Re: [DIYbio] LECIS - Standard for lab automation

Hi John,

I do not intend to prove that you are wrong, but rather learn with you. :^)

I'm not fluent in English but I will try to clarify my situation.

Whenever I develop a program for the data acquisition from an instrument
and/or control of an equipment, I have to do some kind of "rework".

I mean, I can take some code snippets, but I can not reuseall program as
part of a system.

It's an old dream to use some method, some standard, some pattern, which
allows me to reuse (and share) my projects as "building blocks" for
future automation projects.

And if I could use, in a simple way, projects developed by others as
part of an automation system.

For example, a few years ago I developed a program for controlling a
valve used in the laboratory. (http://www.c2o.pro.br/automacao/x3192.html)

Later, I developed another project to control a peristaltic pumpin a
bioreactor. (http://www.c2o.pro.br/automacao/x3113.html)

And then another project for data acquisition from an instrument.
(http://www.c2o.pro.br/automacao/x4448.html)

If later I want to develop a system using all these components (valve,
pump and instrument) in an integrated way, I would have to write a new
program, reusing just some code snippets.

The LECIS standardwas more understandable to me, with my level of
knowledge, and allowed me to assimilate some concepts and encouraged me
the idea of doing this integration.

I made already some attempts to use the concepts of LECIS in my
projects, but the challenges seemed too big and I postponed the
challenge and ended up solving the projects in the simplest way, ie
independent program (standalone).

Now, I am encouraged try again to use the concepts of this standard so I
sent this question in this list to discuss it with skilledpeople.

My intention is to use the ideasof this standard, or any other
equivalent, and develop my new project for irrigation with interfaces
which allows to add new modules in the future without much coding
effort, to build more complex systems.

As I understand the Lecis brings a more general specification without
specifying the implementation, while the CORBA concernsto more specific
programming questions.


Imagine if we had an open standard, free, equivalent to LECIS, without
having to pay for ASTM?


What do you think, do you know any open standard that could be a free
alternative to LECIS?


A standard that could be adopted easily by the Makers and help the
integration of their IoT projects?

Many thanks for your comments.

Best regards,
Markos


Em 11-02-2016 16:06, John Griessen escreveu:
> On 02/11/2016 06:40 AM, Markos wrote:
>> The adoption of this standard could improve the integration of
>> different lab automation projects using free software and open
>> hardware.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Oh... It's had years of development, but it's not aimed at coders
> very well.
>
> 1. It has a concept of state machines built in, where coders want to
> implement such in their own way.
> So adoption by any particular coder, (or hardware designer), requires
> they learn a new language specifying
> state machines when the hardware designers like verilog and VHDL, and
> the coders like their looping constructs.
>
> 2. it was windows all the way: "As part of this project a
> General-Purpose LECIS Instrument Controller software was written
> (running under MS Windows) to serve as an implementation guide",
> "goal of this collaborative effort is also to develop a CORBA (Common
> Request Broker Architecture) and DCOM (Distributed Component Model)
> IDL (Interface Definition Language)",
> so it was a turn off to open source coders.
>
> CORBA seems to have gone towards CORBA which is open and specs
> available freely,
> but based on object oriented code across networks which is going to be
> tricky. They even say so: "Why are some specifications so hard to read?
>
> Most OMG specifications are written for programmers who implement
> compliant software products. They are not written for the developers
> who build applications that use these products, and are especially not
> written for the users of these applications. "
>
>
> 3., ASTM is one of the old fashioned standards publishers that charge
> high fees for specs.
>
> My gut feel is CORBA will be hard to really comply with by being so
> big and backward compatible. It would get you ability to communicate
> some with old high priced lab gear, and yet, mostly by serial port in
> an age where USB or wifi is preferred and even ethernet is unusual on
> lab gear, and most of the old gear has no security at all in an age of
> attackers everywhere on a LAN that has been infested by trojans from
> emails.
>
> Just a gut feel though. Prove me wrong!
>

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/56BF31B4.8060309%40c2o.pro.br.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.