Identify the exact machine and MES endpoints, EUROMAP 77 / OPC 40077 release and facets, source-of-truth for machine/job/cycle/dataset records, write boundary, reconciliation rules and configured evidence before treating the connection as releasable.
EUROMAP 77 / OPC 40077 defines an IMM-to-MES information model; it does not prove that a proposed controller, option, MES instance or project extension implements it.
Keep the whole-cell interface registerEach row names the decision owner and the inference this page must not absorb.
| Decision | Owns | Keep separate |
|---|---|---|
| Identified IMM-to-MES data contract | The exact machine and MES endpoints, selected EUROMAP 77 / OPC 40077 release and facets, record ownership, field meanings, write boundary, reconciliation rules and configuration-specific release evidence. | This page supplies no node map, endpoint configuration, credentials, certificate plan, network architecture, operating sequence or supplier capability claim. |
| General cell-interface register | All cell endpoints and their physical, electrical, utility, functional, data, safety and access boundaries across the IMM, mold, robot, peripherals and site systems. | The MES route narrows one data relationship. It does not replace the complete endpoint register or prove any connector, controller, option or network path. |
| Robot and handling-device interface | The IMM-to-robot functional and data exchange, separate safety-signal path, EOAT, workspace and part-handling evidence. | EUROMAP 77 / OPC 40077 is an IMM-to-MES scope. Dataset references to handling equipment do not become an IMM-to-robot interface release. |
| Peripheral-device interfaces | Each identified hot-runner, temperature-control, dosing, material-supply or other peripheral endpoint, its selected interface specification and configured evidence. | A machine dataset may describe connected equipment, but this page does not claim that a peripheral is present, connected, writable or interoperable. |
| FAT and SAT programme | The complete configured-machine and installed-cell acceptance plan, conditions, witnesses, methods, observations, deviations, retest and closure. | This route defines the MES evidence rows to request. It does not prescribe a test method or replace the project-wide acceptance programme. |
| Site operation and cybersecurity architecture | Site-authorized production release, user administration, network zones, remote access, credential and certificate lifecycle, monitoring, incident response and retention policy. | The data-contract register names responsible records only. It publishes no account, role, permission, certificate, port, sampling rate, retention period or cybersecurity design. |
Complete every field for the proposed endpoints. Keep unknown supplier implementations open instead of turning a specification name into a product promise.
| Register field | Record for the proposed endpoints | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| Project and data-exchange boundary | Business decision supported, machine/MES exchange included, upstream and downstream systems, integration work, supplied work, site work and every explicit exclusion | Approved scope diagram and responsibility matrix naming the buyer, machine supplier, MES supplier, integrator and site owners |
| IMM endpoint identity and controlled revision | Exact machine identity when assigned, controller and application revision, installed option baseline and machine-side interface owner | Configuration record tied to the proposed machine; a series name or generic OPC UA statement is insufficient |
| MES endpoint identity and controlled revision | Exact MES product or project instance, software revision, integration component identity and MES-side interface owner | Controlled MES configuration baseline and interface statement for the identified project instance |
| Companion specification and release identity | EUROMAP 77 / OPC 40077 release, related OPC 40083 release, document status and any controlled project extension | Dated applicability record distinguishing official releases from vendor-specific additions and project assumptions |
| Claimed profile and facet scope | Basic server, jobs and production-dataset-management scope proposed for each endpoint, plus unsupported or excluded functions | Configuration-specific support declaration and testable conformance matrix; a companion-specification title alone proves nothing |
| Machine identity and master-data mapping | Controlled meanings for machine, controller, serial, software, location and buyer asset identities across both systems | Field dictionary with source system, destination field, identifier owner, format rule and approved exception handling |
| Machine configuration and component mapping | Which current configuration, mold, injection unit, power unit and relevant installed-component identities enter the MES record | Configuration snapshot and cross-system comparison for the exact machine rather than a generic model list |
| Machine status and event semantics | Business meaning, source of truth, state ownership and expected transition evidence for each required machine or MES status and log event | Approved semantic matrix with example observations from the configured endpoints; no universal state machine is supplied here |
| Time, sequence and record identity | Approved time source, sequence or correlation identifiers, ordering assumptions and treatment of duplicated, delayed or missing records | Trace showing that selected machine, MES, job and cycle records can be reconciled without publishing infrastructure settings |
| Job master-data contract | Required job, product, material, mold, cavity, lot and production-dataset identities; source owner; update owner; and mandatory/optional status | Signed field matrix and representative project records with buyer-approved redaction |
| Job state and digital release boundary | Which endpoint proposes, receives, acknowledges or reports each required job state and electronic production-release state | Observed configured behavior and responsibility record that remains separate from site operating authorization and machine safety |
| Cycle-record identity and correlation | How one cycle, part group, lot, box or other buyer-approved production unit is identified and related to the active job | Configured trace across source event, MES record and approved production sample without inventing a universal identifier scheme |
| Cycle parameter and quality-data contract | Required parameter names, business definitions, source location, units, status/quality meaning and missing-value treatment | Field-by-field comparison against the selected specification and configured observations; no generic node list is copied |
| Counts, quality and test-sample semantics | Meanings and ownership for cycle, part, good, bad, test-sample, cavity and container counts used by the buyer | Reconciliation examples showing how each count is produced, corrected and approved for the identified process |
| Production-dataset identity and revision | Dataset name or identifier, owner, machine/MES relationship, controlled revision, associated mold/job scope and changed/frozen status required by the project | Revision-controlled dataset register and comparison evidence; a transferred file is not automatically an approved recipe |
| Dataset transfer and content boundary | Which endpoint may list, request, send, receive or retain a production dataset and which connected-equipment content remains vendor-specific | Configured transfer observations, integrity check and explicit statement that dataset file content is not standardized by OPC 40077 |
| Writable function and approval boundary | Every proposed write or method family, business purpose, initiating owner, receiving owner, prerequisite approval and explicit exclusion | Allowlisted function matrix and observed result under the project acceptance plan; no action order or operating instruction is published |
| Loss, stale data and reconciliation boundary | Business treatment for unavailable, stale, duplicated, out-of-order or conflicting data and the owner of investigation and correction | Approved exception scenarios and retained observations; this page chooses no timeout, retry, restart or safe-state rule |
| Information-model and functional evidence | Required namespace/model comparison, profile/facet evidence, mandatory/optional element disposition, functional observations and unresolved deviations | Configuration-specific evidence set that distinguishes model structure, service behavior, interoperability and any formal certification |
| Acceptance, handover and change control | Applicable FAT/SAT evidence references, as-built field matrix, software and model revisions, open actions, owners and recheck triggers | Signed handover index tied to the delivered endpoints and later change log; this page is not the acceptance procedure |
The matrix is a procurement boundary, not a universal address space, configuration or implementation guide.
| Layer | Use in the RFQ | Do not infer |
|---|---|---|
| Identity and configuration | Agree which machine, controller, MES instance, mold, injection unit, power unit and current configuration each record identifies. | Do not turn an information-model field into proof that a component or option is fitted to the proposed machine. |
| Status, events and logbook | Align the business meaning, source owner and evidence for required machine and MES states and relevant changes. | Do not publish a universal state machine, alarm policy, action order, reset rule or safety response. |
| Jobs and cycle records | Define job identities, required cyclic-job fields, cycle correlation, production counts and quality-record semantics for the buyer's use case. | Do not assume that every optional element, write method, quality field or buyer KPI is implemented or fit for the project. |
| Production datasets | Control dataset identity, revision, relationship to job/mold, transfer responsibility and configured evidence. | OPC 40077 does not standardize the content of the transferred dataset file or make it an approved production recipe. |
| Profiles, facets and conformance | Record the exact basic, jobs and production-dataset-management scope proposed and the evidence required for each endpoint. | A namespace, NodeSet, profile name, self-declaration, model comparison, CTT result and formal certificate are not interchangeable evidence. |
| Enterprise/MOM and KPI use | Keep the MES business purpose and KPI definitions traceable to the buyer's operations model and approved calculation rules. | IEC 62264-1 terminology or ISO 22400-1 concepts do not validate source data, define this project's formula or prove one production result. |
Retain traceable evidence for the actual endpoints and revisions. Qualified project parties own testing, network, security, safety and operating decisions.
| Evidence gate | Record to retain | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Scope and identity gate | The exact IMM, controller, MES instance, software revisions, companion-specification releases, proposed facets, owners and exclusions are recorded. | A document title or generic OPC UA statement does not prove implementation, supply, interoperability, certification or project fit. |
| Semantic contract gate | Required machine, configuration, job, cycle, quality, count and dataset fields have approved definitions, owners, units and missing-data treatment. | No copied universal node map or vendor extension is silently treated as part of EUROMAP 77 / OPC 40077. |
| Write and authority gate | Every proposed write or method family has a business owner, approval boundary, endpoint responsibility, explicit exclusion and configured observation. | Electronic job or production-release state does not replace site operating authority, machine safeguards or qualified risk decisions. |
| Failure and reconciliation gate | Approved evidence shows how the business record is reconciled when data is unavailable, stale, duplicated, delayed, out of order or conflicting. | Qualified project parties define technical recovery and cybersecurity controls; this page supplies no timeout, retry or restart instruction. |
| Configured verification gate | The evidence set distinguishes information-model structure, supported profiles/facets, functional behavior, interoperability observations and certification status. | One passed comparison, demonstration or factory observation cannot establish every optional function, site condition or later revision. |
| Handover and change gate | As-built data dictionary, endpoint and software revisions, accepted deviations, open actions, owners and recheck triggers are indexed at handover. | This register identifies release evidence; the full FAT/SAT method, site network approval, retention policy and operating procedure remain separate. |
Reviewed 1 August 2026. EUROMAP publishes Release 1.01 for IMM-to-MES exchange and states that it is identical to OPC 40077 Release 1.01; the OPC Foundation lists OPC 40077 Release 1.01 and OPC 40083 Release 1.03 as current. IEC and ISO pages provide enterprise/MOM, KPI and profile context only. The sources do not prove a NEW ORIENTAL IMM interface, option, endpoint support, interoperability, conformity, certification, security result, performance or case.
The official page identifies Release 1.01, dated 1 June 2020, as the IMM-to-MES data-exchange specification and as identical to OPC 40077 Release 1.01 and VDMA 40077:2020-06.
Boundary: The publication target of cross-manufacturer compatibility does not prove that either proposed endpoint implements the release or interoperates in the configured project.
The official overview keeps EUROMAP 77 for IMM-to-MES exchange distinct from EUROMAP 79 for robots and the EUROMAP 82 series for peripheral devices; it also identifies EUROMAP 83 as the common-type basis.
Boundary: The overview is a scope map, not a product matrix, endpoint implementation declaration or current NEW ORIENTAL IMM option list.
The official reference lists Release 1.01, published 2020-06-01, as current and identifies the primary IMM-to-MES namespace model version as 1.01.
Boundary: A namespace or model-version string does not establish complete support, configured behavior, interoperability, certification or supplier capability.
The official scope covers machine information/configuration/status, relevant logs, job management, cycle parameters and production-dataset transfer. It expressly excludes safety-related signals and direct control of machine movements by the MES.
Boundary: The scope does not prove that an endpoint supports every optional element or write function, and it must not be used as a safety or motion-control specification.
The official chapter separates the basic server profile from the jobs and production-dataset-management server facets.
Boundary: A buyer must request configuration-specific evidence for the claimed scope. Profile or facet names are not an implementation, interoperability or certification result.
The official reference lists Release 1.03, published 2021-06-01, as current for common plastics-and-rubber-machinery types used by application-specific companion specifications.
Boundary: The general-type release is not evidence that every type, optional element or behavior exists on an identified IMM or MES endpoint.
The official chapter explains the listing and file-transfer framework and notes that production dataset files themselves are not standardized even though metadata accompanies them.
Boundary: A successful file transfer does not validate dataset content, machine applicability, recipe approval, connected-equipment behavior or production release.
The official IEC page describes manufacturing-operations-management and enterprise/control interface terminology, lists Edition 2.0 and a stability date of 2028.
Boundary: Its models and terminology do not select the EUROMAP 77 field contract, prove endpoint behavior or replace the configured integration evidence.
The official ISO record says the first edition was confirmed in 2025 and remains current for an industry-neutral KPI overview, concepts and terminology.
Boundary: It does not define this buyer's field mapping, data quality, calculation formula, acceptance threshold or achieved KPI result.
The official IEC page lists Edition 4.0, published 2025-12-16, and states that OPC UA applications normally conform to several, but not all, profiles.
Boundary: The current generic profile framework does not replace the OPC 40077 profile/facet declaration or prove any proposed product's tested scope.
The OPC Foundation's June 2026 update distinguishes information-model comparison against released NodeSets from broader functional, service, security and client testing.
Boundary: A model-comparison result is not full functional validation, an interoperability result or formal certification; exact evidence must be named rather than collapsed into 'OPC UA compliant.'
The answers separate specification identity, endpoint implementation, data semantics, operating authority and verification evidence.
No. Identify both endpoints, the exact EUROMAP 77 / OPC 40077 release, related OPC 40083 release, proposed profiles/facets, required data and write functions, vendor extensions, excluded functions and configured evidence. A generic protocol label does not prove an IMM-to-MES data contract or interoperability.
The current official EUROMAP page states that EUROMAP 77 Release 1.01 is identical to OPC 40077 Release 1.01 and VDMA 40077:2020-06. The procurement task is still to identify the exact release, model files, endpoint implementations, supported scope and project extensions rather than compare names alone.
No. EUROMAP's official scope map keeps the IMM-to-robot interface under EUROMAP 79 and peripheral-device interfaces under the EUROMAP 82 series. A production dataset can include information related to connected equipment, but that file relationship does not release the separate robot, peripheral, safety or physical integration.
Not by itself. Record the digital job and release semantics and the responsible endpoints, but keep them separate from site operating authority, machine modes, safeguards, risk decisions and production approval. OPC 40077 expressly excludes safety-related signals and direct control of machine movements by the MES.
No. OPC 40083 says the production dataset files themselves are not standardized. Control dataset identity, revision, scope, approval, machine and mold relationship, transfer evidence and change status; then retain the buyer's separate recipe and production-release approval.
Request endpoint and software identities, exact specification releases, supported profile/facet matrix, field dictionary, job/cycle/dataset contract, write-function boundary, model and functional observations, reconciliation evidence, deviations, as-built handover and recheck triggers. Keep certification status and site cybersecurity approval as separately named evidence.
Attach the exact IMM/controller and MES identities; selected EUROMAP 77 / OPC 40077 and OPC 40083 releases; proposed profiles/facets; required machine, job, cycle, quality, count and dataset fields; write boundary; reconciliation cases; model and functional evidence; as-built handover and open deviations. Keep every unconfirmed supplier implementation, interoperability, certification and cybersecurity claim open.
Build the machine brief