EDDL: The Feldbus War that won't go away

Fieldbus guru Dick Caro on EDDL:

“At one time, there was a need for FDT/DTM, but that time has passed. EDDL [Enhanced Device Description Language –ed.] is a superior solution. There is nothing simple about FDT/DTM. It is a very complex implementation that is based on ActiveX objects, with all of the hazards that entails. EDDL is implemented as a text-based (actually an XML file) database resident on the field device, or downloadable from the internet or a CD. The HMI or engineering workstation interprets the EDDs of the device and uses this to form the visual display consistent with the host system or DCS. In real-time, the same EDD-defined data tags are used for the transfer of data.

“However, the end user considerations are paramount. Emerson's view is that a consistent HMI view of field devices as determined by the DCS/HMI supplier is better for the end user. The FDT viewpoint is that the field device manufacturer is better qualified to configure the HMI view of their devices. I agree with Emerson on that point.

“Emerson also asserts that EDDL is needed for real-time device access anyway, so why is another method needed for engineering use only during device configuration? Good question!

“Bottom line. Emerson is not going to support FDT/DTM on Rosemount instruments and Fisher valves unless they lose market share. I don't think that FDT/DTM has any end user features to cause a buyer to reject Rosemount/ Fisher in favor of some other instrument supplier that does support FDT/DTM.

“My market analysis is that FDT/DTM, while being a fine technology, is doomed.”

What are your comments?

You cannot post comments until you have logged in. Login Here.

Comments

No one has commented on this page yet.

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments