DOCUMENT PROVIDED TO

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

A ROADMAP FOR

METROLOGY INTEROPERABILITY

AUGUST 21, 2006 

SUBMITTED BY: 

IMTI, Inc. 

P.O. Box 5296 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

NISTIR 7381
ii 

PREFACE

The Integrated Manufacturing Technology Initiative (IMTI, Inc.) produced this report for the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The purpose of this document is to provide a roadmap that 

examines the current state of interoperability in the dimensional metrology process, presents a future 

vision for ideal metrology interoperability, identifies the key issues and major barriers to achieving 

interoperability goals, and poses solutions that will address the issues and remove the barriers to 

metrology interoperability. 

Primary input for this report was gathered at the International Metrology Interoperability Summit (IMIS) 

and the concurrent workshop, conducted March 28-30, 2006 at NIST in Gaithersburg, MD. This 

document is a work in progress. Due to time constraints at the workshop, some elements of the roadmap 

were not completed. These elements include: 

• Actions (specific tasks) needed to implement a solution to a problem or an issue, 

• Assessments of technology readiness levels for proposed solutions, 

• Timeframes and durations for specific solutions, and 

• Estimated costs to implement specific solutions. 

Many of the technical issues are controversial, and much additional discussion is needed to build 

consensus for recommended solutions and to capture the needed information for a comprehensive 

roadmap.
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 1

Table of Contents

Preface ......................................................................................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................................3

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................10

Background .............................................................................................................................................................10

The International Metrology Interoperability Summit (IMIS).................................................................................13

Workshop Structure.................................................................................................................................................15

Objectives................................................................................................................................................................15

Technology Plan.........................................................................................................................................................16

Technology Plan for Product Definition .................................................................................................................17

Current-State Assessment for Product Definition ..........................................................................................17

Interoperability Issues for Product Definition ................................................................................................21

Future Vision for Product Definition..............................................................................................................24

Technology Plan for Inspection Process Definition................................................................................................25

Current-State Assessment for Inspection Process Definition .........................................................................27

Interoperability Issues for Inspection Process Definition...............................................................................27

Future Vision for Inspection Process Definition ............................................................................................29

Technology Roadmap Chart for the Process Definition Breakout Group ......................................................30

Technology Plan for Inspection Process Execution ................................................................................................31

Interoperability Issues for Inspection Process Execution ...............................................................................33

Future Vision for Inspection Process Execution.............................................................................................36

Technology Plan for Analysis and Reporting of Quality Data................................................................................36

Current-State Assessment...............................................................................................................................37

Current-State Assessment for Analysis and Reporting of Quality Data.........................................................37

Future Vision for Analysis and Reporting of Quality Data ............................................................................42

Technology Roadmap Chart for Analysis and Reporting of Quality Data .....................................................44

Cross-Cutting Issues (Interoperability issues that clearly encompass more than one area) ..................................45

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................................47

List of Registrants ...................................................................................................................................................47

List of Acronyms......................................................................................................................................................51

Reference list of Applicable Standards....................................................................................................................53

Description of Workshop Methodology...................................................................................................................54

Manufacturing Readiness Levels.............................................................................................................................57

Plenary Presentations .............................................................................................................................................58

References ...............................................................................................................................................................58
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 2

Disclaimer

Certain commercial companies and their equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this 

document in order to adequately specify the results of the IMIS. Such identification is not intended to 

imply any judgment by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concerning the companies or 

their products, nor is it intended to imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the 

best available for the purpose. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 3

1. Executive Summary

An International Metrology Interoperability Summit (IMIS) was held at NIST in Gaithersburg, 

Maryland, on March 28-30, 2006. Seventy experts in dimensional metrology1

 from all over the world 

attended the summit and participated in a structured, three-day workshop aimed at creating a 

roadmap document that will address dimensional metrology interoperability issues. The participants 

came from equipment suppliers, software solution providers, researchers, and end users, and, as 

such, they brought a balanced perspective to the interoperability issues. 

Of the seventy attendees, 25 were end users: 8 from aerospace, 2 automotive, 5 government, 2 nonauto vehicular, 1 electronics, 1 medical, and 6 other. Thirty-one of the attendees were equipment or 

software vendors: 15 fixed coordinate measuring machine (CMM) software, 7 fixed CMM, 3 

portable CMM software, and 6 portable CMM software. Fourteen of the attendees were from 

standards organizations or academia: 9 from standards groups, 3 from academia, and 3 from other 

groups. 

This document provides a roadmap that identifies and prioritizes the technological and 

organizational issues facing the international metrology community. The roadmap describes 

proposed solutions for each major issue. The intent of the roadmapping technology used (developed 

by IMTI, Inc.) is to identify each major issue related to metrology interoperability, and to develop 

appropriate solutions for each issue. Each solution is then implemented by a set of appropriate 

actions (which correspond to discrete tasks or small projects). For each identified solution and 

action, the roadmap presents an estimated cost, time frame, expected benefits, metrics for 

determining successful implementation, and an assessment of technical risk. 

In the short period allotted to this summit meeting, a complete and detailed roadmap was not 

completed. Nonetheless, a wide variety of important issues were identified and concrete solutions 

offered to resolve these issues. It is anticipated that one or more additional summit meetings will be 

needed to achieve the desired comprehensive roadmap. At the summit the following realities also 

hindered the development of a more comprehensive roadmap, 1) attendance and participation from 

automotive end users and suppliers (particularly from Europe and Asia) was weak and 2) support 

from the International Standards Organization (ISO) STandard for the Exchange of Product model 

data (STEP) community was somewhat weak. On the positive side, broad vendor participation was 

strong and non-automotive user support was adequate. Also, North American automotive end user 

and ISO STEP were all well supported in the speaker roster. 

At the summit, a few issues were identified as of highest priority: 1) lack of implementations of nonproprietary data formats (such as the STEP Application Profiles (AP)) for CAD + PMI (ComputerAided Design + Product Manufacturing Information) data downstream to inspection process 

planning (IPP), 2) concern about intellectual property issues and the need for formal standardization 

for certain emerging interface specifications (such as I++ DME (Dimensional Metrology 

Equipment)), 3) develop new or modify existing interface standards for use with portable metrology 

systems, and 4) resolve competing visions of different organizations. These and other issues and 

their priorities voted on by the attendees can be seen in Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

 

1 Dimensional Metrology determines length, angular, and geometric relationships within manufactured parts and 

compares them with required tolerances. Dimensional metrology (synonymous with dimensional inspection) is 

inextricably linked to the overall manufacturing process and is an important element in the assessment of the quality 

of manufactured parts 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 4

Figure 1. The top 23 metrology interoperability issues/solutions are shown grouped into five categories (see color code) and ran

combined input from all workshop participants. The bottom chart shows a slightly different ranking, as perceived by the end-u
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 5

Figure 2. The same grouped issues/solutions shown in Figure 1 are ranked in a slightly different order of importance, as perceiv

the researcher community. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 6

Dimensional metrology systems consist of distinct components, each with distinct functions, such as 

design (CAD), process planning, process execution, inspection hardware, and results reporting & 

analysis as shown in Figure 3. Multiple vendors offer products for each function. The language of 

communication across the interfaces between these components is typically proprietary. This 

proliferation of proprietary interface languages can be very costly to users, suppliers, vendors, and 

(ultimately) customers. 

The concept of interface interoperability has been introduced to describe the frugality, suitability, 

and efficiency with which one can build systems from components. Interoperability is the ability of 

two system components to communicate correctly and completely with each other – with minimal 

cost to either component user or component vendor – where the components can come from any 

vendor worldwide. Interoperability reduces training costs, minimizes product development time, 

allows best-in-class component choices, and provides a more competitive technology provider 

environment – thus reducing costs for end users, technology providers, suppliers, and consumers. 

Interoperability is best attained by non-proprietary (or “common”) interface standards (i.e., 

protocols, formats, languages, or specifications2

). 

Figure 3: The current Metrology Interoperability Standards Landscape.

The total dimensional metrology process can be divided into four major interacting elements – 

Product Definition, Inspection Process Planning, Inspection Process Execution, and Analysis and 

 

2

 A specification is a data definition for a particular interface that is not yet a formal standard. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 7

Reporting of Quality Data, as shown in Figure 3. Interoperability issues can and do occur both 

within each of these four elements and when passing information between any two of the elements. 

To some degree, interoperability can be advanced by choosing a single-vendor solution. Following 

this approach, all equipment and software used in the dimensional metrology process are purchased 

from a single vendor, or from a group of vendors, who “guarantee” compatibility between their 

products. The success of the single vendor approach depends on a number of factors including the 

size of the business, the viability of the vendor, the costs associated with a single vendor (versus a 

more competitive environment), and how much tier suppliers inherit end user interoperability 

problems. 

For example, the single-vendor approach can achieve a level of interoperability for small to mediumsized businesses. However, there are drawbacks such as dependency upon the single vendor’s ability 

to support all their clients with adequate patches and updates, dealing with specific company issues, 

sharing data with contractors, reduced freedom of technology choices, differing proprietary 

(“native”) file format support (common problem with tier suppliers), and limitations in the choice of 

technology capabilities. 

The single-vendor solution is harder to accomplish for large end user organizations with multiple – 

and perhaps multinational – facilities. A current trend among some large manufacturers (end users) 

is to require a single-vendor solution throughout their company, while requiring their tier suppliers to 

use the same single-vendor network. However, tier suppliers often support multiple large 

manufacturers, who also have single-vendor requirements from other vendors, meaning that the large 

manufacturers have simply passed the problem onto their suppliers. Interoperability costs by the 

suppliers are passed backed to the end user, so the “interoperability problem” is not solved, but just 

shifted around. Furthermore, end users then become beholden to their chosen single-vendor, who is 

now lacking the cost reduction incentives of a more competitive environment. 

Interoperability choices are manifold and can be quite confusing. For example, metrology tools 

(hardware and software components) can range from proprietary and closed – not compliant with 

any published technical standard and not available to the public without cost, to non-proprietary and 

open – compliant with published technical standards and providing technical details of its internal 

structure to the technical community. 

So, why not just insist on metrology tools that are standards-compliant, non-proprietary, open-source 

software, and then the problem is solved? For a number of reasons: 1) open, non-proprietary 

standards do not exist for all interfaces and those that do sometimes have overlap with other 

standards, 2) open, non-proprietary standards must be unambiguous, sufficiently functional, 

completed in a timely manner, and they must be implemented correctly by a critical mass of vendors, 

3) conformance tests must be defined and used by all implementers and tied to user purchase of the 

implementer’s product, 4) non-trivial and public interoperability tests should be performed by a 

critical mass of vendors, 5) a small upfront investment is required of both users and vendors, while 

return on that investment only comes slowly at first, 6) metrology systems users must drive the 

process, since vendors are not the primary beneficiaries of interoperability, 7) some metrology 

systems users believe they have been “burned” by standards efforts in the past that have not 

delivered the level of return promised, and so they are reluctant to support further efforts, 8) vendors 

sometimes feel that by participating in a standards effort they risk “giving away” the trade secrets 

that have allowed them to become successful in the marketplace, and 9) standards also reduce 

barriers to substitution, which vendors often see as a threat. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 8

Even among those who are committed to seeing the use of high quality open, non-proprietary 

standards, there is often disagreement about the best approach to achieving component 

interoperability. For example, the Dimensional Measuring Interface Specification (DMIS) is the 

oldest, most widely implemented dimensional metrology interface standard. It has attempted to keep 

pace with rapid technology changes over the years, and has proposed ways to address 

interoperability issues. Because it is an official standard, changes to DMIS must be subjected to a 

rigorous approval process. For this and other reasons, vendors are varyingly reluctant to submit 

changes and additions to the DMIS committee. This and the fact that widely adopted conformance 

tests do not exist for DMIS, has contributed to a proliferation of different “flavors” of DMIS, which 

has impeded interoperability. 

With the ISO (International Standards Organization) STEP standards, it seems that the steep learning 

curve, the long development time, the lack of support from major CAD vendors, and lack of 

conformance tests have combined to cause both users and vendors to be reluctant to support STEP, 

even though the STEP standards are quite mature and broad in scope, covering all aspects of 

manufacturing, including machining, stamping, assembly, as well as inspection. 

As a result of these realities, and decisions made at an earlier summit meeting (held at NIST in May, 

2000), the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) Metrology Project Team (MEPT) was 

eventually formed to address gaps and overlaps in interface standards in the entire dimensional 

metrology standards infrastructure and to shorten development times for such standards. The MEPT 

has generated several interface specifications, including the Dimensional Markup Language (DML), 

an XML-based (eXtended Markup Language) interface specification for measurement results for 

reporting and analysis. 

Also around the time of the 2000 Summit at NIST, another new organization emerged called the I++ 

group, which is an informal consortium of five, mostly European, automakers. The I++ group had 

an approach similar to the MEPT: accomplish short development times through small development 

groups and standardize later. The I++ DME (Dimensional Metrology Equipment) specification is 

currently the only output of the group, though a version of the I++ DMS (Dimensional Metrology 

System) specification was announced at this 2006 Summit. A major distinction between the MEPT 

and the I++ group, is that the development groups of the I++ are closed, contrary to the MEPT 

development groups, which are open to any and all participants. The short-term benefits of 

shortened specification development times within groups like the I++ may be compromised in the 

long term by the lack of control of changes by the community at large, which is allowed in a 

traditional standard. 

During the course of the workshop, it became apparent that the most urgent issue needing to be 

addressed is that there are currently competing approaches to the interconnection of 

components/systems. There is the MEPT vision, the STEP vision, the DMIS vision, and the I++ 

vision. There is a mix of harmony and discord between these competing approaches. All this leads to 

the conclusion that there is no single shared vision between vendors and users for interoperability. 

Nonetheless, the presence of the rather large community of metrologists attending the IMIS seemed 

to express the will to identify the type and level of discord and to seek to define a way towards 

resolution. 

