| Re: [openadx] Capella and OpenADX |
|
Hi Etienne, sorry for the very late answer! I am very sorry, I didn´t had the chance to look the webinar, till today, but now I did it … ;-) I am with you, Capella can close the “Architecture definition” gap.
I learned, there is an interface to the requirements management, right? Which format should the requirements have and which exchange format is required? I learned also, that you use Simulink models at the end, correct? How can we connect simulation models? I guess, we should talk about, how to integrate Cappella into our blueprint (in a v-model as well ;-) ) and how it should interact with other development steps. What do you think? Andy Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards Von: openadx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <openadx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Im Auftrag von Etienne Juliot Hello OpenADX members, I would like to share with you a video about autonomous driving made in the context of another Eclipse Foundation project: Eclipse Capella.
It is a user feedback from CNXMotion about how they collaboratively develop motion control solutions for autonomous vehicle applications with Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE).
Here is the video of this webinar: https://youtu.be/2vYEp7JLtx8
It would be nice if some OpenADX members would become interested to look at Capella to foster synergy between our Open Source projects and communities. When I look at your challenges, it could fit at least some of your expectations for the Architecture definition step.
(for the last one about "connectivity", perhaps this Continental feedback for Capella usage in the connected car context could be useful:
https://www.eclipse.org/capella/resources/pdf/Case_Study_Continental.pdf) Best Regards |
