According to Dave, when the OMAC Packaging Workgroup was preparing
the PACKML guideline for review and publication by ISA, the S88
Committee assigned the project as Technical Report ISA-TR88.00.05
Machine and Unit States: An Implementation Example of ISA-88. When the
completed document was submitted for publishing, it was pointed out that
calling this Part 5 might be seen as odd since Parts 2, 3 and 4 had not
been published. I'm only guessing here, but perhaps these numbers had
been assigned to other projects that had yet to be completed. The
PackML work always seemed to me to proceed much more quickly than other
standards efforts of this type.
ISA determined to publish the final document as ISA-TR88.00.02
Machine and Unit States: An Implementation Example of ISA-88. This
meant that the previously finalized draft needed to be have all of its
references updated. But a lot of contributors and reviewers of the
draft had copies of the document in its Part 5 configuration. These
copies, as well as copies containing references to both Part 2 and Part
5, have made their rounds through the industry. Many, including me,
were not aware of this change, and continued to refer to the PackML
document by the wrong number.
So, if you don't yet have your copy of PackML, or if you have a draft copy, it is best that you go to ISA's site,
put down your $95 fee, and get the official latest version. We must
also break the habit of referring to it as Part 5 or TR8.00.05 and begin
referring to it as Part 2, TR88.00.02. We should also probably be
referring to it by it's official name, but somehow PackML just rolls off
the lips much more easily.
For those of you who have been applying PackML, no matter what you
have called it, my readers and I would like to hear about your
experience. If you've reviewed the documents and decided not to apply
it, we'd like to hear why. And if you are a machine builder and haven't
even reviewed it, why not??? Just take a minute, scroll to the bottom
of the page and leave your comments. Stop back in a week or two, and
review the thoughts of your peers. There needs to be much more dialog
taking place on the topic of PackML!