After the summit and prior to the publication of this document, several activities have commenced in 

response to issue/solution pairs identified at the summit. Several positive results have come out of 

the IMIS, including, 1) Concern over intellectual property issues at the summit involving the DMIS 

and I++ DME have resulted in positive activity toward the resolution of intellectual property issues, 

2) CAD interoperability issues are now being addressed through a pilot project, which has had 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 9

substantial vendor participation, and through participation in the SME CAD Interoperability 

Conference, at which NIST led a workshop on Downstream CAD, 3) NIST organized and led a 

workshop/panel discussion, entitled, Interface Standards for Portable Metrology Systems, at the 

Coordinate Metrology Systems Conference (CMSC) 2006, attended by around 100 portable 

metrology professionals, and 4) an important pilot project has begun as a result of this interaction 

between laser tracker vendors, NIST, and software vendors to exercise I++ DME on this interface. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 10

2. Introduction

An International Metrology Interoperability Summit (IMIS) was held at NIST in Gaithersburg, 

Maryland, on March 28-30, 2006. Over 60 experts in dimensional metrology from all over the world 

attended the summit and participated in a structured, three-day workshop aimed at creating a 

roadmap document that will address dimensional metrology interoperability issues. This document is 

the first step in creating the roadmap. Although all four breakout groups used similar techniques for 

identifying key interoperability issues and solutions, the level of detail achieved varied greatly 

among the groups. The level of detail in the resulting roadmap reflects those differences. It is hoped 

that this initial document will evolve into a polished roadmap that can be used to systematically 

solve the multitude of interoperability issues that were identified during the workshop. 

Background

Metrology is the science of measurement and its corresponding accuracy, precision and uncertainty. 

To measure is to ascertain the numerical value, in terms of some physical unit, to a quantity, quality, 

magnitude or dimension. To inspect is to determine compliance to a specification (e.g., tolerance) by 

measuring, gaging, or other means of examination. Often, measurements are performed to verify 

and inspections are performed to accept. 

In its most basic form, Dimensional Metrology can be thought of as the determination of length, 

angles, and other geometric relationships. In the world of manufacturing, dimensional measurement 

and dimensional inspection are synonymous with dimensional metrology. Today, industry typically 

uses coordinate metrology (e.g., coordinate 

measuring machines) as the preferred method 

for performing a dimensional inspection task. 

Standards for Geometric Dimensioning and 

Tolerancing (GD&T) have been devised in an 

attempt to analyze the quality of manufactured 

components in a consistent manner through 

dimensional inspection. However, there is 

more to the dimensional inspection process 

than just analyzing the dimensions and 

tolerances of manufactured components. The 

product design specifications must be taken 

into account in planning the inspection 

process; the inspection process must be 

executed to obtain appropriate inspection data; 

the data must be analyzed and the results 

reported in a way that accepts/rejects the 

component and provides feedback to the 

manufacturing process that produced the 

component. 

The concept of interoperability is introduced to 

address the issues that complicate the inspection 

process. Interoperability is defined as “the ability of two system components to communicate 

correctly and completely with each other – with minimal cost to either component user or component 

vendor, where the components can come from any vendor worldwide.” Component-to-component 

Figure 4. Interoperability issues arise, in part, due to 

the myriad categories of software available with 

today's metrology equipment. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 11

interoperability reduces training costs, allows best-in-class component choices, and provides a more 

competitive technology provider environment – thus providing the promise of reduced costs for 

OEMs, technology providers, suppliers, and consumers. 

Interoperability issues are almost always related to the software that controls a component or allows 

the component to interact with some other component or other piece of software. Software can be 

categorized in several ways, as shown in Figure 4. Solutions that use open and non-proprietary 

interfaces have economic and technical superiority over proprietary solutions if the following 

conditions are met: 

• An open, non-proprietary solution must exist. 

• It must be sufficiently functional. 

• It must be malleable to changes in technology. 

• It must allow vendors to introduce new technologies over the interface without revealing 

the details of the technology to competitors. 

• Users must be able to verify (through compliance tests) a vendor’s claim to compliance. 

• It must be implemented worldwide. 

If an open, non-proprietary solution does not yet exist, the community works toward it, and lives 

with proprietary solutions for the time being. 

The dimensional inspection process is a subset of the overall manufacturing process and the two 

processes are inextricably linked. Numerous software and hardware systems have been devised to 

support these processes and, unfortunately, lack of interoperability abounds. In a perfect dimensional 

metrology world, the information needed to completely and unambiguously define the dimensional 

characteristics and requirements of a part should be contained in the product definition knowledge 

base, and should be available for planning the inspection process. Information contained in the 

inspection process plan should be sufficient to completely and unambiguously define the 

dimensional inspection requirements of the component. The output of the inspection process plan 

should provide all the information needed to perform the measurement of the component, 

independent of the brand or type of measuring equipment used. The measurement results should be 

stored in a neutral format that can be made available to a variety of analytical and reporting tools that 

determine whether the quality of the part is acceptable. Analysis and reporting tools should be 

flexible enough to present metrology results in a variety of ways to suit the specific needs of the end 

user. The results from the analysis of inspection data should also be available as feedback to 

upstream manufacturing processes and feed-forward to downstream manufacturing processes. As 

shown in Figure 5, the dimensional inspection process can be arbitrarily divided into four major 

interacting elements that embody the above capabilities 

• Product Definition, 

• Inspection Process Planning, 

• Inspection Process Execution, and 

• Analysis and Reporting of Quality Data. 

Interoperability issues can and do occur both within each of these four elements and when passing 

information between any two or more of the elements. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 12

Product 

Definition

Metrology 

Interoperability

Analysis and 

Reporting of 

Quality Data

Process 

Execution

Inspection 

Process 

Definition

Figure 5: Lack of interoperability abounds between the four functional components that comprise the 

dimensional metrology process. 

Metrology interoperability has been recognized as a desirable goal for at least a decade, and several 

standards have been proposed and implemented with varying degrees of success in pursuit of that 

goal. Figure 3 shows the current “landscape” for interoperability in dimensional metrology. Four 

main interfaces are illustrated: 

• CAD Geometry, Features, and Tolerances, 

• Inspection Process Information, 

• CMM Control Commands and Responses, and 

• CMM Measurement Results Output. 

The principal applicable standards or specifications are: STEP, DMIS, I++DME, and DML. Major 

stakeholders in metrology interoperability include government and academic researchers, end users, 

equipment and software manufacturers, and integrated solutions providers. Some of the principal 

stakeholders are shown below. 

• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), providing advice, support, and active 

participation at the task level for many years. NIST develops tests for verifying compliance of 

implementations to each standard. NIST performs detailed standards analysis, as requested by 

the industry. NIST also maintains a metrology interoperability test bed in Gaithersburg, MD, 

that is actually part of a distributed test bed with active participants worldwide. 

• Metrology Project Team (MEPT) of the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) – Also 

known as MIPT, or Metrology Interoperability Project Team) – Consisting of users and 

vendors working together to achieve interoperability of software and hardware in automated 

metrology in order to reduce product development cycle time and reduce manufacturing 

costs, this organization is an "umbrella" group that oversees all the metrology interface 

standards efforts worldwide, without competing with existing standards organizations such as 

the Dimensional Metrology Standards Consortium (DMSC). The MEPT seeks to harmonize 

standards overlaps and fill in gaps where they exist. 

• Dimensional Metrology Standards Consortium (DMSC) – The DMSC is an accredited 

standards-making organization that grew out of the DMIS National Standards Committee 

(DNSC) and has assumed responsibility for the maintenance and support of the DMIS 

Standard. However, the new mission of this group has expanded to address the development 

of other dimensional metrology standards as well as their interoperability issues. 

• DMIS Standards Committee (DSC) – An organization under the auspices of the DMSC that 

maintains and enhances the Dimensional Measuring Interface Standard (DMIS) for both 

ASME and ISO. The DMIS standard is currently version 5.0. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 13

• European DMIS Users Group - (EDUG) - A not-for-profit organization for the purpose of 

furthering the acceptance of and promoting the use of DMIS in Europe. The organization 

also provides a a unified voice to further enhancements into the DMIS standard 

• International Association of CMM Manufacturers (IA.CMM) – The purpose of the 

Association is to support and to promote the interests of the worldwide industry of coordinate 

measuring machines technologies. It provides support for the I++ group, which develops and 

maintains the I++DME Specification.i

• I++ group – an informal consortium of automakers (Audi, DaimlerChrysler, BMW, 

Volkswagen, and Volvo), which has been developing the I++ DME (Dimensional Metrology 

Equipment) specification and which has plans for other dimensional metrology system 

interface specifications 

Over the last 25 years, billions of dollars have been invested in automated manufacturing solutions, 

and great progress has been made. Today, under carefully controlled conditions (using a test product 

with limited complexity), it is possible to extract an inspection process plan from a product definition 

model, use this plan to generate and execute a more-or-less device independent inspection program, 

and report the results in a more-or-less neutral format. However, such a feat is still at the 

“demonstration” or “proof-of-principle” stage. Much work and many problems remain before 

seamless interoperability is achieved on a routine basis. Perhaps the biggest problem is that there is 

more than one set of software tools to do the job, and the tools often do not work in harmony. 

The Interoperability and Standards Challenge: Achieving critical-mass support for open, nonproprietary standards is a challenge. One important reason is that standards development requires a 

substantial up-front investment of time and resources from the parties involved (e.g. users, suppliers, 

vendors, and standards professionals). Years may pass before any financial benefits are realized from 

these standards. 

As a result, standards development stakeholders must realize that their investments will pay off. 

However, this delayed benefit is partly why a single-supplier-network approach becomes appealing. 

Establishing a single-supplier network achieves temporary interoperability without significant upfront cost. However, the argument of many is that the single-supplier-network approach to 

alleviating interoperability problems typically has hidden costs – such as constraining best-in-class, 

causing increased prices, requiring file translation and retraining, and surrendering your process to an 

outside vendor. 

Unfortunately, support for open, non-proprietary standards has waned even among experienced 

professionals, since several standards efforts have either failed or been weakened by a variety of 

factors. Today we know that these factors include lack of worldwide support, lack of conformance 

tests, insufficient standards maintenance, insufficient functionality in the standard, and lack of 

timeliness. 

If we think a standards approach is most cost-effective in the long run, the entire community needs to 

address such non-technical barriers head-on with creative solutions. A roadmapping exercise should 

provide help in defining such solutions and the actions necessary to realize the solutions. 

The International Metrology Interoperability Summit (IMIS)

An International Metrology Interoperability Summit was hosted by NIST on March 28-30, 2006 in 

Gaithersburg, Maryland. Sponsors for the summit included the AIAG MEPT and the DMSC. These 

sponsors joined forces in a “volunteer army” to bring the summit to fruition. The representatives 

formed an ad-hoc IMIS steering committee. The steering committee provided the planning and 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 14

coordination for the effort, and will play a continuing role in reviewing, maturing, and implementing 

the resulting roadmap. The overarching goal of the summit is to highlight key needs, reach 

resolution/consensus on important issues, and to develop a roadmap that, when implemented, will 

deliver interoperable solutions for metrology applications. More specifically, the stated goals of the 

summit are: 

• To gather together dimensional metrologists and decision-makers with a common desire to 

enable metrology system component interface interoperability. 

• To assess the current status of metrology interoperability and build a roadmap defining future 

activities. 

• To seek greater unity with organizations worldwide, working together efficiently and 

effectively to accomplish a common agenda. 

A roadmap is a useful tool for identifying and seeking consensus on key issues requiring resolution. 

It is also useful for creating a work-breakdown structure by prioritizing the issues, assessing the 

scope of work needed to resolve them, and estimating the timeframe required to implement 

solutions. Among the more important issues that were identified prior to the summit: 

• DMIS is the most mature international standard in our domain. DMIS is bidirectional. In one 

direction, DMIS plays two roles, one as a computer-readable interface language and another 

as a human-readable programming language with which humans can create and store an 

inspection program. Recently, we have seen a market trend that impacts the role of DMIS. 

Users increasingly "program" a CMM through a more or less graphical interface. They are, in 

essence, creating a high level process plan; they apply GD&T and inspection planning 

information to the CAD model and the lower-level inspection plan and execution are 

generated more-or-less automatically, within the same software package. Surely there will be 

a need for DMIS for a plethora of systems currently in production. However, switching our 

headlights to high beam on a roadmap, should we anticipate that the interface DMIS is 

written for, the Dimensional Measurement Planning (DMP) interface, might go 

"underground?" Which is to say, should we expect that there would cease to be distinct 

products on either side of the DMP interface, obviating the need for open, non-proprietary 

standards at the DMP interface? 

• The AIAG MEPT has been working on open, non-proprietary metrology results data 

standards such as DML. ISO STEP has developed a similar standard in STEP AP219. Open, 

proprietary standards exist, as well, for example, QML (Quality Markup Language). Can we 

achieve worldwide agreement on what standards to support or develop that relate to quality 

output data, including dimensional metrology measurement results? 

• What is the preferred way to define CAD + GD&T information? Will STEP AP 203 edition 2 

suffice? Should DML or STEP AP 219 fill this gap? Will this interface also go 

"underground?" Namely, will GD&T assignment to CAD always occur within a single 

vendor's software package, again doing away with the need for open, nonproprietary 

standards at this interface? Could one of the CAD vendor's proprietary standards become an 

open, non-proprietary standard that has the support of the whole community? 

• What should be our attitude towards the ISO STEP standards as a dimensional metrology 

community, because either 1) they take too long to develop (viz. AP219), 2) too much of a 

learning curve is required to implement, or 3) we are too small a community to effect a 

change (e.g., to get CAD vendors to support AP203 2nd edition)? 

• To consider expansion of our efforts to embrace other domains such as CNC machining and 

assembly, vision-based CMMs, and non-contact, manual CMMs: 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 15

o CNC machining and assembly: On-machine inspection for in-process correction of 

machining parameters is becoming more common. The definition and encoding of 

feature and tolerance information is similar to that required by the metrology function. In 

spite of this, there has been very little fruitful synergy between the machining, assembly, 

and metrology domains. 

o Non-contact manual CMMs and vision-based CMMs: The use of semi-manual and noncontact CMMs (laser trackers and articulated arm CMMs) is growing in both aerospace 

and automotive sectors. Vision-based CMMs have not traditionally been included in 

interface standards efforts for CNC CMMs. Several questions need to be addressed by 

the entire dimensional metrology community: 

 Are these systems ready for interface standards? Do users want or need them? 

 Will the standards developed for CNC CMMs apply to semi-manual and non-contact 

CMMs? 

 Are separate interface standards needed for semi-manual and non-contact CMMs in 

addition to the existing and emerging interface standards for CNC CMMs? 

Workshop Structure

Attendees of the International Metrology Interoperability Summit also participated in the metrology 

interoperability workshop at NIST. The three-day summit/workshop brought together dimensional 

metrology experts and other stakeholders from all over the world. It provided an opportunity for 

identifying key issues affecting metrology interoperability, proposing high-level solutions that 

address those issues, identifying barriers to the implementation of the solutions, and ranking the 

solutions in order of perceived importance. Materials generated in the workshop were used to 

construct the roadmap described in this document. In order to fully understand and appreciate the 

roadmap, it is necessary to understand the methodology and terminology used at the workshop to 

compile the information contained in the roadmap. Please refer to Appendix 4.4 for a detailed 

explanation of workshop methodology. 

Objectives

It is obvious that a lot of work has already been done to foster interoperability. What is needed now 

is a concerted effort: 

• to identify gaps and areas of overlap, 

• to harmonize existing standards and practices where apparent conflicts exist, 

• to create new standards and extend existing standards that will address new and emerging 

issues, and 

• to utilize the resulting body of standards and practices to achieve seamless metrology 

interoperability. 

Also needed is for users of metrology systems to lead all these efforts, to ensure that the outcome 

suits their needs. The purpose of this roadmap document is to provide a framework that presents the 

above ideas in a clear and concise manner. Such a framework must identify and describe 

interoperability issues, provide a clear vision for the future, and define solutions for key issues that 

will overcome barriers to the successful implementation of metrology systems that are truly 

interoperable. The roadmap will also provide the basis for a strategic investment plan that maximizes 

the resources of all stakeholders. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 16

3. Technology Plan

Elements of the technology plan for metrology interoperability are presented for each of the four breakout 

groups (Product Definition, Inspection Process Definition, Inspection Process Execution, and Analysis and 

Reporting of Quality Data), as well as for crosscutting issues that affect the entire dimensional metrology 

process. Activity models are very useful tools for visually depicting the major elements of a process at a high 

level, and analyzing the process by breaking it down into its key activities. The activities are presented in a 

flowchart format that displays interactions such as inputs from preceding activities or processes, outputs to 

subsequent activities or processes, and decisions or branches that are based on conditions encountered within a 

process. The activity model (also called an activity diagram) can also depict boundaries between activities and, 

at a higher level, between processes. It is across these boundaries that interoperability issues occur. Activity 

diagrams are used in the following sections of this document to provide a quick overview of the key activities 

and relevant interoperability issues identified by the four breakout groups during the workshop. 

During the final day of the workshop, each participant was given a ballot comprising a list of the top 

interoperability solutions identified by the breakout groups, and ten “metrology dollars.” Dollars were 

used to vote on the solutions they believed to be most important. Each participant could allocate up to 

three dollars to any given solution. In a few cases identically worded solutions were proposed for more 

than one issue, which made the voting process confusing. In those cases the solutions were paired with 

their corresponding issues. The ballots were grouped according to whether the participant was an end 

user, a metrology researcher, or an equipment manufacturer. The tabulated results established a rank for 

each of the 23 top solutions. The results were tabulated for each group (end user, researcher, or 

manufacturer) and for the combined groups. The overall ranking was determined by the vote totals from 

the combined group, normalized to a scale of 0-100. Related issues/solutions were grouped into one of 

categories (Product Design – CAD, Process Planning, Process Execution, Analysis and Reporting, and 

General Issues). Results are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Approximately 29 percent of votes cast
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 17

by the workshop participants were for Product 

Definition (CAD-related) issues, which was the largest 

category. However, issues related to the other three 

breakout categories also had a sizable distribution of 

votes. Approximately 12 percent of the votes cast were 

for general issues that either spanned multiple 

categories, or did not clearly fit any of the four 

categories. 

3.1. Technology Plan for Product

Definition

Participants in the product definition group included 

Stephen Anderson (Renishaw), Conrad Bock (NIST), 

Dave Callaghan, (IQL), Tom Kramer (NIST - session 

scribe), Kevin Legacy (Zeiss), Len Slovensky 

(Northrop Grumman), Tom Melson (Boeing), Andrew 

Moore (QVI), Troy Niehaus (Metronor), Bill Rippey 

(NIST - session facilitator), Bill Tandler (Multi Metrics), and Jerry Udy (Spatial). 

The Product Definition breakout group created the detailed as-is (current state) activity model shown 

in Figure 5. From the perspective of dimensional metrology, the most important function of the 

product definition activity is to provide sufficient information to permit the automatic generation of an 

inspection plan. Thus, the output of the product definition activity should flow seamlessly into the 

downstream inspection process definition activity. Such information must include things like part 

geometry, features, tolerances, and relevant manufacturing information, such as surface finish and 

material properties. 

Current-State Assessment for Product Definition

The right side of the activity diagram in Figure 5 shows some of the key functions that occur during 

the early stages of part definition activity. Figure 6 shows the product definition activity from the 

perspective of an end user who needs to define an inspection process using the output of the product 

definition software. It gives a clear indication of some of the interoperability challenges between the 

two activities. The first metrology-related interoperability question that arises in the product definition 

activity is “Can product manufacturing information (PMI) be embedded in the CAD model (PMI 

includes elements such as geometrical dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T), surface finish, optical 

properties, and material properties)?” 

Furthermore, can we embed all this information using an open, non-proprietary data format, like the 

STEP standard? CAD software vendors are currently working on this problem and generating 

successful solutions, but with proprietary data formats exclusively. Perhaps, one of these promising 

proprietary data formats could form the basis for a new open, non-proprietary standard. Perhaps, one 

proprietary data format will emerge as a de facto standard, in the way that computer operating system 

software has de facto standards. An example of this in the CAD domain is the quasi-proprietary 

interface standard, JT, which is defined to allow the visualization and manipulation of complex 3D 

geometry of parts and assembliesii

. 

In today’s world, PMI information is only limitedly available in proprietary software, and there are no 

CAD product implementations of PMI information using non-proprietary standards. Looking at the 

simplest case, where the product consists of a single monolithic part, the part must be decomposed 

into geometric features. Dimensions and tolerances must then be assigned to a geometric feature, or 

set of features. Datum features must be defined in such a way that they are appropriate both for 

Figure 5. The pie chart shows the aggregate of 

votes cast for issues in each of the four breakout 

categories, plus a general category.
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 18

manufacturing the part and for inspecting it. Surface texture information must be included in the 

model, along with relevant information about the orientation or lay of the surface texture to be 

measured. Accurately extracting this type of information would require interaction with the 

manufacturing process plan, which defines the process used to create the surface that is to be 

measured. Therefore a process definition that defines the manufacturing and measuring process must 

be interconnected with elements within the product definition. Furthermore, the processes require 

resources (sensors, fixtures, machines), and therefore a resource definition that supports the process 

definition must be represented. Realistically, this doesn’t happen in today’s world. Figure 5 is an 

activity model that focuses on this specific problem. It is a rough, but reasonably accurate, portrayal of 

today’s interoperability problems between product definition products and downstream manufacturing 

processes. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 19

Generate CAD 

model

Can GD&T be 

embedded in CAD 

model?

Yes

No

Determine 

manufacturing 

allowances

Attach annotated 

data to drawing

Embed GD&T

Is the GD&T data 

available to use? (IP)

Yes

Extract GD&T 

automatically 

“DirectCAD”

Extract GD&T by 

API

Extract GD&T via 

3rd party extractor

Manually generate 

inspection plan

Generate 

inspection plan

Execute plan

Create part 

geometry

Define features

Determine 

manufacturing 

allowances

Generate CAD + 

GD&T 

information

Downstream 

processes

- Conveyed seamlessly

- Partially manual

- Extra translation

- Some data left behind

Possible paths

Product Definition Activity Model

Figure 5: The numerous alternate paths shown in this as-is activity model for product 

definition are indicators of interoperability issues. The horizontal dotted lines show the 

boundaries between downstream processes.
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 20

Create part 

geometry

Define features

Define and associate 

tolerances with features

Define additional information 

necessary for inspection, 

Inspection process planning 

(setup, sensors, etc.)

Data format 

compatible with 

inspection process 

software?

Yes

Format 

proprietary?

Pay for CAD 

seat

Translate 

data

Purchase 

CAD 

software

Get training

Negotiate with

CAD or inspection 

software vendor to 

realize compatibility

Purchase 

inspection 

process 

software

Work to 

enable 

standards

Get software 

training

Pay royalty

Yes

No

Generate inspection process

No Format open?

Yes

No

Figure 6: This activity model shows clearly shows the interoperability challenges between product definition 

and inspection process planning products. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 21

Assuming that GD&T can be embedded in the CAD model, an important issue which affects 

interoperability is “Will end users and suppliers be successful in persuading CAD vendors to 

encode part geometry + PMI in an open, non-proprietary file format, sufficiently rich enough to 

allow the automatic generation of a complete process plan?” The current common business 

model for CAD vendors is to define a closed and proprietary interface, where the process 

planning vendor (and ultimately, the user) must pay for access to select portions of geometry + 

PMI (through API interfaces), which may or may not be saved to file. Also, common is for end 

users to require suppliers to read and write design data in native (proprietary) file formats, and 

the type of proprietary file format varies from end user to end user. This may allow each 

individual end user to create the appearance of interoperability, but, in fact, interoperability 

costs are merely passed onto their suppliers, who must support multiple proprietary file formats 

required by the various end users they support. 

Yet another issue, due to a variety of circumstances, is that software translators between 

different proprietary CAD + PMI formats may continue to exist and thrive for some time to 

come. The question then is “How should standards bodies respond to these proprietary 

realities? Should they be resigned to the current status quo and perhaps define other standards 

based on current de facto standards?” The Product Definition group asks “Is there a path of 

migration from proprietary to non-proprietary interface standards?” A possible solution is to 

adopt the OMG model for standards development, where the vendors compete with their 

proprietary standards and vote for the one they consider the best, which is then chosen as the 

basis for a new open, non-proprietary interface standard. 

The ISO STEP standards have made a heroic effort toward achieving interoperability on the 

CAD interface, particularly for the interface between CAD and machining process planning. 

There has also been substantial work on the interface between CAD and inspection process 

planning, for example with STEP AP203 edition 2, STEP AP 224, and STEP AP 219. 

However, there is a strong negative perception in the dimensional metrology community 

relating to the STEP standards, that 1) they are too hard to understand and therefore difficult to 

implement, 2) they have, as in the case of AP 224 and AP 219, virtually no implementations, 

nor do robust and well-exercised conformance tests exist, casting doubt that the standards can 

produce interoperability even if the steep learning curve is overcome, and 3) the ISO STEP 

standards process is too slow, and several standards efforts (e.g., MEPT and I++) have pursued 

another model, namely, develop a specification quickly with a small team of recognized experts, 

then only when the specification is reasonably mature and has many implementations, release 

the specification to a standards body like the DMSC (Dimensional Metrology Standards 

Consortium) or ISO (International Standards Organization). 

Interoperability Issues for Product Definition

Table 1 summarizes the top interoperability issues identified by the product definition group. 

Following the table, recommended high-level solutions and (where available) more specific 

actions are presented for each issue. 

Table 1. The top metrology interoperability issues, as identified by the product definition group. 

Top Product Definition Issues 

CAD data (including GD&T) does not flow seamlessly to downstream processes when

components are not from same vendor.

GD&T data is not associated with individual features of the part (the CAD model), which

makes it impossible to automate inspection process programming. If GD&T information

is expressed as annotations in CAD files or as notes on drawings, it is not available to

automated computer processes that can use it.
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 22

It is difficult if not impossible to know if a vendor truly supports a standard as advertised.

When a vendor claims that its product conforms to a standard, there is often no means of

certifying that the product actually does conform to the standard as claimed.

There continues to be divergence in the use and interpretation of GD&T standards both

within the U.S. and at the international level. Some major companies have adopted

internal variations in the way that they interpret and apply the standards. It is believed

that this practice will result interoperability problems in the near future. The standards

effort must be international, involving multiple government standards organizations.

Crosscutting Issue: There are currently no “consensus” approaches to the

interconnection of components/systems. The “big picture” needs to be defined before

unified efforts can be developed to solve this important problem. There is no shared

vision between vendors and users for interoperability

Issue 1: (See the Crosscutting Issue 1.) 

Issue 2: CAD data (including GD&T) does not flow seamlessly to downstream processes 

when components are not from same vendor. 

Solution 1: Realize an API-based (Application Program Interface based) solution 

such as AIMS (Advanced Integrated Mathematical System) or Honeywell FM&T’s 

FBTol (Feature-Based Tolerancing). Boeing gives away the “kernel” software for 

AIMS, and publishes the API specification. 

Solution 2: Realize a standard data format, such as STEP (STandard for the Exchange 

of Product model data). 

Issue 3: GD&T data is not associated with individual features of the part (the CAD 

model), which makes it impossible to automate inspection process programming. If GD&T 

information is expressed as annotations in CAD files or as notes on drawings, it is not 

available to automated computer processes that can use it. 

Solution 1: The CAD community puts associated GD&T in their data formats 

(beyond annotations) as a matter of standard practice. This requires consensus and is 

related to the crosscutting issue of a lack of business case consensus described in the 

Crosscutting Issues section below. 

Solution 2: End users must be more emphatic and aggressive in defining best 

practices and needs to CAD vendors. 

Issue 4: It is difficult if not impossible to know if a vendor truly supports a standard 

as advertised. When a vendor claims that its product conforms to a standard, there is 

often no means of certifying that the product actually does conform to the standard as 

claimed. 

Solution 1: Certification bodies must be created or identified, and certification test 

methods must be required and created or identified for products. 

Action: NIST (or other government-sanctioned organizations at the international 

level) should consider changing their missions to include the performance of 

standards conformance tests that will certify product conformance to standards or 

to support certification more directly. 

Solution 2: Use conformance classes in the standard. 

Issue 5: There continues to be divergence in the use and interpretation of GD&T standards 

both within the U.S. and at the international level. Some major companies have adopted 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 23

internal variations in the way that they interpret and apply the standards. It is believed that 

this practice will result in interoperability problems in the near future. The standards effort 

must be international, involving multiple government standards organizations. 

Solution 1: International integration of the GD&T standards. 

In addition to the issues and solutions presented above, the product definition group provided 

the following additional observations and comments on the current state that do not rise to the 

level of major issues. 

• If you can’t associate GD&T data with part features you can’t control the 

inspection plan. 

• Companies can shy away from BIG PROJECTS – don’t tackle all issues at once – 

focus on smaller issues in phases. 

• The scope of CAD companies focus is expanding beyond just CAD – standards 

don’t match their business case. We need to know their goals better. 

