Looking forward to the OPC Foundation response to these issues of transparency and undo influence from their major contributors. It's looking like a great case study for my Engineering Ethics class at Penn College. The Digital Mastermind call this Friday will be epic! Can't wait to hear Arlen Nipper's perspective! The long format of these videos is great!
I would love to listen to a live diskussion with Walker and Erich Barnstedt about the future of industrial IoT. To create an industry standard deserves an open debate. I used to be in the OPC UA camp but switched 2022 to favor UNS and MQTT as a standard. Walker is a big reason for the switch. At the same I know Eric is very knowledgeable. If OPC UA foundation is serious about driving an industry standard, we need more debate. Why not do debate at Hannover Messe?
Walker + Team, Firstly thanks for all the work you do ! and I'm not sure you can put a time limit on big topics like this! general Cast's, sure an hour, BUT if this took a day It would still be worth it! so thanks for your time...to underline a few things from my side.... as you say.. with every company..ask What is the Vision, what is the Mission Statement... is it to benefit the Customers/Market or is it to benefit themselves and /or shareholders!? The Vision and Mission should be at the heart of every working group, every company, Professionals who are not Open to scrutiny, are NOT Professionals, never mind Leaders) Engineers have to make things work, this is undervalued, they deserve more Contol over....and I'm not over stateing this...the Future of Manufacturing... and the Future of Humanity iteself.. let not forget that our world has so many challanges... there is no room for politics in my view, politics should stay out of it ! Keep up the great work, I will try and get to see you guys at Hannover...
1:37:37 Citation needed. No it doesn't. Simply point me to the place in the MQTT spec where it states that it assumes that the clients will report by exception and I will happily admit I am wrong. You won't do this because you cant. The spec doesn't assume anything of the sort (3.1, 3.1.1 or 5.0). This is one of the reasons I am hesitant to joining Mastermind, (or the accelerator program for that matter) - I'm not confident you are giving out unbiased information. Some honest feedback going back to the start of your conversation: the above, along with some feedback from those actually in Mentorship is the reason I haven't signed up for Mastermind, and I really want to pull the trigger. The one thing that gives me solace is that you have "F*@k You" money, so it doesn't matter anyway. 🙂 Edit: And to answer your final request of the podcast: Yes these types of riffing podcasts are good. Would like to see more input from Zac and Vaughn - especially if you are flying them out specifically for it.
I spoke with Walker this morning about. The answer is, he didn't say "by default in the specification". He said "by default" because that's the reason MQTT was created in the first place. Knowing this is the important part. Not the lack of it being required by the specification.
RBE for MQTT is inherent and always has been. MQTTs origin story drives it. The functional requirements for MQTT, for Phillips 66, was edge-driven, open architecture, rbe, light weight. The spec was written minimalist (I literally just had this conversation with Arlen yesterday about this topic). That is, the spec contains very few 'optional' components -- in order to keep the spec meaningful, easy to adopt and flexible. RBE is not called out because it is assumed that if you are using MQTT, you want to build light, open, stateful and rbe edge driven infrastructure. You CAN send at interval or on trigger (instead of on change), but that isn't what MQTT was intended for. OPC, on the other hand has a different origin story. It was a spec built for poll/response networks and then added a sub-part for pub/sub with option rbe. A sub part is only required for the exception, not the rule. Again poll/response (even with subscriptions) is the default for OPC -- it is inherent. Mentorship and Mastermind are solutions to specific problems brought to us by the community. The only people who should be in Mentorship are those who want to learn the technical skills to support I4 and DX through technical lessons. Mastermind is only for people who want to learn strategy, leadership and architecture for I4 and DX, using UNS. My work is done when there's noone left who needs Mentorship or Mastermind. I am shooting a video response for you and will put it up on linkedin and drop the link here.
Here is a link to the video response I tagged you in @lachlan.wright www.linkedin.com/posts/walkerdreynolds_unifiednamespace-iiot-digitaltransformation-activity-7183928072075706369-SIx3?
With the metadata publishing, the OPC UA method sounds even worse than Sparkplug. While SpB puts a lot of load on the client (which may be resource limited) at least you get the whole message (payload).
![Hands-On Power BI Tutorial 📊Beginner to Pro [Full Course] ⚡](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5X5LWcLtkzg/mqdefault.jpg)
OPC discussion starts at 13:40
Looking forward to the OPC Foundation response to these issues of transparency and undo influence from their major contributors. It's looking like a great case study for my Engineering Ethics class at Penn College. The Digital Mastermind call this Friday will be epic! Can't wait to hear Arlen Nipper's perspective! The long format of these videos is great!
