Q. Mac Lister: When is the new Version of Turbo software available that reflects the changes in Version 6.0?
A. David Binkley: October 2007.
Q: Mac Lister: How many states have ITS Architectures in place to date?
A. Mac Lister: I am not aware of any states that do not have ITS Architectures at this point. There are more than 330 Architectures developed, some number in each state. The rule allows local areas to define what is a region that becomes the portion of the Regional Architecture. I would say the majority of states, 75 percent of them, have developed state-wide Architectures and then several of the MPOs within the state representing larger metropolitan areas have developed Regional Architectures as well. So, specifically though, I believe every state has some number of Regional Architectures. I hope that answers the question and if the questioner wants more information, send us a follow-up and we'll try and answer that.
Q: Mac Lister: Would probe-based services also include surface temp. and ambient temp. monitoring?
A. David Binkley: Yes, that is also part of what we did with the VII Edition and it's really driven by the work that's going on in the Standards community to make sure that those messages are supported. So as cars become better equipped with sensors to monitor some of those things like surface or ambient temperature then be able to provide that through the links to the roadside infrastructure. But yes, those flows are included.
Q: Mac Lister: In slide 17, Transit Operations Personnel is identified as a Terminator. Does that mean that any person, human, involved in ITS can be categorized under some Terminator category?
A. Mac Lister: I'll take a first shot at that, Dave, and then you can amplify that a little bit. Anybody who would be part of an Architecture Flow and any person who would receive or provide information into the Architecture would be defined as a Terminator. Would that be the way that you would describe it, Dave?
David Binkley: Yes, if you look through the Architecture CD, you'll see most of the operational sub-systems like Transit that we cited in the example there but also Traffic and Maintenance and Construction, all those different centers that if you can envision that there's a human operator sitting at a terminal interacting with that system then we typically have a human Terminator to represent that interface. There's not a lot of information flow that we define in the Architecture but we just wanted to make sure that there's a place-holder to be able to show that there is an interaction between a human and the system at several points. And so most systems that you would envision having some sort of human operator do have a Terminator, a person-type Terminator involved.
Mac Lister: I would also add that many of the Architectures that I've looked at don't bother mapping them into their Turbo Architecture. So it does complicate some of the diagrams, quite a bit. In some senses it's just a given that there's a human operator involved in the process.
David Binkley: : I would agree with that. One of the main reasons for developing a Regional Architecture is to see the coordination that needs to go on, the integration, between systems. And so, yes, trying to capture every human interaction isn't necessarily adding value to your Architecture.
Q: Mac Lister: I'm not sure where it would best be noted for the National ITS Architecture but wouldn't you agree that system performance monitoring reporting should become an explicit part of the Architecture? This element is often overlooked but desperately needed. Have you all, in your maintenance process, discussed performance monitoring, Dave?
back to top
A. David Binkley: : That's a new one to me. It's a little bit new. There are some functions in Traffic Management, to be able to look at the system itself but I think we might take that away and record that as something to look into for the future. And I appreciate the input.
Mac Lister: : We have several program areas within Federal Highway looking at performance monitoring and performance maintenance as well. So that down the road it is possible that other flows could be considered in future versions of the National Architecture.
David Binkley: :Yes.
Q: Mac Lister: Why were transportation systems like Transit Signal Priority previously addressed in a multi-modal Market Package broken out separately? And well, that's this question. Then the second question, will the new Version Turbo automatically translate past TSP function then TSP Market Package?
A. David Binkley: : Let's see, the answer to the first part, why, and the answer was simply just to be able to highlight it. In developing Regional Architectures, it was sometimes hard for people to understand when all they want to do was show signal priority without having to show multi-modal coordination. So there were a couple things like that. Passenger counting was another where it was easier to explain to people when it's a stand-alone service than trying to show it coupled with some other stuff. So that was why. It's not a huge impact because the answer is, will it translate? The answer is yes. The things that you've done in a previous Version of Turbo, those will be translated into the next Version. So you'll be able to see that. All those interfaces will be carried through and in some cases the interface didn't really change. We just changed how it was represented. In terms of the Architecture Flows, the interfaces that you've already worked on, if you go and you install Turbo Version 4.0, and you want to upgrade your Regional Architecture whenever you want to do that, you'll be asked, do you want to convert your existing Regional Architecture? And when you do that, it will then add in the new interfaces, the new elements that are available with the new Version of the National Architecture. But you'll be able to convert your existing interfaces, your existing elements, as they are. So that should be transparent to you.
Q: Dave Binkley: Which professional body of knowledge is better at helping people to understand National ITS Architecture? Are they ITE, PTOE, or the INCOSE CSEP?
A. David Binkley: : I'm not sure what the PTOE and the CSEP is. I assume those are different parts within those organizations. The National ITS Architecture probably isn't known outside the transportation community too well. So you might want to stay within the community to better understand the National ITS Architecture but when you start asking questions in general about systems engineering then you might want to go to a larger body like INCOSE for a question on how systems engineering relates in general.