• Vendors currently expend great effort in multiple directions trying to integrate – 

there are too many directions to follow all. 

• Can a standard format cause loss of proprietary capability data? – If so, this may 

give vendors less incentive to improve capabilities. 

• STEP uses a file-based approach, which often results in vendors buying tools that 

manipulate the files through an API. AIMS, for example, is a direct API approach 

where, at this time, the user does not manipulate external files. 

• Is the IMIS forum considering only open, non-proprietary specifications / 

standards? Is there a path for migrating “open proprietary” to “open nonproprietary”? 

• What are other issues in dealing with older, “legacy” systems? For example, it is 

impractical or even impossible to upgrade them, and it is difficult to discard 

working systems and their data. 

• What could be the role in standards for specifications or tools based on the model 

of “open source code” tools and applications? 

• The use of standards doesn’t necessarily reduce costs of buying new software 

licenses. A standard will reduce this cost if the number of different products used 

for data translation can be reduced. 

• How did the WEPROM (Werkergerechte prozesskettenorientierte Messtechnik 

Softwarekonzept3

) effort get extensive user involvement? How did the I++ effort 

get so much user involvement? 

• There will always be costs of keeping products up with revisions in specifications. 

• Out of scope issue: How can well-integrated data be used: 

o To detect errors in inspection plans? 

o To detect errors in equipment function? 

o To detect errors in application software? 

 

3

 Precision process-chain-oriented metrology software concept 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 24

o To detect errors in inspection programs? 

Future Vision for Product Definition

 Multi-process manufacturing will have traceable nominal feature data. 

 Internet posting of part design data for bidding by contractors. 

 The information needed to develop manufacturing sequences, fixturing plans, inspection 

plans, and manufacturing programs, can be extracted automatically from the product design 

data. 

 All standards will be harmonized. 

 Existing standards will be extensible, partly through good modularization. 

 There will be organization of complete product data across the product lifecycle. 

 No data left behind - the definitions of data interfaces will be complete and all-important 

data will be conveyed effortlessly. 

 Open interface specifications are extensible. 

 One can choose a product vendor and not lose interoperability with my other components. 

 Data will be exchanged without use of industry agreements (vendor-to-vendor handshake). 

 Data can be archived long term without the need to preserve the applications that generated 

them. 

 There will be industry-wide agreement on data formats - “everybody plays” in the standards 

arena. 

 Interface specifications will be stable, and new needs will be addressed quickly. 

 Generate DMIS automatically using standard data. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 25

3.2. Technology Plan for Inspection Process Definition

Participants in the inspection process definition group included Ray Admire (Lockheed Martin 

MFC), Kalyan Bhamidi (Caterpillar), Curtis Brown (Honeywell FM&T), Robert Callaghan 

(Independent Quality Labs), Jess Crusey (Northrop Grumman), Murray Desnoyer (Origin 

International), Rob Edgeworth (Intel), Cory Leland (Deere), Larry Maggiano (Mitutoyo), Carol 

Malone (Macomb Community College), Dave Marlow, John Michaloski (NIST, session scribe), 

Helen Guixiu Oiao (API), Ken Sheehan (Quality Vision International), Andy Smith (Renishaw), 

Doug Sponseller (Timken), Tim Taylor (GE Aviation), Al Wavering (NIST, session facilitator), 

Art Whistler (Helmel), and John Wootton (LK). 

The Inspection Process Definition breakout group created the detailed activity model shown in 

Figure 7. From the perspective of dimensional metrology, the most important functions of the 

inspection process definition activity are: 

• To extract or accept as input from the product definition model all the information 

necessary to generate a complete inspection process plan called the macro process plan. 

• To generate a device-independent micro process plan containing the necessary 

information to execute the part inspection process. 

The activity diagram can be viewed as a high-level overview of all the functions that must be 

supported in order to generate an inspection process plan for use by the downstream execution 

of the part inspection process. Some of these functions are performed intelligently by today’s 

software, while others require manual intervention. Clearly there are many interoperability 

issues between the product definition activity and the inspection process definition activity. 

Within the process definition activity, there are a host of interoperability issues if the process 

plan is expected to provide device-independent support for the myriad inspection devices that 

are available for process execution. The question of how the inspection process activity makes 

the inspection process plan available to the downstream executor of the inspection process is 

also an interoperability issue. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 26

Product Definition: Includes geometry , features, tolerances, and manufacturing information

Generate Macro Process Plan

▪ Machining plan/program

▪ Equipment decision

▪ Decide what measurements to make – measurands 

(measurement method ) and purpose

▪ Desired uncertainties

▪ Outlier handling and filtering of inspection and analysis

Generate Micro Process Plan

▪ Part inspection program , motions, inspections, recording and reporting

Collect measurements on equipment (CMM, gauges, etc.)

Execute Inspection Process:

Laser

Tracker

Vision

System

Machine

Tool CMM HandGauges ...

Knowledge

Measurement and quality data

DMIS or other microplanning language

Inspection Process Definition Activity Model

Comment: Assume 

there is always 

software between 

the equipment and 

analysis/display 

software that also 

executes the 

process.

Large 

data sets

Dimensional 

data

Quality 

data

Measurement 

history data 

(SPC)

Nondimensional 

measurement 

data

Dimensional 

Data

Comment:

Within this 

activity, define 

any additional 

tolerance and 

manufacturing 

info

Material

Rules

Constraints

ASME B89

Tool

Figure 7. The activity model for inspection process definition summarizes the various functions that 

must be supported to design and generate a complete inspection plan. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 27

Current-State Assessment for Inspection Process Definition

In evaluating the current state of the inspection process definition activity, the group identified a 

number of key findings, many of which could be translated into interoperability issues. 

In today’s manufacturing environment, dimensional metrology includes more than just 

inspecting the part for conformance to the key dimensions on a drawing. Measurements are also 

used: 

• To provide feedback needed for control of the manufacturing process. 

• To provide statistical data for the evaluation of conformance to tolerances at the feature 

level. 

• To provide manufacturability feedback to the product definition (design and 

development) activity. 

• To provide calibration and tolerance-centering for upstream manufacturing processes. 

The group noted that there is a lack of information in digital format to define measuring system 

capabilities in terms of performance, measurement uncertainty, and configuration. Tolerance 

definitions are often incomplete, ambiguous, inaccurate (or wrong). There is no change 

capability or associativity back into the CAD product design model, meaning that there seems 

to be no way to update/improve a product design when design errors are discovered in Process 

Definition. There is also no standard digital format for transmitting knowledge-based 

manufacturing and inspection rules. It is now done with a lot of “cut and paste” activity. In 

today’s inspection process definition tools, there is currently a lack of DMIS compatibility, and 

a lack of interactive and/or static conformance classes, meaning that there are multiple 

proprietary data formats and a lack of tools allowing user access to the data. 

Interoperability Issues for Inspection Process Definition

Table 2 summarizes the top interoperability issues identified by the inspection process 

definition group. Following the table, recommended high-level solutions and (where available) 

more specific actions are presented for each issue. 

Table 2. The top metrology interoperability issues, as identified by the inspection process definition 

group. 

Top Inspection Process Definition Issues 

The lack of comprehensive non-shape information available from the product

definition model – CAD Tolerance Data, material properties, optical properties, etc.

The lack of a standard mechanism to capture and exchange knowledge – including

methods, practices, and rules.

The lack of resource definition from the product definition model or elsewhere – such

as inspection equipment capability, capacity, available configuration, performance,

measurement uncertainty, etc.

Does DMIS support all measuring devices?

The macro-to-multiple-micro planning interface is not well defined.

Issue 1: There is a lack of comprehensive non-shape information available from the 

product definition model – geometric and dimensional tolerance data, datum reference 

frames, material properties, optical properties, etc. This issue is considered a 

“showstopper”, and must be solved if interoperability is to be realized between product 

definition models, inspection process definition and planning products, and downstream 

processes. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 28

Solution 1: Evaluate GD&T in AP203 2nd Edition – also consider material properties, 

surface finish, etc. 

Action: Assess AP203 2nd Edition for its scope and completeness for representing 

tolerances and other measurement criteria and report discrepancies to NIST. 

Solution 2: Put GD&T definition in a derivative environment other than CAD and 

verify the schema. 

Action: Put plug-ins available to extract information into AP203 (Edition 2) 

Solution 3: Push CAD vendors to supply associative GD&T (beyond annotations) as 

a part of their model. 

Solution 4: Educate users to prevent the use and acceptance of incomplete, inaccurate, 

wrong, or ambiguous GD&T information. 

Issue 2: There is a lack of a standard mechanism to capture and exchange knowledge – 

including measurement methods, practices, and rules.

Solution 1: Define an extensible interface standard for capture and exchange rules. 

Issue 3: There is a lack of resource definition from the product definition model or 

elsewhere – such as measurement equipment capability, capacity, available configuration, 

performance, measurement uncertainty, sensors, fixtures, rotary tables, etc.

Solution 1: Assess various measuring system capabilities & resource configuration 

information. 

Action 1: Assess the ASME B5.59 series, and explore whether the ASME B5.59 

applies to coordinate measuring machines.4

Action 2: Assess DMIS as it relates to the definition of machine configuration. 

Action 3: Assess the work done by I++ and Renishaw regarding machine 

configuration using extensible markup language (XML). 

Action 4: Assess the content of ISO 10360-1 as it relates to machine type and 

definitions.

Solution 2: Provide a better sensor model that is more suitable for plug and play 

implementations. 

Action 1: Produce a laundry list of available sensor models. 

Solution 3: Define a common standard method of communicating resource 

information. 

Action 1: Collate various resource equipment standards to revise standards. 

Issue 4: Does DMIS support all measuring devices? 

Solution 1: Verify DMIS against various measuring devices 

Action 1: Gap analysis for vision, laser tracker, on-machine CNC probing, etc. 

 

4

 The authors of this document (NIST and IMTI) do not have knowledge of the standard (ASME B5.59) referred to 

here. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 29

Action 2: Determine whether or not DMIS is sufficient to span across I++ 

functionality. 

Issue 5: The macro-to-multiple-micro planning interface is not well defined. 

Solution 1: Improve the definition of the interface to provide additional and more 

complete support of multiple measurement devices.

Action 1: Evaluate candidate solutions (currently DMIS). If DMIS is not the 

answer, create a different solution or enhance DMIS. 

Cultural Issues – The process definition group identified the following “cultural” issues that 

affect interoperability, many of which are crosscutting issues. 

• Lack of CAD vendor interest in changing the status quo. 

• How to handle legacy parts that don’t have CAD models. 

• Culture change necessary to align design/manufacturing/measurement functions. 

• How comprehensive should the scope of our efforts be? 

• Are we addressing the needs of small manufacturers? 

• Education and lack of knowledge. 

• Improving the understandability of standards and units, and removing ambiguities. 

Future Vision for Inspection Process Definition

VISION STATEMENT FOR INSPECTION PROCESS DEFINITION

The inspection process definition activity can interact seamlessly with product definition 

information coming from any CAD system, using this information to provide 

unambiguous instructions that can run on any CMM/Measuring Equipment appropriate 

to measurement requirements. 

The group developed the above vision state for inspection process definition, and provided the 

following list of elements for their vision: 

• Represent results back to CAD, since there is currently no automatic, integrated (nonmanual) path from reporting to CAD 

• The knowledge base used by the entire metrology process should be accessible and 

extensible – not something that is invisible or lost in a black box. 

• Generation of the inspection process/program will be automated. 

• A standard graphical representation of part and feature deviations will be adopted. 

• Raw data will be stored in a lossless, compressed format that will be retained 

throughout the manufacturing life cycle. 

• Keep all data all the time, forever. 

• Results feedback into process planning at different timescales to optimize 

measurements, since there is currently no automatic, integrated (only manual) path from 

reporting to process planning 

• Link everything back into enterprise content management – beyond Product Data 

Management (PDM). 

• Cost predictive tool – design for manufacturability, tolerance for inspectability (ABC, 

history based) 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 30

Roadmap Chart for the Process Definition Breakout Group

The Process Definition breakout group identified five significant issues affecting metrology 

interoperability as it relates to product definition. This is an excellent start for a roadmap 

diagram (shown in Table 1Table 3). The remaining information (dependencies, cost, timelines, 

duration, and metrics for success) can be added to the diagram at a later date. 

Table 3. A roadmap for the Process Definition Breakout Group. (The timeline, cost, benefit, and performance 

metrics will be populated in a subsequent work session.) 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 31

3.3. Technology Plan for Inspection Process Execution

Participants in the inspection process execution group included Paul Clausen (NDI), Alberto 

Griffa (Geomagic), Zev Handler (Hexagon/Wilcox), Ronald Hicks (Northrop Grumman 

Newport News), Kam Lau (API), Lutz Karras (Zeiss), Keith Mills (Xspect Solutions), Nick 

Moffitt (Verisurf), Josef Resch (Zeiss), Etienne Rossignon (Delcam), Bailey Squier (DMSC, 

Inc.), Hui-Min Huang (session scribe), and Fred Proctor (NIST, session facilitator). 

The inspection process execution breakout group created the detailed activity model shown in 

Figure 8. From a very high-level perspective, the most important functions of the inspection 

process execution activity are: 

• To accept input from the inspection process plan and use the input to provide 

unambiguous instructions to a variety of inspection equipment. 

• To use the inspection equipment to inspect a component. 

• To save the inspection results. 

• To provide output to the analysis and reporting activity. 

As simple as this makes the process sound, interactivity issues abound – both between the 

inspection process definition activity and the inspection process execution activity, and within 

the inspection process execution activity. Not only are there a huge number of different types of 

inspection equipment that must be supported, there are an almost limitless number of ways in 

which a complex part can be inspected. The goal is to achieve interoperability with a high 

degree of automation and a minimum amount of manual intervention. 

If the inspection process plan does not result in a complete and unambiguous inspection 

program, then corrective action must be taken before the inspection process can proceed. If the 

inspection program is not compatible with the available inspection equipment, then there are a 

multitude of options available for addressing the interoperability problem. Unfortunately, none 

of them are inexpensive, short-term solutions. Potential options: 

• Translate the inspection program into format that is compatible with the available 

equipment. 

• Purchase compatible inspection execution software and obtain the additional training 

needed to use the software. 

• Negotiate with the process planning software vendor to make the needed changes in the 

software. 

• Replace or augment existing inspection equipment with new equipment that is 

compatible with the process planning software. 

• Demand standards-compliant dimensional metrology software (or consider a singlevendor solution if one is available). 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 32

Is

 process plan

format compatible with 

process execution

 software?

Translate Purchase 

compatible 

software

Get 

software 

training

Negotiate 

with process 

plan 

software 

vendor to 

realize 

compatibility

Negotiate with 

equipment 

vendor to 

realize 

compatibility

Inspection 

equipment

Process Execution As -Is Activity 

Model

Detailed process plan (program ) with some feedback

Detailed equipment command instruction responses back

No

Yes

Generate process plan

Inspection Process Execution 

Application SW

Figure 8. The inspection process execution as-is activity diagram focuses on interoperability issues with the inspection definition/planning activity. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 33

The issue of standards – whether they are de facto or official – became the focal point for 

discussion in the inspection process execution group. There are two widely used standards – one 

of which has been formalized as an official ANSI and ISO standard – that attempt to address 

dimensional inspection interoperability issues. These are the Dimensional Measuring Interface 

Standard (DMIS) – more specifically DMIS Part 2, and I++ DME, a specification for 

dimensional measuring equipment information exchange started by several European 

automakers and measuring equipment vendors. Only the DMISequip portion of DMIS Part 2 

overlaps with I++ DME. Even though DMISequip is part of an ISO standard, there are no 

known product implementations, whereas the are many product implementations of I++ DME, 

so I++ DME can properly be viewed as the de facto standard. 

The IMIS Process Execution group identified two issues of critical importance relating to the 

I++ DME specification: 

1) I++ DME should be released to some appropriate and accredited standards body, so that 

anyone interested can provide input toward changes and additions to the standard 

(specification). 

2) The I++ group should give sufficient assurances that there will be no requirement, either now 

or in the future, that royalties be paid by any individual or company solely for using the I++ 

DME language in their metrology products. 

The new Dimensional Metrology Standards Consortium (DMSC) standards body was proposed 

by some members of the group as the place for such standardization, because they have ANSI 

and ISO accreditation, strong metrology expertise, and ISO “fast track” capability. It was also 

proposed that I++ DME become part of an expanded DMIS standard. No one in the group 

voiced opposition to these two proposals at IMIS. 

Current-State Assessment for Inspection Process Execution

Interoperability issues that affect inspection process execution are arguably more important in 

large, enterprise-level corporations such as those in the automotive and aerospace industries 

than they are in small companies with few in-house metrology resources. At the enterprise level, 

a single-vendor solution becomes impractical if not impossible. The need for interoperable 

software products that executes the manufacturing and inspection process in a highly automated 

and equipment-independent fashion becomes critical to an enterprise-level corporation’s very 

survival. Even at the job-shop level, a single-vendor solution can restrict the ability to choose 

best-in-class equipment for a particular application or may require redundant training on new 

software to enable best-in-class equipment choices. 

Interoperability Issues for Inspection Process Execution

Table 4 summarizes the top interoperability issues identified by the inspection process 

execution group. Following the table, recommended high-level solutions and (where available) 

more specific actions are presented for each issue. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 34

Table 4. The top five metrology interoperability issues, as identified by the inspection process 

execution group. 

Top Inspection Process Execution Issues 

I++ DME isn’t a formal standard.

Overlap between I++ DME and DMIS Part 2 – dueling standards.

I++ DME needs to be extended to handle more equipment, sensors, environment.

A formal I++ DME framework is needed.

Implementation barriers need to be reduced.

Issue 1: I++ DME is not a formal standard. 

Solution 1: A formal standard is needed for I++DME. 

Priority = High. 

Duration = 1 year. 

Start = now. 

Metric for success = Public documents produced. 

Benefit = Increased acceptance. 

Cost = $50K. 

Actions:

1. Resolve the intellectual property and other legal issues that are barriers to 

I++ becoming a standard. 

2. Ensure that future roadmap of I++DME includes the request and wishes of 

the user community. 

3. Move to standardize the current I++DME 1.5 as standard version 1.0. 

4. Prepare drafts with support for portable arms, scanners, trackers, vision 

sensors, etc. 

Issue 2: There is overlap between I++ DME and DMIS, Part 2 – dueling standards. 

Solution 1: Resolve the I++DME versus DMIS, Part 2 issue. 

Priority = High. 

Duration = 1 year. 

Start = now. 

Metric for success = DMIS, Part 2 eliminated (or possibly just the DMISequip 

module). 

Benefit = Increased acceptance. 

Cost = $50K. 

Actions:

1. Assess activities of I++DME and DMIS, Part 2. 

2. Participants in the International Metrology Interoperability Summit will work 

with the Dimensional Metrology Standards Committee (DMSC) to resolve 

the overlap between I++ and DMIS, Part 2, so that we have a single solution. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 35

Issue 3: I++ DME needs to be extended [to handle more equipment, sensors, 

environment]. 

Solution 1: Extend I++DME. 

Priority = High. 

Duration = 2 years. 

Start = now. 

Metric for success = 

 – Phase 1: I++DME supports trackers, arms 

 – Other phases: vision, environment, enhancements (>2 years) 

Benefit = Increased customer base. 

Cost = ?. 

Issue 4: A formal I++DME framework is needed. 

Solution 1: Establish a formal standards development framework for I++ DME 

Priority = Medium. 

Duration = 1 year. 

Start = 1 year after the IP issues are resolved. 

Metric for success = Processes are documented and accepted. 

Benefits: 

– Ensure long-term survivability of the group’s activities 

– Preserve participants’ investments 

– Foster the promotion and education process 

Cost = ? 

Solution 2: Support, coordinate, and expand testing activities; e.g., the NIST test bed 

NIST test suite, and public interoperability tests. 

Issue 5: Implementation barriers need to be reduced. 

Solution 1: Remove barriers to implementation. 

Priority = Medium. 

Duration = 3 years. 

Start = Now. 

Metric for success = 

– Proof-of-concept for new equipment. 

– Equipment classes defined. 

– Conformance tests available. 

Benefits: Accelerated development and deployment. 

Action1: Establish centralized I++DME site (www.iplusplussdme.org, www.iacmm.org, www.nist.gov? 

Action 2: Develop open source reference implementation and conformance tests. 

Action 3: Consider adding equipment classes to I++DME. 

Action 4: Foster training for developers and implementers. 

Action 5: Undertake pilot projects. 

The group also identified the following emerging issues: 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 36

Emerging Issue1: Need to reduce the entry cost for I++ DME implementation; I++ is a 

moving target. 

Solution 1: Produce reference implementation/development kits, training, centralized 

information site. 

Emerging Issue 2: Intellectual property issues. 

Solution l: Utilize a fast track standardization process such as DMSC (Representative 

group), since DMSC has a “fast track” option within ISO. 

Emerging Issue 3: Collision avoidance volume definitions are too coarse. 

Solution 1: Downloadable library of precise sensor shape geometries. 

Emerging Issue 4: Users do not have ready I++ products. I++ is in a developmental status 

(moving target), creating problem for vendors 

Emerging Issue 5: Vendors have to maintain too many software versions; they are wanting 

to learn about I++ and how they can benefit. 

Solution 1: Centralized I++ information site, a pilot project to explore issues, perhaps 

separate groups to deal with fixed CMM (established) and portable (emerging) 

measurement equipment technologies. (The software could be quite different.) 

Solution 2: Portable CMM vendors need to study the I++ DME specification and 

make recommendations to the I++ DME group as to what needs to be expanded in I++ 

DME to make it useful for portables. Even better is to also run a pilot/implementation 

to uncover even more details. 

Action: Josef Resch will recommend this to the I++ DME consortium. 

Emerging Issue 5: Employ three parts on DMIS relevant to Interoperability – the DMIS 

program file, the DMIS interpreter and its interface to the server via I++DME, The 

executor and its interface to reporting and analysis via DML. 

Solution: Use the Dimensional Metrology Standards Consortium (DMSC, Inc.). 

Future Vision for Inspection Process Execution

VISION STATEMENT FOR INSPECTION PROCESS EXECUTION

PROVIDE A SINGLE PLUG AND PLAY PROTOCOL (STANDARD) FOR DATA EXCHANGE BETWEEN 

APPLICATION SOFTWARE AND DIMENSIONAL MEASURING EQUIPMENT, REGARDLESS OF VENDOR. THIS 

PROTOCOL SHOULD APPLY TO ALL TYPES OF DIMENSIONAL MEASURING EQUIPMENT AND ALL TYPES OF 

SENSOR TECHNOLOGY. 

3.4. Technology Plan for Analysis and Reporting of Quality Data

Participants in the analysis and reporting of quality data group included Robert Brown 

(Mitutoyo America), Joe Falco (NIST, session scribe), Alberto Griffa (Geomagic), Rich Knebel 

(Zeiss), Joe Schafer (UGS), Bob Stone (Origin International), Kim Summerhays (MetroSage), 

Ted Vorburger (NIST, session facilitator), Per-Johan Wahlborg (IVF), and Fredrik Wandeback 

(IVF). 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 37

Current-State Assessment for Analysis and Reporting of Quality Data

The analysis and reporting breakout group created the detailed current state activity model 

shown in Figure 9. As can be seen from the diagram, the most important functions of the 

analysis and reporting activity are to receive input from the inspection process execution and the 

product definition activities, to analyze the part inspection data in terms of product definition 

requirements, and to perform a statistical analysis of the inspection results and present them in 

the form of a statistical process control report. The model provides an overview of the complete 

dimensional metrology process from the perspective of the analysis and reporting group. Note 

that boundaries are shown around each of the four sub-processes. Within each sub-process, 

there are interoperability issues brought about by incompatible hardware and software, a lack of 

formal standards (or conflicting standards), and other factors. Although the issues are not 

specifically identified and described, the diagram also indicates that interoperability issues exist 

at the boundary between the product definition and the inspection process definition subprocesses; between the product definition and the analysis and reporting sub-processes, and 

between the process definition and the process execution sub-processes. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 38

Create part geometry

Define features

Define additional info necessary for inspection process 

planning (setup, sensors, etc.)

CAD plus GD&T

Inspection 

plan

Generate 

inspection plan

Execute inspection plan

Collect sensor data

Control actuators and 

probes

A

S

Define and associate tolerances 

with features

Part inspe

result

Part in

re

Pa

Session 1Product Definition

Session 2Inspection Process Definition

Session 3Process Execution

SesAnaRep

Inspect Parts Activity Model 

– Current State

Intero

Int

Figure 9. This activity model diagram depicts the current state of the dimensional metrology process, and identifies the major in

affecting the four areas addressed during the interoperability workshop.
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 39

Working from the current state activity model, the analysis and reporting group identified the 

following key functions, deficiencies, cultural and technological barriers, and emerging best 

practices for the analysis and reporting activity. This information is presented in Table 5. 

Table 5. Key function, deficiencies, barriers, and emerging best practices were extracted from the analysis 

and reporting activity model. 

Key Functions Deficiencies – Where 

Does it Hurt? How 

Badly? 

Barriers – What’s in 

the Way? 

Emerging 

Best Practices 

• Generate Sensor 

Data 

• No attribute data 

• Cannot handle large data 

sets - performance 

• Non-uniform 

implementation of 

standards 

• Lack of simplicity of 

standards 

• Multiple standards / 

specifications (i.e., 

AIMS, QS-stat ASCII, 

AP219, DMIS, DML 

(Dimensional Markup 

Language), I++, ...) 

• DML 

• DMIS 

• AP219 

• Report to 

Business 

Systems 

• Interfacing quality data to 

business Enterprise 

Resource Planning (ERP) 

• We don’t understand 

what they need and 

they don’t understand 

what they can get. 

• OAGI – Open Application 

Group 

• UBL - Unified Business 

Language 

• Do Measurement 

Planning 

• Lack of knowledge about 

appropriate inspection 

technique (i.e., tolerances, 

algorithm sampling plan) 

• Inspection Techniques 

Specification 

• Automotive measurement 

practices (AP/QP) 

• Mil Specs (Z1-3 ...) 

• Traceability Data • Non-uniform 

implementation of 

standards 

• Insufficient links between 

traceability and inspection 

data 

• Multiple standards / 

specifications / 

practices 

• AIAG subcommittee MEQM 

• AP238 traceability component 

• DMIS 

• Perform 

Statistical 

Analysis 

• Lack of statistical 

standardization 

• Lack of knowledge 

• Multiple standards / 

specifications 

• Not high on 

customers perceived 

list of priorities 

• ASQ 

• AIAG 

• CNOMO 

• GM 

• Juran/Demming 

• ISO 16949 (QS 9000) 

• Boeing AS 9100 

• Evolve 

Manufacturing 

Process 

• No standard methodology 

for adjusting a process 

• Unambiguously 

communicating proposed 

process change 

• No standard machine 

controller interface 

• Human link 

• Renishaw 

• M&G Codes 

• AP238 (STEP NC) 

• Gleasonworks Feedback 

Process (12 adjustments) 

In addition to the key functions listed in Table 5, the analysis and reporting group generated the 

following notes that were helpful in identifying key issues. The notes as captured by the group’s 

scribe are included here for the sake of completeness: 

• Storage is also an issue 

• Start diagram is vendor specific for standards; effort needs to be neutral. 

• IP – Profit for producer 

• Different outputs between products – precision, parameters, definitions, algorithms, 

algorithms, uncertainties, standard deviation. Ex. PPK, CPK Quality specs. – example 

Boeing’s AS 19000 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 40

• Use case/ flow of event examples are available AIAG perspective 

• There should be a unification process as far as SPC 

• Map process as it is from A to B. Steps from measure to report. 

• Single measurement – integration of measurements (i.e., different physical locations). Is it 

a single part, multiple parts.... 

• Quality data must be complete 

• What production machine produced a bad feature? (Need birth certificate, 

traceability) to machine. The environment of the part as it is being manufactured. 

• Data Type 1-characteristics, 2-feature data, 3-raw data, 4-data stream 

• Data reduction without losing critical information 

• Data analysis planning is important before the inspection process design. 

There is lots of info from design – tolerances but need more information on how to 

measure. No backflow of this information in the planning process 

• Different data purposes: reverse engineering, process characterization, part qualification. 

• Evolve inspection analysis and planning procedures with product and process 

development. 

• DML Dimensional Data – Quality data must also include attributes such as conformance, 

non conformance (i.e., surface defects) data 

• Need feedback to manufacturing process. 