Great convo! Worth the time
Thank you Amy!!
I would love to listen to a live diskussion with Walker and Erich Barnstedt about the future of industrial IoT. To create an industry standard deserves an open debate.
I used to be in the OPC UA camp but switched 2022 to favor UNS and MQTT as a standard. Walker is a big reason for the switch. At the same I know Eric is very knowledgeable. If OPC UA foundation is serious about driving an industry standard, we need more debate. Why not do debate at Hannover Messe?
Thank you for sharing! Our schedule is very full for Hanover. But further more, Erich's approach has been to not engage.
This style is way better thanks!
Hope y’all had a good eclipse. Brought me to texas, cheers.
Walker + Team, Firstly thanks for all the work you do ! and I'm not sure you can put a time limit on big topics like this! general Cast's, sure an hour, BUT if this took a day It would still be worth it! so thanks for your time...to underline a few things from my side.... as you say.. with every company..ask What is the Vision, what is the Mission Statement... is it to benefit the Customers/Market or is it to benefit themselves and /or shareholders!? The Vision and Mission should be at the heart of every working group, every company, Professionals who are not Open to scrutiny, are NOT Professionals, never mind Leaders) Engineers have to make things work, this is undervalued, they deserve more Contol over....and I'm not over stateing this...the Future of Manufacturing... and the Future of Humanity iteself.. let not forget that our world has so many challanges... there is no room for politics in my view, politics should stay out of it ! Keep up the great work, I will try and get to see you guys at Hannover...
Thank you Daniel!
1:37:37 Citation needed. No it doesn't. Simply point me to the place in the MQTT spec where it states that it assumes that the clients will report by exception and I will happily admit I am wrong. You won't do this because you cant. The spec doesn't assume anything of the sort (3.1, 3.1.1 or 5.0). This is one of the reasons I am hesitant to joining Mastermind, (or the accelerator program for that matter) - I'm not confident you are giving out unbiased information.
Some honest feedback going back to the start of your conversation: the above, along with some feedback from those actually in Mentorship is the reason I haven't signed up for Mastermind, and I really want to pull the trigger. The one thing that gives me solace is that you have "F*@k You" money, so it doesn't matter anyway. 🙂
Edit: And to answer your final request of the podcast: Yes these types of riffing podcasts are good. Would like to see more input from Zac and Vaughn - especially if you are flying them out specifically for it.
I spoke with Walker this morning about. The answer is, he didn't say "by default in the specification". He said "by default" because that's the reason MQTT was created in the first place. Knowing this is the important part. Not the lack of it being required by the specification.
RBE for MQTT is inherent and always has been. MQTTs origin story drives it. The functional requirements for MQTT, for Phillips 66, was edge-driven, open architecture, rbe, light weight. The spec was written minimalist (I literally just had this conversation with Arlen yesterday about this topic). That is, the spec contains very few 'optional' components -- in order to keep the spec meaningful, easy to adopt and flexible. RBE is not called out because it is assumed that if you are using MQTT, you want to build light, open, stateful and rbe edge driven infrastructure. You CAN send at interval or on trigger (instead of on change), but that isn't what MQTT was intended for. OPC, on the other hand has a different origin story. It was a spec built for poll/response networks and then added a sub-part for pub/sub with option rbe. A sub part is only required for the exception, not the rule. Again poll/response (even with subscriptions) is the default for OPC -- it is inherent.
Mentorship and Mastermind are solutions to specific problems brought to us by the community. The only people who should be in Mentorship are those who want to learn the technical skills to support I4 and DX through technical lessons. Mastermind is only for people who want to learn strategy, leadership and architecture for I4 and DX, using UNS.
My work is done when there's noone left who needs Mentorship or Mastermind.
I am shooting a video response for you and will put it up on linkedin and drop the link here.
Here is a link to the video response I tagged you in @lachlan.wright www.linkedin.com/posts/walkerdreynolds_unifiednamespace-iiot-digitaltransformation-activity-7183928072075706369-SIx3?
With the metadata publishing, the OPC UA method sounds even worse than Sparkplug. While SpB puts a lot of load on the client (which may be resource limited) at least you get the whole message (payload).
The 1.05 spec is definitely a step in the right direction. The biggest challenge OPC faces is adoption. Too much is optional.
Out of topic.... walker what to eat every day? 🎉
I eat a lot of things everyday. A lot of fish, chicken and beef. 250g of protein, 300g carbs, 90g of fat. 🙏
Ha ha ha ha ... Walker OMG !!
🤣 here is a useful link for your audience en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques
Care to explain how OPC-UA is in fact an IIoT Protocol?