can see that the STRUCT of the ServicesWestControllerConfig has changed, two of the five variables have swapped the order.
  Compiling in TwinCAT and sending to PLC.
  As before, It looses data in config tab for West controller (This example)

Here a screeshot of TwinCAT after loading mtcs_services.XML file for the two previous tests.
The variables' order in the STRUCT is different.

Therefore, could generated code be different, even being generated from an identical source?
Comparing two XML files generated by Ontomanager from the same source:
TREE VIEW

XSL VIEW

Finally, this is the section of software.coffee file for mtcs_services dealt in this example, that is the source code for generating the XML file.
I think the XML file should always take this order to generate the XML file:

Conclusions and Questions:

1. I think the system is sensitive to variables' order in the config structure.
   I can understand it and this has not be an important issue. We can loose the config if we change the variable's order or inserting new ones.

2. Why is Ontomanager generating the XML file with a more or less random order for the variables inside of a Struct ? I think that it behavior is new.

3. What is different?
   I don't know what things make sense. I only list things that can be different respect to a year ago,

• Ontomanager is running in a virtual machine which was moved to other server in the last January. Was it updated or changed?
• Has been Ontomanager changed? I think no.
• Does Ontomanager need external software, as Java or coffee script installed in the computer?
  If so, is it different after the update in January?

4. Any other idea will be welcome.