• Current state of DML 

• Quality data standards are evolving now (i.e., QML) 

• Optical data – how to describe 

• Quality data must interface with business systems 

• MES- Manufacturing Execution System 

• ERP - Enterprise Resource Planning 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 41

Create part geometry

Define features

Define additional info necessary for inspection 

process planning (setup, sensors, etc.)

CAD plus GD&T

Inspection 

plan

Generate 

inspection plan

Execute inspection plan

Collect sensor data

Control actuators and 

probes

Analyze part dataPerform statistical 

analysis

SPC report

Define and associate tolerances with features

Part inspection 

results Part inspection 

results

Part inspection 

results

Session 1Product Definition

Session 2Inspection Process Definition

Session 3Process Execution

Session 4Analysis & Reporting

Inspect Parts Activity Model 

– Future Vision

Interoperability

Interface

Manufacturing

Traceability Data

Meta data

Birth certificate

Evolve

measu

proc

Evolve

manufa

pro

Figure 10. This activity model diagram depicts a future vision for the dimensional metrology process, and identifies the major iaffecting the four areas.
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 42

Interoperability Issues for Analysis and Reporting of Quality Data

The top interoperability issues and solutions defined by the analysis and reporting group are 

shown in Table 6. 

Table 6. Top analysis and reporting dimensional metrology interoperability issues. 

Top Analysis and Reporting Issues and Solutions 

Lack of uniform data model for the single

part report (cross-cutting issue)

Provide unified data models for single

part inspection measurement results

Lack of uniform data model for quality

study summary reports with traceability

(cross-cutting issue)

Develop unified data model

Bandwidth and storage limitations (data

overload)

Handle large data and provide acceptable

performance

Synchronization and correlation of all

data for each measurand (primarily

traceability) (cross-cutting issue)

Augment data flow models to uniformly

integrate data from different sources into

single part and summary report data

models

Lack of feedback of study data for

manufacturing

Augment data model for feedback to

manufacturing

Lack of consistency of statistical

calculation methods and definitions

Capture and identify best practices and

unify into a single standard

Lack of feedback of study data for

measurement planning

Develop a methodology to change the

measurement and sampling plan based

on measurement results

Planning for report formatting

(standardization of report templates)

Legacy systems are too dumb and costly

to update (cross-cutting issue)

Proprietary business models (crosscutting issue)

Future Vision for Analysis and Reporting of Quality Data

Figure 10 is similar to Figure 9 except that it shows a future vision activity model for the 

analysis and reporting process. In this future vision, an attempt has been made to identify an 

activity interface boundary that clearly identifies the interoperability issues that affect the 

analysis and reporting group. The vision statement for analysis and reporting is shown below. 

The following vision characteristics were also reported by the group to address the issues 

previously identified: 

Characteristics of the Vision for “Report to Business Systems” 

• Automatic delivery of data to the semantics of a business systems 

VISION STATEMENT FOR ANALYSIS AND REPORTING OF QUALITY DATA 

• A unified data model (integrated resources) with a common understanding of 

the definitions in the data model. 

• Portability is a requirement. 

• Accessibility to all data in an easy way without duplication (customer 

perspective) 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 43

Characteristics of the Vision for “Measurement Planning” 

• An educated work force 

• Continuous improvement of the measurement process 

• Automatic delivery of data to the semantics of a measurement planning system 

Characteristics of the Vision for “Traceability Data” 

• Traceability data is only entered once or captured automatically 

• Common terminology 

• Easy ad-hoc filtering 

Characteristics of the Vision for “Perform Statistical Analysis” 

• More visible role for uncertainty 

• Uniform calculation methods with a reference to the calculation method used 

• Intuitive results analysis with the ability to drill down 

Characteristics of the Vision for “Evolve Manufacturing Process” 

• Automatic and easy manual adjustments of manufacturing equipment 

• Ensure that analysis and reporting standards efforts are coordinated with the standards 

efforts of manufacturing planning and execution 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap [DRAFT] Page 44

Roadmap Chart for Analysis and Reporting of Quality Data

A roadmap chart is shown in Table 7 for the Analysis and Reporting of Quality Data breakout group. The 

group identified 10 important issues affecting metrology interoperability and devised high-level solutions 

and lower-level action statements for seven of the issues. This is an excellent start for a roadmap diagram, 

and the remaining information (dependencies, cost, timeline, duration, metrics for success) can be added 

at a later date. 

Table 7. A roadmap for the Analysis and Reporting of Quality Data Breakout Group. (The 

timeline, cost, benefit, and performance metrics will be populated in a subsequent work 

session.) 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 45

3.5. Cross-Cutting Issues (Interoperability issues that clearly

encompass more than one area)

Crosscutting Issue 1– The Product Definition group identified one important crosscutting issue 

that currently has an adverse effect on every aspect of the dimensional metrology process: 

There are currently no “consensus” approaches to the interconnection of 

components/systems. The “big picture” needs to be defined before unified efforts can be 

developed to solve this important problem. There is no shared vision between vendors and 

users for interoperability. There are many cultural issues that prevent a shared vision from being 

adopted: 

• Barriers to the widespread adoption of standards by equipment and software vendors: 

o Lack of a shared vision – The multitude of competing and conflicting standards 

and practices are barriers to the development of a shared vision for 

interconnection. 

o No standards are in place, or no conformance tests exist to verify compliance to 

the standard. 

o There are few or no implementations of the standard 

• There is a lack of consensus on whether the exclusive use of open-source, nonproprietary, standards-based hardware and software is a more effective option than 

single-supplier network, proprietary hardware and software. 

• Vendors feel compelled by economic necessity to protect their proprietary information 

in order to offer improved products that are differentiated from those of their 

competitors. From their perspective, there is no economic incentive to offering opensource, non-proprietary products; and there is little economic incentive to offering 

standards-based products. 

• Standards tend to lag behind the development of new product features. One way to 

minimize this time lag is to ensure that both vendors and end users actively participate 

in the development and revision of standards on a continuous basis. However, this is a 

costly endeavor. 

Solution for Crosscutting Issue 1: The product definition group proposed a high-level solution 

that could foster the development of the needed shared vision for interoperability. The group 

suggested that a first step would be to gather information from all the major metrology 

interoperability stakeholders to determine their business and organizational objectives. 

Stakeholders include: 

• CAD, metrology, and Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) vendors. 

• End users, users consortia (e.g. AIAG), and suppliers 

• Government and standards organizations (both domestic and international) 

Once the stakeholder objectives are better understood, a concerted effort must be made to find 

alignments of these objectives that result in a win-win situation for all stakeholders. Vendors 

must be able to protect and improve their proprietary information but still conform to standards. 

A method must be found of ensuring continuous stakeholder involvement in the timely update 

of interoperability standards. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 46

The lag of standards behind new product features is mitigated by the fact that if one is 

committed to a single supplier network, one cannot easily integrate that new feature if the 

feature comes from a product outside the single supplier network! 

The perception that vendors will lose product differentiation is at least partly false, as can be 

shown easily through an example. Clearly, PC printers are now interoperable with PC 

computers: only a minimal effort is required to install and begin using a new printer from any 

manufacturer. However, printing quality and price vary widely, allowing the customer many 

choices with regard to quality, durability, efficiency, cost, etc. 

Standards are not typically in the best interests of the vendor, particularly for the large vendor. 

Having users beholden to the products of a single vendor virtually eliminates competition and 

invites a more profitable (to the vendor) product pricing structure. Smaller vendors may be 

interested in standards, but small vendors want to become large vendors, so the interest may be 

short-lived. 

End user support is the secret to the success of most if not all standards and interoperability 

solutions. If enough users demand an open, non-proprietary standard, or any other kind of 

solution, the vendors must get on board or be left behind. The more progressive vendors try to 

get in on the ground floor of new developments in these areas so that they are ahead of their 

competitors. It is not, and never has been, an issue of technology. The technology problems can 

be solved. The political and social / business problems bind us, and leave us stumbling around 

in the dark. Some vendors may actually wish to undermine developments that could render their 

products of lesser value. Their business and their livelihood are sometimes threatened. Progress 

in the field of technology development, and of standards and systems working together is a 

never ending struggle between two opposing forces: those who would have open, nonproprietary solutions to interoperability and similar issues, and those who would have their 

products and systems purchased and used by most of the industry, perhaps becoming de facto 

standards. 

Until we find a way for compromise in this struggle, or a way for users to combine in force to 

insist that vendors work together in pre-competitive developments for the benefit of all industry, 

we will be facing these issues for all time to come. However, these issues can and have been 

successfully resolved in other technical disciplines, as illustrated by the PC and printer example 

given earlier. If there is a will with collaboration, cooperation, coordination, and harmonization 

(the 3Cs+H), the metrology interoperability issues can also be solved. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap Page 47

4. Appendices

4.1. List of Registrants

The following were registered for the International Metrology Interoperability Summit (IMIS) hosted by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on March 28-30, 2006 in Gaithersburg, Maryland and 

most registrants also attended IMIS. 

Ray Admire 

Lockheed Martin MFC 

PO Box 650003 

M/S L01-24 

Dallas, TX 75265-0003 

USA 

Phone: (972) 603-2074 

Fax: (972) 603-0410 

Email: ray.admire@lmco.com 

Stephen Anderson 

Renishaw (UK) 

New Mills 

Wotton-under-Edge, GL12 8JR 

United Kingdom 

Phone: 44 1453524690 

Email: stephen.anderson@renishaw.com 

Kambiz Banafshe 

Nikon Instruments, Inc. 

1430 W. Auto Dr. 

Ste. 101 

Tempe, AZ 85284 

USA 

Phone: (480)403-4111 

Fax: (480)403-4199 

Email: kbanafshe@nikon.net 

Kalyan Bhamidi 

Caterpillar 

2708 W. Willowlake Dr. 

Apt. 302 

Peoria, IL 61614 

USA 

Phone: (309)578-0157 

Email: bhamik@cat.com 

 

Conrad Bock 

NIST 

100 Bureau Dr. 

Mail Stop 8263 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 

USA 

Phone: (301)975-3818 

Fax: (301)975-4482 

Email: conradb@cme.nist.gov 

Curtis Brown 

Honeywell Federal Manufacturing 

& Technologies 

P.O. Box 419159 

Kansas City, MO 64083 

USA 

Phone: (816) 997-3548 

Email: cbrown@kcp.com 

Robert Brown 

Mitutoyo America Corp. 

965 Corporate Blvd. 

Aurora, IL 60504 

USA 

Phone: (630) 723-3581 

Email: robert.brown@mitutoyo.com 

David Callaghan 

Independent Quality Labs, Inc. 

332 Canonchet Rd. 

PO Box 370 

Rockville, RI 02873 

USA 

Phone: (401) 539-8510 

Fax: (401) 539-0572 

Email: iqlinc@aol.com 

Robert Callaghan 

Independent Quality Labs, Inc. 

332 Canonchet Rd. 

PO Box 370 

Rockville, RI 02873 

USA 

Phone: (401) 539-8510 

Fax: (401) 539-0572 

Email: iqlinc@aol.com 

 

Paul Clausen 

NDI 

103 Randall Dr. 

Waterloo, Ontario, N2V 1C5 

CANADA 

Phone: (519) 884-5142 ext. 202 

Fax: (519) 885-3901 

Email: pclausen@ndigital.com 

John Coski 

DaimlerChrysler 

800 Chrysler Dr. 

Auburn Hills, MI 48326 

USA 

Phone: (248) 576-8054 

Email: jec12@dcx.com 

Jesse Crusey 

Northrop Grumman 

3592 Eagle Dr. 

Chambersburg, PA 17201 

USA 

Phone: (717) 263-9323 

Email: jcrusey@aol.com 

Murray Desnoyer 

Origin International, Inc. 

3235 14th Ave. 

Markham, ON, L3R 0H3 

Canada 

Phone: 416-587-8803 

Fax: 231-788-4051 

Email: Murray.Desnoyer@origin.com 

Soumajit Dutta 

University of North Carolina 

9201 University City Blvd. 

Charlotte, NC 28223-0001 

USA 

Phone: (704) 687-6084 

Fax: (704) 687-6069 

Email: sdutta1@uncc.edu 

Robert Edgeworth 

Intel 

5000 W. Chandler Blvd. 

MS CH5-232 

Phoenix, AZ 85226 

USA 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap [DRAFT] Page 48

Phone: (480) 554-7756 

Email: robert.edgeworth@intel.com 

Joe Falco 

NIST 

100 Bureau Dr. 

Mail Stop 8263 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8230 

USA 

Phone: (301) 975-3455 

Fax: (301)990-9688 

Email: falco@nist.gov 

Alberto Griffa 

Geomagic 

617 Davis Dr. 

Durham, NC 27709 

USA 

Phone: (919) 534-0709 

Email: alberto.griffa@geomagic.com 

Zev Handler 

Wilcox Associates 

51170 Grand River Ave. 

Wixom, MI 48393 

USA 

Phone: (248) 449-9500 

Email: zhandler@wilcoxassoc.com 

Ronald Hicks 

Northrop Grumman Newport News 

4101 Washington Ave. 

Bldg. 1745/3 

Newport News, VA 23607 

USA 

Phone: (757) 380-3839 

Fax: (757) 380-7602 

Email: ron.hicks@ngc.com 

John Horst 

NIST 

100 Bureau Dr. 

Mail Stop 8230 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8230 

USA 

Phone: (301) 975-3430 

Email: john.horst@nist.gov 

 

Hui-Min Huang 

NIST 

100 Bureau Dr. 

Mail Stop 8230 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8230 

USA 

Phone: (301) 975-3427 

Fax: (301)990-9688 

Email: hui-min.huang@nist.gov 

James Humphrey 

Pratt & Whitney, USA 

Email: james.humphrey@pw.utc.com

Malcolm Humphries 

Renishaw (UK) 

New Mills 

Wotton-under-Edge, GL12 8JR 

United Kingdom 

Phone: 44 1453523462 

Fax: 44 1453523201 

Email: 

malcolm.humphries@renishaw.com 

Sarne Hutcherson 

Timken Co. 

P.O. Box 6930 

Mail Code: RES-22 

Canton, OH 44706-0930 

USA 

Phone: (330) 471-2134 

Fax: (330) 471-2282 

Email: sarne.hutcherson@timken.com 

Lutz Karras 

Carl Zeiss IMT Corp. 

Germany 

Phone: 49-170-927-6381 

Email: karras@zeiss.com 

Richard Knebel 

Carl Zeiss IMT Corp. 

