Antea technical illustration white paper

www.antea.fr | White paper 1

White paper

© 2014 Antea

Optimizing the life cycle of S1000D and ATA iSpec 2200-compliant technical illustrations

Aerospace and defense industry: a complex ecosystem

Large aerospace and defense programs are characterized by the multiplicity of operators and long

product lifecycles: OEMs, engine manufacturers and equipment suppliers cooperate to deliver a

complete product to the end customer who will then operate and maintain it for several years or

even decades. An immense amount of technical data is necessary to accompany the product

throughout its life cycle, including engineering information, operational and maintenance

procedures, spare parts lists, wiring diagrams, etc. The prime contractor companies might produce

this data internally, but often they subcontract the work to a technical documentation service

provider, adding yet another party to the data exchange chain. In addition, all data needs to be

revised regularly and comply with strict regulatory requirements.

To meet these challenges, a common method of handling technical data is essential. Information

must be compatible and easily exchanged between multiple communities at all phases of the product

life cycle. In fact, interchange standards have been developed to guarantee that information can be

shared and processed in a similar and efficient manner, whatever its origin.

This white paper takes a close look at the two major interchange standards used in the aerospace

and defense industries: S1000D and ATA iSpec 2200. Although these standards apply to all elements

of technical publications, we will specifically focus on the way they affect the creation, revision and

validation of technical illustrations.

S1000D and ATA iSpec 2200

Airlines for America (A4A) – formerly known as Air Transport Association of America (ATA) – is the

United States’ oldest and largest airline trade association. ATA started developing common

information standards for technical airline documentation as early as in the 1940s. The first outcome

of this work was the ATA 100 specification for printed aircraft maintenance information, later

completed by ATA 2100, which provided guidelines for electronic data exchange. In 2000, the two

standards were incorporated into ATA iSpec 2200 that became the new reference standard for

aircraft engineering, maintenance, material management and flight operations information. ATA

iSpec 2200 was widely adopted by the global commercial aviation industry as it enabled efficient

electronic data exchange and greatly reduced the industry operators’ dependence on paper manuals,

minimizing costs and improving information quality.



© 2014 Antea

The development of S1000D was initiated in the 1980s by the Association Européenne des

Constructeurs de Matériel Aérospatial (AECMA), which represented the common interests of the

European aerospace industry. The purpose of the initiative was to improve the existing technical

publications processes and develop a common standard that would meet the needs of combined

European military projects that required input from multiple suppliers and countries.

The international development of S1000D outside Europe accelerated when the US military and

industry representatives entered the S1000D working groups and adopted the specification for new

defense projects. As a result of the involvement of the USA, the Aerospace Industries Association of

America (AIA) entered into the governance of the standard together with the successor to AECMA,

the AeroSpace and Defence Industries of Europe (ASD).

The originality of S1000D is its structure based on Data Modules, chunks of information that are

stored and managed in a Common Source Data Base (CSDB) and that can be published across a

variety of output media, from print to IETPs. Information reuse in different contexts is the main

benefit offered by the modular structure of S1000D.

Since its inception, S1000D has become a truly global standard whose scope and depth have

broadened along the years. While most of its early applications were in military aerospace, today it

covers the domains of air, land and sea. Industry-specific customizations of S1000D include the

Shipdex protocol for the shipping community as well as Raildex, a recent initiative to standardize the

exchange of maintenance documentation in the railway industry between all stakeholders including

OEMs, integrators and operators.

Towards a unique information exchange standard?

As opposed to S1000D, ATA iSpec 2200 approaches information structure from a more traditional,

paper-oriented perspective and doesn’t offer the same benefits of information reuse as S1000D.

These limits were acknowledged by the ATA working groups and eventually led them to evaluate the

potential of creating a new standard for civil aviation based on S1000D. The cooperation between

the different standards groups became official in 2007 when ATA, AIA and ASD agreed on a

memorandum of understanding to jointly maintain S1000D. For the past several years, the civil

aerospace and defense industries have been working closely to enable S1000D to include commercial

requirements.



© 2014 Antea

Figure 1. S1000D International Organization

The joint efforts have given valuable results and today large commercial aircraft OEMs (Airbus,

Boeing, Bombardier, etc.) use S1000D in their new projects. Nevertheless, legacy data continues to

be maintained and delivered according to the guidelines of ATA iSpec 2200. Hence, both

specifications, and their various versions, continue to coexist and need to be supported by suppliers.

S1000D and ATA iSpec 2200-compliant technical illustrations

The S1000D and ATA iSpec 2200 standards control the creation, management and delivery of

technical publications. They define rules that apply not only to text content, but also to non-textual

elements, including illustrations and multimedia files. Both S1000D and ATA iSpec 2200 provide a

substantial number of specifications related to illustrations and multimedia amounting respectively

to 72 and 165 pages.

The rules related to technical illustrations cover the following aspects:

File naming

Style and presentation

Interactivity and navigation

Exchange format

Let’s take a look at each of these in more detail.



© 2014 Antea

File naming

Most specifications demand that each graphical object carries a unique code that helps to identify

and retrieve it from a mass of data elements. S1000D has the most sophisticated requirements with

its definition of the Information Control Number (ICN) that contains information such as the

company and/or project name, issue number, security classification, etc. This code must be used as

the file name of the illustration and can optionally be shown at the edge of the illustration. Similarly,

ATA iSpec 2200 defines a Graphic Number (GNBR).

Figure 2. The ICN helps to identify and retrieve an illustration in the CSDB.

Style and presentation

Both S1000D and ATA iSpec 2200 provide guidance regarding the look or presentation of the

illustrations on paper and on screen. These rules cover several areas and have to be followed in the

illustration process. They define the allowed illustration sizes, line styles, line weights, fonts, text

attributes as well as navigation and reference items including views, locators, sections, callouts,

dimensions, etc. The use of photographs is also controlled by the specifications’ guidelines.

Figure 3. S1000D-compliant symbols for illustrations and photographs.



© 2014 Antea

Interactivity and navigation

Easy navigation and access to information are one of the main benefits of using IETMs (Interactive

Electronic Technical Manuals) instead of printed manuals. In an IETM, graphical interactivity is based

on hotspots. Hotspots are sensitive, clickable areas in an illustration that provide a link to navigate

from one area to another. They can point either to text data or to other graphical elements that

belong to the same illustration or to another one. Both S1000D and ATA iSpec 2200 define the

handling of hotspots and provide guidance on hyperlinking and navigation.

One of the technologies enabling the use of hotspots is based on CGM (Computer Graphics Metafile),

which is the recommended S1000D and ATA iSpec 2200 format for interchanging technical

illustrations.

Exchange format

As stated above, S1000D and ATA iSpec 2200 recommend the use of CGM. CGM is an ISO standard

for the storage and exchange of 2D vector graphics, raster graphics and text. It standardizes a meta

language for defining each element of an illustration, independent of platforms or software, which

makes it particularly adapted for exchanging data between operators.

CGM can be further adapted to different use contexts through application profiles, subsets of the

standard developed independently by standards groups within specific industries. Both the S1000D

and the ATA standards groups have developed their own CGM profiles to optimize the exchange of

data in the aerospace and defense industry. ATA was the first one to introduce its CGM profile for

graphics interchange, named GREXCHANGE. S1000D used the GREXCHANGE profile for many years

before defining its own profile based on WebCGM, which describes how CGM vector, raster, and

hybrid graphics are to be used on the web. In fact, the S1000D profile further restricts the properties

of WebCGM, which is why it is described as a cascading profile.

The S1000D and ATA iSpec 2200 standards also allow other formats to be used: TIFF for monochrome

bitmap drawings; JPEG and PNG for photographs and drawings. However, of the permitted graphics

interchange formats, CGM is by far the most flexible, providing a robust, self-contained mechanism

for interactive links between vector or embedded raster graphics and text.

Project and company specific rules

In addition to the standards’ guidelines, companies often define their own sets of requirements to

meet their project needs. The purpose of these requirements is to further clarify how the standard

should be implemented in the context of a specific project. They can cover any aspect of the

standard; in the case of illustrated data, examples could include customized style and presentation

rules (color palettes, line weights, fonts, etc.) or hotspot naming conventions. S1000D provides the

most formalized approach to this practice through the concept of Business Rules even though other

interchange standards, including ATA iSpec 2200, can be similarly adapted to specific project

requirements as well.



© 2014 Antea

S1000D and ATA iSpec 2200: similarities and differences

S1000D was inspired by the early ATA specifications. Therefore, the two standards have a similar

approach to the rules related to the production and use of technical illustrations. However, ATA iSpec

2200 is considerably more precise and restrictive in its definitions than S1000D, which gives greater

leeway for configuration within the Business Rules of the project. Even though for the non-expert the

illustration style differences between S1000D and ATA iSpec 2200 might seem subtle, they have

prevented the alignment of these two specifications despite many months of effort by the technical

committees to deliver a harmonized style guide.

Standards-compliant technical illustrations: Understanding the stakes

and the challenges

As stated earlier, S1000D and ATA iSpec 2200 provide a substantial number of guidelines related to

technical illustrations. However, the complexity of the specifications themselves is only one part of

the challenge...

In the recent years, the methods of production and the use of technical illustrations have radically

changed. Whereas illustrations can still be created from scratch from engineering drawings or other

source data by using a dedicated 2D illustration software such as IsoDraw or Corel DESIGNER, more

and more often they are generated directly from 3D CAD models, almost ready to use. This method

has had a great impact on production times and costs, making 2D illustrated data available for a

much wider use in the technical information life cycle. Simultaneously, global organizations’ demand

for visual data has strongly increased as it provides a user-friendly means of communication that

doesn’t entail translation costs. For all of these reasons, organizations are confronted with handling

ever-increasing amounts of illustrated data – that has to be delivered and managed as fast and

efficiently as possible.

Figure 4. In the modern technical publications workflow 2D illustrations are often

generated directly from 3D CAD data.



© 2014 Antea

Electronic production and consultation have also driven the emergence of more and more powerful

graphics in terms of interactivity and functionalities. “Intelligent Graphics” is the name given to

graphics that contain graphical objects and associated text data (metadata) that cause the graphical

objects to be responsive to user-generated or external events.

As opposed to static paper publishing, intelligent graphics enable easy identification of parts and

assemblies as well as advanced navigation, queries and data extraction. For example, illustrated

components can contain links to information supplier, part numbers, ordering tools or animated

sequences (for more information on intelligent graphics, see Jackson & Woolsey).

Intelligent graphics provide multiple benefits to the user as they enable intuitive access to a

multitude of data. However, it requires particular attention to ensure their compliance with S1000D

and ATA iSpec 2200: sensitive areas or hotspots must be defined according to the specifications’

guidelines, and the associated metadata needs to be correctly encoded. In addition, project business

rules might define specific hotspot naming conventions.

Figure 5. Both ATA and S1000D base their hotspot functionality on the WebCGM Intelligent Content

model. ATA makes use of some WebCGM Application Structure attributes, but also adds several of its

own. The ATA principle is to embed rich hotspot functionality within the CGM file.

S1000D takes a different approach by limiting the use of the WebCGM Application Structure

attributes. In S1000D, hotspot functionality is defined outside the CGM file, at its point of use which is

typically a data module’s XML graphic element. This external definition of hotspot functionality allows

a single CGM file to be referenced by multiple data modules while providing context specific hotspot

functionality in each case.



© 2014 Antea

In summary, ensuring the conformance of illustrated data to the relevant interchange standards such

as S1000D and ATA iSpec 2200 has become a more complex, demanding and error-prone task. This

can only become more challenging due to the ever-increasing quantity and complexity of illustrated

technical data. In addition, aerospace and defense organizations often work on several projects at a

time, requiring them to support several standards, versions and sets of business rules

simultaneously. The stakes are high as uncompliant technical illustrations can entail significant costs

and delays in the production of documentation.

There are two key roles in delivering standards-compliant illustrations: the illustrator and the quality

assurance manager. Let’s take look at their scope of work in more detail.

The illustrator’s job

In recent years the illustrator’s job has changed out of all recognition. Where it was once a purely

creative task, it can now encompass many roles.

As mentioned above, technical illustrations can be either drawn from diverse source data, such as

engineering drawings or photographs, by using a dedicated illustration tool, or automatically

generated from 3D CAD data. Whatever the chosen method, a “raw” 2D illustration is rarely usable

as it is – the illustrator then needs to add the finishing touches, which is called enrichment. It’s the

process of adding locator views, call-outs, section identifiers and arrow locators and all other

expected items.

Figure 6. Enrichment completes the illustration.



© 2014 Antea

The enrichment phase is crucial for ensuring the illustration’s compliance with the formal

specifications and project business rules. However, when carried out manually, it implies time-

consuming and repetitive commands that are prone to human error. In fact, without the appropriate

tools, the enrichment work requires significant time and effort – as well as a detailed knowledge of

the notoriously complex specifications.

The challenge is all the greater because of some of the current trends affecting the production of

technical publications: illustration work is increasingly often carried out by authoring personnel or it

might even be outsourced offshore to non-specialized service providers.

Given this current context, it is easy to see the need for technologies that help the illustrator to

control the illustration production process and the compliance of the deliverables without needing

special expertise in the specifications.

Quality Assurance

The purpose of Quality Assurance is to verify that finished data meets specifications and

requirements. QA checks are run at both ends of the delivery chain: by the organizations producing

the data as well as by those receiving it.

Quality Assurance for technical illustrations requires careful checking in three domains:

1. Is the illustration fit for purpose?

2. Does the illustration follow the style rules as defined in the formal specification?

3. Does the illustration comply with the specified CGM format and profile rules?

Checking these domains fast and accurately is not an easy task.

Firstly, it is necessary to make sure that the illustration meets its purpose. Every illustration is created

for a reason; they are not just pretty pictures designed to fill an empty space. It takes knowledge of

the subject in context to make this assessment. Even the most skillfully crafted drawing fails in its

purpose if it does not illustrate the relevant technical information. Errors in this domain can include

poor choice of view, incorrect parts shown, applicability mismatches, insufficient detail or even too

much detail.

Style rules might be easier to understand but difficult to check quickly. It takes a trained eye to notice

that a line’s weight is too thin or that the wrong font has been chosen for just one call-out. How to

tell that a color definition is not quite right? What about the enrichment items, if they have been

drawn manually, is each one of them style compliant? There are also several background features to

take into account that cannot be checked visually, such as illustration sizes, correct use of the

illustration’s identification code or hotspot definitions.

Finally, it is necessary to check that the CGM-file conforms to the required CGM version and profile.

All mainstream CGM editors or generators create valid output but even the best of them have their



© 2014 Antea

minor non-compliance issues. The CGM files’ compliance cannot be verified visually and thus

necessarily requires a specialist validation tool.

In summary, illustration QA is a complex and time-consuming task. However, it is essential for

organizations as non-compliance issues can result in rejected deliverables, entailing rework and

increased costs. Tools that help to identify and fix QA problems can considerably improve the quality

of the delivered data and drive significant cost savings.



© 2014 Antea

Resources

Web

Organization that maintains S1000D: www.s1000d.org

Airlines for America (former ATA): www.airlines.org

ATA e-Business Program: www.ataebiz.org

Aerospace Industries Association of America (AIA): www.aia-aerospace.org

AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe: www.asd-europe.org

Organization that promotes the adoption, application, and implementation of the Computer

Graphics Metafile (CGM): www.cgmopen.org

Articles

GEBHARDT, J. & HENDERSON, L. (1999): “WebCGM: Industrial-strength vector graphics for the

Web, CGM Open Consortium, Inc.”.

HENDERSON, L. & WEIDENBRÜCK, D. (2003): “Applicability of CGM versus SVG for technical

graphics”.

JACKSON, M. & WOOLSEY, J. (n.d.): “Interactive Graphics – Efficiencies for the Customer and

Business: an Aerospace Perspective”.

http://www.s1000d.org/

http://www.airlines.org/

http://www.ataebiz.org/

http://www.cgmopen.org/



© 2014 Antea

Tools that really help

Antea has developed a comprehensive software solution to answer to the needs of organizations

that need to create, edit and validate technical illustrations in accordance with S1000D and ATA iSpec

2200. It consists of tools that help both the Illustrator and the QA Manager to deliver standards-

compliant data fast and accurately:

Leonardo S1000D & ATA: The Illustrator’s tools for S1000D and ATA iSpec 2200-compliant

content production.

LeoValidate: A high-performance batch validation solution for CGM-based technical illustrations

with support for WebCGM, ATA and S1000D.

For more information, visit www.antea.fr.

About Antea – Antea offers innovative Technical Communication & Publishing software for content creation, management, cross-media publishing and delivery for Paper, Web and Mobile with a strong background managing the content life cycle of enterprise-wide documentation. Established for more than 20 years, Antea is a recognized expert in Tech Pubs software solutions for the Aerospace and Defense sectors, strongly involved in ATA, ASD & AIA related Specifications such as ATA iSpec 2200, ATA 2300 and S1000D.

Antea | 3 rue Etienne Dolet | 93400 Saint-Ouen | France

Tel: +33 (0)1 58 61 23 00

www.antea.fr

http://www.antea.fr/

Antea technical illustration white paper

Education

Transcript of Antea technical illustration white paper