Q: Craig Austen: For those still using Version 5.1, for instance Turbo 3.1, is that Version still available online?
back to top
A. David Binkley: : No, I'm sorry. The answer is no. Version 5.1 is now not online anymore but I don't think the changes are significant enough that you would be able to find what you are looking for. In other words, there was nothing really removed from 5.1 that was that critical that hardly anybody would notice. So if you go to the web site today, the Architecture Team web site, and you're looking for something, just know that you're looking at a 6.0 web site and that you might see some differences but for the most part you'll still see the same things that were there in 5.1. I'm trying to think. We produced 5.1 on the web. 5.0 was a CD Version so you might want to, if you have a CD Version of 5.0, use that. But unfortunately 5.1 is no longer available.
Q: Mac Lister: What is the general schedule for updating the National Architecture in Turbo?
A. David Binkley: : What is the general schedule? Oh, every year or every two years. Yes, we don't really have a fixed schedule. It's sort of a combination of funding and changes. If there's a need, an external need that drives us to do something more rapidly then we're under the sponsorship of the ITS Joint Program Office and things can be accelerated or they can be stretched out as needed until enough changes are collected. So unfortunately it's not necessarily a fixed schedule like every year or so but it's more on an as needed or as available basis.
Q: Mac Lister: Next question has to do with Architectures developed using Turbo 3.1 when easily migrated to Turbo 4.0. I didn't hear the answer but you might have addressed that as part of the transit question above?
A. David Binkley: : Yes, and I should have done a better job of that during the presentation. The Turbo Architecture has some really good tools built into it to either just open an Architecture that was developed in a previous Version without changing it or to be able to convert it or, as you say, migrate it into the new Version and it's a really quick process to do that. And it's all automated. That will continue to be a feature of 4.0, to be able to pull in Architectures that were developed in all the previous Versions before.
Q: Mac Lister: Is FHWA considering updates to Turbo that would support distribution of the Architecture to all stakeholders, e.g. web site generation or things like that, that some of the consultants provide?
A. Mac Lister: : At this point the answer is no. That's an excellent question and we will certainly take it back to our headquarters people to consider possibilities of generating Turbo, unless there's been some discussion in the Architecture Team, Dave, that you are aware of.
David Binkley: : You said it correctly. It's on the list. We have a list of changes that we review periodically with our customer at Joint Program Office at headquarters. In that collaborative environment there it did not make the cut this time. So hopefully it stays on the list and makes it to a future Version.
Q: Mac Lister: As more state engineering boards begin to regulate the practice of software engineering, will this affect National ITS Architecture deployment in terms of qualified personnel and more stringent standards of care and increased professional liability?
A. Mac Lister: : That's a big question. The National Architecture itself, which is the topic for today's T3, is certainly was and is and continues to be developed using a systems engineering process starting with user services, et cetera, et cetera and developing down to the detailed flows. It of course is a higher level of technical description than you get down to, than you do in specific software engineering. FHWA is doing what it can to promote software systems engineering. We have had, we've got some T3s that are archived out there already and we had several others planned over the next four to six months, more detailed topics of systems engineering. I don't know the influences on the state DOTs and the project developers and the State Engineering Board practices regarding that. But I'm relatively confident that would be a product of institutional issues within each state. One of the things that we do recommend if it is institutionally feasible is using the IT resources within the state to support transportation projects. Those folks have done systems engineering in the past and sometimes have procurement methods or other kinds of software engineering tools that can be supportive of transportation projects. I think that's about all I can say about it. We certainly promote the use and development of systems engineering within state DOTs and local transportation systems providers and we'll do what we can with the resources we have available to support your efforts. And if there are specific things that you'd like FHWA's support on, you know, contact either the people that have, whose names and emails appear on the information today or through the FHWA division office. That's what I would say. Dave, do you have any perspective on this question?
David Binkley: : And I think you've said it well.
Q: Mac Lister: Thanks for staying with us. We still have 76 of you so that's great. We will keep going till we answer your questions. Can Transaction Set Diagrams be used to describe ConOps?
A. David Binkley: : I think the answer is yes. That's sort of why we developed Transaction Set Diagrams and made them available on the Architecture CD. That is a good useful, visual way to represent a concept of operation for a particular system. And so I think that can be good. It's best if you have some way to relate those Transaction Set Diagrams back to parts of your Architecture. So make sure the naming convention of the systems that you use in your diagram is consistent with systems that are represented in your Architecture. But overall, yes, that's a good way to describe a ConOps.
Mac Lister: : That's a good answer, Dave, and the other part of the answer that I would add to that is we are planning a more detailed T3 on ConOps at some point within the next, as I say, three, four, six months at the outside. So stay tuned and we'll talk more about ConOps in that T3 session.