6826 Kensington Rd. 

Brighton, MI 48116 

USA 

Phone: (248) 486-7615 

Fax: (248) 486-4749 

Email: rknebel@zeiss.com 

Thomas Kramer 

NIST 

100 Bureau Dr. 

Mail Stop 8230 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

USA 

Phone: (301) 975-3518 

Fax: (301) 990-9688 

Email: kramer@cme.nist.gov 

 

Kam Lau 

Automated Precision, Inc. 

15000 Johns Hopkins Dr. 

Rockville, MD 20850 

USA 

Phone: (301) 330-8100 

Fax: (301) 990-8648 

Email: kam.lau@apisensor.com 

Sang-Kyu Lee 

Dukin Co., Ltd. 

63-7 HWaam-Dong 

Yuseong-Gu 

Daejeon, 305-348 

Korea 

Email: leesk@dukin.co.kr 

Kevin Legacy 

Carl Zeiss 

6826 Kensington Rd. 

Brighton, MI 48114 

USA 

Phone: (248) 867-3699 

Email: klegacy@zeiss.com 

Cory Leland 

Moline Tech Center 

1 John Deere Place 

Moline, IL 61265 

USA 

Phone: (309)765-3762 

Email: LelandCory@JohnDeere.com 

Lawrence Maggiano 

Mitutoyo America Corp. 

965 Corporate Blvd. 

Aurora, IN 60504 

USA 

Phone: (630) 723-3580 

Email: 

Larry.Maggiano@Mitutoyo.com 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap [DRAFT] Page 49

Carol Malone 

Macomb Community College 

14500 E. 12 Mile Rd. 

R-124 

Warren, MI 48088 

USA 

Phone: (586) 445-7472 

Fax: (586) 445-7130 

Email: malonec@macomb.edu 

David Marlow 

Atomic Weapons Establishment 

UK 

Email: dave.marlow@awe.co.uk 

Dietmar May 

Object Workshops 

PO Box 43 

Chatham, VA 24530 

USA 

Phone: (540) 420-5268 

Email: dcmay7@dmis.com 

Sam McSpadden 

IMTI 

717 Plainfield Rd. 

Knoxville, TN 37923 

USA 

Phone: (865) 694-4017 

Fax: (865) 531-1630 

Email: sam@mcswebs.com 

Thomas Melson 

Boeing 

325 J. S. McDonnell Blvd. 

Hazelwood, MO 63042 

USA 

Phone: (636) 498-6561 

Email: thomas.g.melson@boeing.com 

Keith Mills 

Xspect Solutions, Inc. 

46962 Liberty Dr. 

Wixom, MI 48393 

USA 

Phone: (248) 596-1193 

Fax: (248) 596-1194 

Email: kmills@xspectsolutions.com 

Nicholas Moffitt 

Verisurf Software, Inc. 

1553 North Harmony Circle 

Anaheim, CA 92807 

USA 

Phone: (714) 970-1683 

Fax: (714) 701-0280 

Email: nick@verisurf.com 

Rina Molari-Korgel 

Leica Geosystems, Inc. 

1404 Timberline Dr. 

Benbrook, TX 76126 

USA 

Phone: (817) 683-2261 

Fax: (817) 249-0269 

Email: rina.molari@leicaus.com 

Andrew Moore 

Quality Vision International 

Research and Development 

850 Hudson Ave. 

Rochester, NY 14621 

USA 

Phone: (585) 747-3947 

Email: acm@qvii.com 

Richard Neal 

IMTI 

PO Box 5296 

Oak Ridge, TN 37830 

USA 

Phone: (865) 927-4135 

Fax: (865) 927-4136 

Email: imti1@msn.com 

Troy Niehaus 

Metronor 

1109 1st Ave. 

Suite 210 

Seattle, WA 98101 

USA 

Phone: (206) 587-2467 ext. 113 

Fax: (206) 201-5063 

Email: troy.niehaus@metronor.com 

Ronald Nightingale 

Pratt & Whitney 

USA 

Phone: (206) 587-2467 ext. 113 

Fax: (206) 201-5063 

Email: 

ronald.nightingale@pw.utc.com 

(Helen) Guixiu Qiao 

Automated Precision, Inc. 

15000 Johns Hopkins Dr. 

Rockville, MD 20850 

USA 

Phone: (301) 330-8100 

Fax: (310) 990-8648 

Email: helen.qiao@apisensor.com 

Josef Resch 

Carl Zeiss IMT GmbH 

73346 Oberkochen 

Oberkochen, 73446 

Germany 

Phone: 49 7364 20 ext. 2581 

Fax: 49 7364 20 4800 

Email: resch@zeiss.de 

William Rippey 

NIST 

100 Bureau Dr. 

Mail Stop 8320 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8320 

USA 

Phone: (301) 975-3417 

Email: william.rippey@nist.gov 

Etienne Rossignon 

Delcam plc - International Division 

Small Heath Business Park 

Birmingham, B10 0HJ 

United Kingdom 

Phone: 44 121 766 55 44 

Email: er@delcam.com 

Joe Schafer 

UGS 

2077 Gateway Pl. 

Suite 400 

San Jose, CA 95110 

USA 

Phone: (408) 941-4763 

Email: schaferj@ugs.com 

Kenneth L Sheehan 

Quality Vision International, Inc. 

850 Hudson Ave. 

Rochester, NY 14621 

USA 

Phone: (585) 544-0450 ext. 205 

Email: kls@qvii.com 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap [DRAFT] Page 50

Len Slovensky 

Northrop Grumman Information 

Technology 

1398 Gumbert Dr. 

Amelia, OH 45102 

USA 

Phone: (513) 383-8311 

Email: slovensky@scra.org 

Alan Smelcer 

BWXT Y12 L.L.C. 

PO BOX 2009 

Bear Creek Rd. 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831 

USA 

Phone: (865) 241-8310 

Email: smelcera@y12.doe.gov 

 

Andy Smith 

Renishaw (UK) 

New Mills 

Wotton-under-Edge, GL12 8JR 

United Kingdom 

Phone: 44 1453524213 

Email: andrew.smith@renishaw.com 

Douglas Sponseller 

Timken Co. 

Mail Code: RES-22 

PO Box 6930 

Canton, OH 44706-0930 

USA 

Phone: (330)471-2029 

Fax: (330) 471-2282 

Email: doug.sponseller@timken.com 

Bailey Squier 

DMSC, Inc. 

1228 Enclave Circle 

# 301 

Arlington, TX 76011-6193 

USA 

Phone: (817) 461-1092 

Fax: (817) 461-4845 

Email: bsquier@dmis.org 

Robert Stone 

Origin International, Inc. 

3235 14th Ave. 

Markham, ON, L3R 0H3 

Canada 

Phone: 416-587-8803 

Fax: 231.788.4051 

Email: Bob.Stone@origin.com 

Kim D. Summerhays 

MetroSage, LLC 

26896 Shake Ridge Rd. 

Volcano, CA 95689 

USA 

Phone: (415)336-2244 

Fax: (415)358-6871 

Email: 

kdsummerhays@metrosage.com 

 

Bill Tandler 

Multi Metrics, Inc. 

865 Lemon St. 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

USA 

Phone: (650) 328-0200 

Fax: (650) 328-3586 

Email: bill@multimetrics.com 

Tim Taylor 

GE Aviation 

10270 St. Rita Ln. M/D Q8 

Cincinnati, OH 45215 

USA 

Phone: (513) 552-4226 

Fax: (513) 552-4857 

Email: tim.taylor@ae.ge.com 

Jerry Udy 

Spatial Corp. 

22627 Holly Lake Dr. 

Katy, TX 77450 

USA 

Phone: (720) 220-0615 

Fax: (281) 693-0229 

Email: jerry.udy@spatial.com 

Theodore Vorburger 

NIST 

100 Bureau Dr. 

Mail Stop 8212 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8212 

USA 

Email: tvtv@nist.gov 

Per-Johan Wahlborg 

IVF 

Argongatan 30 

Molndal, 43153 Sweden 

Phone: 46 317066107 

Email: per-johan.wahlborg@ivf.se 

Robert Waite 

DaimlerChrysler 

800 Chrysler Dr. 

CIMS 483-34-04 

Auburn Hills, MI 48326 

USA 

Phone: (248) 576-6738 

Fax: (248) 512-0819 

Email: rdw5@dcx.com 

Fredrik Wandeback 

IVF 

Argongatan 30 

Molndal, 43153 

Sweden 

Phone: 46 317066106 

Email: fredrik.wandeback@ivf.se 

Albert Wavering 

NIST 

100 Bureau Dr. 

Mail Stop 8230 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8230 

USA 

Phone: (301) 975-3418 

Email: albert.wavering@nist.gov 

S. Arthur Whistler 

Helmel Engineering Products, Inc. 

6520 Lockport Rd. 

Niagara Falls, NY 14305 

USA 

Phone: (716) 297-8644 

Fax: (716) 297-9405 

Email: art@helmel.com 

Robert G. Wilhelm 

University of North Carolina 

9201 University City Blvd. 

Graduate Engineering Building 

Charlotte, NC 28223 

USA 

Phone: (704) 687-8428 

Email: kjford@email.uncc.edu 

John Wootton 

Metris LK 

East Midlands Airport 

Argosy Road 

Derby DE74 2SA 

United Kingdom 

Phone: 44 1332 811349 

Email: john.wootton@metris.com 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap [DRAFT] Page 51

4.2. List of Acronyms

The following acronyms are either used in this document or supporting documents such as plenary 

presentations contained in the appendix. Each acronym is expanded to its text equivalent and, where 

appropriate, a brief definition or explanation is also provided. 

API – Application programming interface – An application programming interface (API) is the 

interface that a computer system, library or application provides in order to allow requests for service 

to be made of it by other computer programs, and/or to allow data to be exchanged between them.iii

AIAG – Automotive Industry Action Group: Headquartered in Southfield, MI, the AIAG is a 

globally recognized organization founded in 1982 by managers from DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor 

Company, and General Motors, to provide an open forum where members cooperate in developing 

and promoting solutions that enhance the prosperity of the automotive industry.iv

CAD – Computer Aided Design 

CAM – Computer Aided Manufacturing 

CAE Computer Aided Engineering 

CMM – Coordinate measuring machine 

CMSC – The CMSC is an international organization of users, service providers, and manufacturers 

of high precision measurement systems, reverse engineering systems, software, and 

peripherals. These systems include laser trackers, photogrammetry, scanning devices, CMM's, and 

global positioning systems. The society promotes the advancement in use or development of any 

measurement system or software that produces and uses three-dimensional coordinate data. 

(www.cmsc.org)

v

COM – Common object model 

CORBA – Common Object Request Broker Architecture – the interface definition language (IDL) 

used by DMIS Part 2 

DMIS – Dimensional Measuring Interface Standard – “DMIS is the definitive standard for 

communications of dimensional measurement program sequences and results for manufacturing 

inspection. DMIS is widely used with coordinate measurement machines (CMMs), either as an 

intermediate file format between a CAD system and the CMM's native proprietary inspection 

language, or as a native programming language for direct control of the CMM.”vi

DMIS, Part 1 – DMIS began as a textual syntax and has grown into a full inspection programming 

language from its origins as a neutral interchange format between CAD systems, CMMs, and results 

reporting systems. This syntactic portion of the DMIS standard is referred to as “DMIS, Part 1”. 

DMIS, Part 2 – DMIS, Part 2 is a companion standard to DMIS Part 1, and defines an object 

oriented programming interface for on-line communication between a DMIS execution system and 

external applications. This interface permits the definition of features, tolerances, sensors, coordinate 

systems and other DMIS entities; the loading, execution, and interactive editing of part programs; the 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap [DRAFT] Page 52

querying of machine and program status; and notification of activity by the inspection device to 

interested external applications. It further defines programming interfaces for modularizing the 

equipment control and add-on mathematics. In essence, DMIS Part 2 defines an application 

programming interface (API) for defining, controlling, accessing, and watching items of interest 

within a CMM, using direct calls within a high level programming language (such as C++ or Java).vi 

DML – In its most widely used form, DML stands for Data Manipulation Language. However, in 

the context of dimensional metrology, the acronym stands for Dimensional Markup Language. DML 

is an XML format definition tailored to the needs of dimensional results for discrete manufacturing. 

The purpose is to haul the results between applications that generate or use dimensional information. 

A typical scenario is where an inspection device collects dimensional data and sends the information 

to an SPC package for process analysis or a database for long-term storage.vii

DMSC – Dimensional Metrology Standards Consortium, Inc. 

DNSC, DSC – DMIS National Standards Committee, DMIS Standards Committee – DSC is the 

official consensus body for the Dimensional Measuring Interface Standard (DMIS). The purpose of 

the Committee is to continually develop, maintain, and support the DMIS standard, and also to work 

with other groups to identify and develop related industrial automation standards. The DSC works 

closely with national and international standards bodies to harmonize efforts, and to produce relevant 

documents or standards that will promote the interoperability of systems.viii

EDUG – European DMIS Users’ Group – a not-for-profit organization of companies that use DMIS 

or provide DMIS solutions. 

ERM – Enterprise Resource Management describes software that manages all of a company's assets 

and resources, including such basic applications as general ledger, accounts payable and receivable, 

as well as manufacturing, inventory, and human resources.ix

GD&T – Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing 

I++DME – Inspection-plus-plus/Dimensional Measurement Equipment – is an initiative sponsored 

by Audi, BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Volkswagen and Volvo with the objective of increasing 

efficiency, reducing manufacturing times and costs by reaching the interoperability of software and 

hardware components used in automated dimensional inspection. I++/DME is a specification that 

defines application protocols for a dimensional measurement equipment interface. The syntactic 

structure of I++ is patterned after c++. The purpose of the specification is to allow a dimensional 

inspection part program to run on different brands of coordinate measuring machines, provided that 

the specification is supported by the specific CMM.x

IDL – Interface Definition Language 

MEPT – The Metrology Project Team is organized under the Collaborative Engineering and Process 

Development Steering Committee of the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG). (The 

Metrology Project Team is also sometimes referred to as MIPT, for Metrology Interoperability 

Project Team.) The goal of the Metrology Project Team is to reduce product development cycle time 

and manufacturing costs by achieving interoperability of the software and hardware components 

used in automated metrology. This team's main goal is to provide a single voice of the user in 

specifying interoperability requirements. This organization is an "umbrella" group that oversees all 

the metrology interface standards efforts worldwide, without competing with existing standards 

organizations such as the Dimensional Metrology Standards Consortium (DMSC).xi
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap [DRAFT] Page 53

NIST – National Institute of Standards and Technology 

OEM – Original Equipment Manufacturer 

ORB – Object request broker 

PLM – Product Lifecycle Management 

STEP – The Standard for Product Model Data Exchange (also known as ISO 10303) is a data 

standard created by an international team of more than 500 CAD, CAM and CAE experts. STEP 

gives an explicit and complete representation of product data throughout its entire life cycle. STEP 

first became an ISO standard in 1994 and over the last five years all of the leading CAD software 

vendors have implemented STEP data translation. It is estimated that more than two million CAD 

stations now contain STEP data translators. 

STEP AP – “AP” stands for application protocol. The STEP standard is divided into many 

Application Protocols belonging to the ISO 10303 family of standards. Each protocol defines a data 

exchange standard for a defined family of products at a defined stage in its life cycle. The most 

popular Application Protocols for CAD are AP-203 also known as ISO 10303-203, and AP-214 also 

known as ISO 10303-214. Other application protocols pertinent to metrology interoperability are 

those for process planning (AP-240) and dimensional measurement (AP-219). 

STEP NC – STEP-NC is an extension of STEP that defines a machine independent bidirectional 

data standard for Computerized Numerical Control (CNC) systems. Using STEP-NC, an external 

system such as a CAM or CAD/CAM system can create machine independent CNC instructions for 

making a part. Any CNC machine tool that has the necessary resources should be able to process the 

STEP-NC data. It is intended to replace G codes with a richer data set, including features, geometry 

and tolerances. (All of the above step-related references come from the STEP NC website.)xii 

XML – eXtensible Markup Language – a flexible way to create common information formats and 

share both the format and the data on the World Wide Web, intranets, and elsewhere.xiii

4.3. Reference list of Applicable Standards by their best known

reference numbers, with a title and a short description

ASME B89 – A series of technical specifications for dimensional metrology and the calibration of 

instruments. 

ASME Y14.41-2003 – Digital Product Definition Data Practices, sets forth the requirements for 

geometric dimensional data, tolerances, and other annotations in CAD models. 

ASME Y14.5-1994 – The standard for geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) in twodimensional drawings. 

DMIS 5.0 Parts 1 and 2 – (ANSI and ISO Equivalent) Dimensional Measuring Interface Standard 

ISO 10303 – Equivalent to STEP (see STEP) 

STEP – STandard for the Exchange of Product model data (equivalent to ISO 10303), comprises a 

series of Application Protocols (APs) that address specific components of the data exchange process. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap [DRAFT] Page 54

STEP AP 203 – Configuration controlled design – defines the geometry, topology, and configuration 

management data of solid models for mechanical parts and assemblies. 

STEP AP 213 – Numerical control process plans for machined parts. 

STEP AP 214 – Core Data for Automotive Mechanical Design Processes (applicable and used in 

other domains). 

STEP AP 219 – Dimensional Inspection Information Exchange.. 

STEP AP 223 – Application Protocol for the exchange of design and manufacturing product 

information for cast parts. 

STEP AP 224 –Mechanical product definition for process plans using machining features. 

STEP AP 238 – CNC controller plug-ins 

STEP AP 239 – Product life-cycle support 

STEP AP 240 – Process plans for machined parts. 

4.4. Detailed Description of the Workshop Methodology used at the

International Metrology Interoperability Summit (IMIS)

The first day of the workshop was devoted to understanding the metrology interoperability

landscape. The workshop provided a structured forum in which recognized metrology experts made 

presentations to the entire group in plenary sessions. The morning session comprised presentations 

from interoperability-enabling organizations and presentations that described interoperabilityenabling technologies. The afternoon session comprised presentations on interoperability 

perspectives from specific stakeholders, and included both end users and vendors (equipment and 

software manufacturers). The contents of many of the presentations are available for download as 

described in the Appendix in section 4.6. 

During the second day of the workshop, participants divided into four groups that worked in parallel 

to address interoperability issues involving product definition, inspection process definition, process 

execution, and analysis and reporting of quality data. Each group was assigned a facilitator and a 

scribe, and the group was strongly encouraged to follow templates that were designed to gather 

information and gain consensus in support of the development of the roadmap. By working in small 

groups, participants were able to make contributions in their areas of expertise that added to the 

cumulative body of knowledge. 

Each group began by creating an activity diagram that graphically illustrated the business and 

operational workflow for the group’s topic area. Some groups were able to produce both a “current 

state” and a “future vision” activity diagram. The activity diagrams identified the key functions

required to perform the activity, and were used in the current-state assessment of the technology 

area. The groups were asked to address the following during their assessment: 

• Identify key functions in the activity where a lack of interoperability causes “pain” 

(deficiencies) – Tabulate the problem areas and attempt to quantify the magnitude of the 

problem in terms of cost, capability, or uncertainty. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap [DRAFT] Page 55

• Identify barriers to achieving interoperability – What barriers exist that keep us from 

eliminating the pain? Why does the issue prevail and why has it not been resolved? 

• Identify emerging best practices that eliminate the “pain” and overcome the barriers – What 

best practices exist or are emerging that point to the solution? 

After completing the activity diagram for the current-state, each group was asked to define a vision 

for the desired future state for each key function. The elements of the vision should include the 

issues – identified areas of “pain” and barriers to success, as well as the directions in which the 

emerging best practices are pointing. An issue is defined in this context as any technology void, 

cultural attribute, or process characteristic that impedes progress or is a barrier to the optimal 

successful execution of the subject key function. Issues and key functions do not necessarily align 

with one another. Groups were asked to identify and tabulate issues regardless of whether they were 

generic and crosscutting or applicable to specific products, processes, etc. 

Emphasis was placed on the fact that the workshop is a building process – each step using the work 

before and building on that work to create information for the roadmap. From the current state and 

vision discussion, a few key issues that support an interoperable solution will emerge. While there is 

no magic number, four to ten issues for a topic area should be reasonable. It is important to keep the 

issues at a fairly high level because there will be other levels added to the hierarchy. To put the 

issues in a context that many of us can relate to, issues are “program level” ideas. They may be: 

• Product-Specific – Issues that deal with design or performance of the activity. Ask the 

question; are there issues associated with a product or class of product? Are there specific 

issues associated with any sector or application? 

• Process-Specific – Issues that deal with execution of the topic. Are there processes or 

activities that lead to the identification of issues? For example, inspecting large structures 

with laser trackers might raise different issues than a touch probe for a CMM. 

• Other – Standards, emerging technologies, disruptive technologies, infrastructure. Are there 

issues that fall into the catch-all categories? What emerging technologies could greatly 

change the metrology landscape to the point that they would be considered disruptive 

technologies? What practices (e.g. process certification) present issues? What emerging 

technologies or practices would be implemented if cultures were changed or infrastructure 

was not an issue? 

During the workshop, the current state and vision presented by each group was captured in tabular 

and textual format in a Microsoft® Word® document. In addition to identifying issues, each group 

compiled solutions, actions, and supporting information that were used to develop the roadmap. 

Solutions – To resolve an issue, one or more solutions must be delivered and supporting goals must 

be achieved. Think in terms of critical capabilities such as technology tools, standards in place, 

business processes unified or integrated, etc. This is the “project” level. There should be several 

solutions for every issue, and don’t forget that it is important to include parallel solutions with 

decision points. 

Actions – For every solution, there are actions that must be performed. This is the lowest detail level 

of the roadmap. This is the task level, and the information captured should be adequate to provide a 

descriptive title from which a task plan could be developed. 

Supporting information – It is important that the roadmap provide the quantification necessary to 

assess the importance and value of the solution. Therefore, additional information will be solicited. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap [DRAFT] Page 56

The above information was captured in a Word® document during the workshop that will be 

subsequently used to populate a time-phased roadmap template, using the structure shown in Table 

8. 

In an ideal world, the Supporting Information would be generated at the Actions level (tasks) and 

rolled up to the Solutions level (projects). However, the time available during the workshop was 

short, and there was much to do. For that reason, each group was asked to flesh out the Supporting 

Information at the Solutions level first and fill in information at the Actions level as time allowed. 

The following definitions apply to the elements of the roadmap shown in Table 8. 

Table 8. This sample Roadmap graphic is designed to present the issues by technology area. The information 

conveyed includes the priority of the issues, the metrics to be used in maturation, and actions needed to 

achieve success. 

Timeline – placing the activity on the timeline and showing the time from start to completion show 

the duration of an activity. To simplify the task, the letters S, M, and L were used with the 

understanding that S is zero to three years, M is three to seven years, and L is seven to ten years 

Priority – For each solution, define a priority of H (High), M (Medium), or F (Future). “F” is used 

to denote solutions that are valuable but not near enough in time to merit a high priority for nearterm action. “F” is in deference to the fact that no activity that has a low priority should make it onto 

the roadmap. 

Metrics – For each solution, define the measure of success. Metrics such as “50% reduction in 

costs” or “20% reduction in the number of parts inspected” are applicable. 

Organizational issues– identify any organizational barriers that must be overcome or changes that 

must be made. 

Manufacturing Readiness Level [MRL] (start and finish) – Technology Readiness Levels and 

Manufacturing Readiness Levels are becoming a common element of the language of technology 

investment. For broad acceptance of our roadmap, it is important that TRLs be assigned. Definition 

of Technology Readiness levels are given in Appendix 4.5. 

Benefit – Quantify the impact or delivering this solution. Without detailed analysis, place a business 

value on the result of delivering the solution. 

Priority WBS Roadmap 

Hierarchy 

Metric FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 

 1 

Topic Area (e.g. 

Product 

Definition) 

 

 1.1 Issue: 

F 

M 

H 

1.1.1 Solution: Definition of 

Metric 

Maturity 

Start 

Action 

Benefit 

Cost 

Maturity 

Final 

 1.1.2 Solution Maturity 

Start 

Action 

Benefit 

Cost 

Maturity 

Final 

 1.1.3 Solution Maturity 

Start 

Action 

Benefit 

Cost

Maturity 

Final 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap [DRAFT] Page 57

Cost – For each activity, assign a rough order of magnitude estimate of the cost of delivering a 

solution. Do not think in terms of fully burdened costs with all interested parties receiving funds, but 

think of a, well-managed effort that delivers cost-effective results. 

Following this introductory section, this document presents a technology plan that is based on input 

from each of the four groups. The plan comprises information on the current state, vision for the 

future state, important issues with their solutions, and a technical roadmap for each technology area. 

Important crosscutting issues that do not clearly fall within the scope of one of the four areas of 

focus are also identified and addressed. 

4.5. Technology Readiness Levels.

Table 9. Technology Readiness Levels in the Department of Defense (DOD). 

Technology Readiness Level Description 

1. Basic principles observed and 

reported 

Lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be translated 

into applied research and development. Example might include paper studies of a 

technology's basic properties. 

2. Technology concept and/or 

application formulated 

Invention begins. Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be 

invented. The application is speculative and there is no proof or detailed analysis 

to support the assumption. Examples are still limited to paper studies. 

3. Analytical and experimental 

critical function and/or 

characteristic proof of concept 

Active research and development is initiated. This includes analytical studies and 

laboratory studies to physically validate analytical predictions of separate elements 

of the technology. Examples include components that are not yet integrated or 

representative. 

4. Component and/or 

breadboard validation in 

laboratory environment 

Basic technological components are integrated to establish that the pieces will 

work together. This is relatively "low fidelity" compared to the eventual system. 

Examples include integration of 'ad hoc' hardware in a laboratory. 

5. Component and/or 

breadboard validation in relevant 

environment 

Fidelity of breadboard technology increases significantly. The basic technological 

components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so that 

the technology can be tested in a simulated environment. Examples include 'high 

fidelity' laboratory integration of components. 

6. System/subsystem model or 

prototype demonstration in a 

relevant environment 

Representative model or prototype system, which is well beyond the breadboard 

tested for TRL 5, is tested in a relevant environment. Represents a major step up 

in a technology's demonstrated readiness. Examples include testing a prototype in 

a high fidelity laboratory environment or in simulated operational environment. 

7. System prototype 

demonstration in an operational 

environment 

Prototype near or at planned operational system. Represents a major step up from 

TRL 6, requiring the demonstration of an actual system prototype in an operational 

environment, such as in an aircraft, vehicle or space. Examples include testing the 

prototype in a test bed aircraft. 

8. Actual system completed and 

'flight qualified' through test and 

demonstration 

Technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected 

conditions. In almost all cases, this TRL represents the end of true system 

development. Examples include developmental test and evaluation of the system 

in its intended weapon system to determine if it meets design specifications. 

9. Actual system 'flight proven' 

through successful mission 

operations 

Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission conditions, 

such as those encountered in operational test and evaluation. In almost all cases, 

this is the end of the last "bug fixing" aspects of true system development. 

Examples include using the system under operational mission conditions. 
Dimensional Metrology Interoperability Roadmap [DRAFT] Page 58

4.6. Plenary Presentations

Images of approximately 700 slides from the plenary presentations and dinner presentations are 

available in a separate appendix to supplement this document. The decision was made to separate the 

slides from this document so that it would be small enough to send to workshop participants by email. You may download the plenary presentations appendix after May 4, 2006, at 

http://imti21.org/metrology/. 

4.7. References

 

i

 NIST Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory, Intelligent Systems Division website: 

http://www.isd.mel.nist.gov/projects/metrology_interoperability/ (as of April 17, 2006). ii http://www.jtopen.com/ 

iii www.wikipedia.org. iv AIAG web site (http://www.aiag.org/) v

 PowerPoint presentation by Ron Hicks, CMSC vice chairman, at the International Metrology Interoperability 

Summit at NIST, Gaithersburg, MD, March 28-30, 2006. 

vi DMIS web site (http://www.dmis.org/). 

vii Proper Use of DML to Haul Dimension Data and Results, PowerPoint presentation by Joe Schafer, chairman of 

the DML committee, from the DML Specification website (http://www.dmlspec.org). 

viii DMIS Standards Committee website (http://www.dmisstandards.org/). ix Definition from whatis.com (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,289893,sid9_gci213970,00.html) x

 International Association of CMM Manufacturers website (http://www.iacmm.org). xi NIST Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory website 

(http://www.isd.mel.nist.gov/projects/metrology_interoperability/mept.htm) and AIAG website 

(http://www.aiag.org/committees/mept.cfm). xii STEP NC website (http://www.steptools.com). xiii http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com.