Q: Mac Lister: Does Turbo 4.0 have any kind of rule-based systems to facilitate the ease of use of the databases available within the software?
back to top
A. David Binkley: : I'm not quite sure I quite understand the question. It is based on use of Microsoft Access and then Visual Basic for Microsoft Access. The databases that it uses are, at the source of it, are the same databases that the National ITS Architecture is based on in terms of the physical Architecture. And it does use a set of logic to pull in the names and descriptions that the user types in for its local elements to be able to map those and relate those to the names and descriptions at the national level. But is it a rule-based system? I don't know that I would necessarily characterize it that way.
Mac Lister: : Okay, and if you have anything further on that, feel free to send in a question to the Turbo Architecture web site or contact us, definitely.
Q: Mac Lister: Who is the primary contact at FHWA for Regional Architecture Assessments?
A. Mac Lister: : The two names that are currently on your screen, either Emiliano Lopez or myself. It's Emiliano's funding source. He's got the program office funding. But a request for an assessment can be initiated either through Emiliano or myself or the division office personnel involved. If a request comes to Emiliano and I, we contact the division office and work with them to arrange that assessment. That is a service, I'm sorry, that was part of a conversation where I was out of the loop but I think you talked about assessments available in the slides, Dave, and that is a service that we are currently offering through our Technical Support and have found it very useful. The folks we've done it for have been very appreciative and think they get some value out of it. I would also promote, again, I didn't hear your comments about the Use and Maintenance Workshop, Dave, but the feedback we've had from that, and we've done that 10 or 12 times at this point, has also been very, very positive. It often restarts an effort that the development of the Architecture was three years ago and it's just kind of sat around since then. So this kind of reinitiates the effort and the knowledge base as projects come up. We've found also in a lot of cases that the individuals who were involved in the development three years ago are no longer there. So the Use and Maintenance workshop has served a very useful function in terms of getting people back up to speed on what is in their Architecture and as their project plans have come to fruition and as maintenance has been contemplated to that Architecture. So I would also promote that as well. Is it necessary to identify every potential Terminator within the Regional Architecture? I think we kind of answered that earlier when I said my experience has been a lot of folks do not include all of their Terminators. Many of them do not include any of their Terminators because the main purpose of the Architecture is to show flows between systems, not what the Terminators or the human factors do with that information once they get it.
David Binkley: : : I think that's true for the human Terminators, the operators of the system. I would caution that there might be some, there are some other systems that are out there, non-ITS systems, that you might want to capture the interface with in your Regional Architecture. Especially if there's something important that you're trying to do with that interface, for instance, the Weather Service. Being able to provide information coming out of their systems to your ITS network. And that would be a case where there is a non-ITS system out there that's a Terminator to your Architecture but you do want to make sure you capture it. So there are a few cases where you do want to capture some Terminators but you're right. You don't want to go crazy with trying to capture every small thing that's out there.
Mac Lister: : Okay, that's a good caution. I'm glad you added that, Dave.
Q: Mac Lister: What is the current Regional ITS Architecture review and approval process?
A. Mac Lister: : It really depends on the individual state DOT and FHWA division office that is often part of documented relationship that exists between those entities. The final rule, Rule 940, does not require specific FHWA approval on the Regional Architecture. It does require, current procedures require FHWA approval on projects. And part of project development is to show what portions of the Regional Architecture apply to that project. So the development of the Regional Architecture and how it is supported in project development is part of the approval process. But the Architecture, there is not a requirement for formal approval of the Architecture within the FHWA rule. Many of our states work closely with our division offices and have actually asked for approval of their Architecture. And in that case, you know, it's been given. So my best answer is to have you contact your local FHWA division office and discuss that and see the best way to accommodate those needs.
Q: Mac Lister: Does Turbo Version 4 have the ability to automatically add a feedback flow when a request flow is selected?
A. David Binkley: :Yes, there's a tool that's off the menu bar in Turbo for updating request and status flows. And it goes through and checks and really asks you before changing anything. I don't think it does so without your involvement. But it checks to see that you may have some request flows that don't have responses or vice versa. You have responses that don't have request flows. And it quizzes you to make sure that is really what you want and then provides you with the option to add those flows if you want. So yes, that's a feature of Turbo.
Q: Mac Lister: Is FHWA getting close to formally adopting any ITS Standards as outlined in the January 2001 Final Rule?
A. Mac Lister: :I really am not a qualified person to give an answer to that question. If FHWA were to consider adopting any standards down the road it would be through a formal process including notices in the Federal Register. I have not heard of any rumblings of FHWA thinking about formally adopting any ITS standards. And that's the best answer that I can give. I would suggest you go to the Standards web site and find a way of communicating with the people who have perhaps a better answer to that. Dave, you've worked with Standards a little bit also. Have you heard of anything about FHWA formally adopting?
David Binkley: No, the short answer is no. I don't think they're close to doing that. And the point of contact that's also on your screen, Lee Simmons, is the Program Manager for the Architecture Program. He's also the Program Manager for the ITS Standards Program and if you wanted a detailed answer, you could call him there at that number. But I think the answer is probably no, not at this time.
back to top
