SEMI International Standards
Standards New Activity Report Form (SNARF)
Revised (if Applicable):
LINE ITEM REVISION TO SEMI E87-XXXX SPECIFICATION FOR CARRIER MANAGEMENT (CMS) and SEMI E87.1-XXXX SPECIFICATION FOR SECS-II PROTOCOL FOR CARRIER MANAGEMENT (CMS)
Originating Global Technical Committee:
Information & Control
Originating TC Chapter:
Task Force (TF) in which work is to be carried out:
GEM 300 Task Force
Note: If a new task force is needed, also submit a task force organization form (TFOF)
a. Describe the need or problem addressed by this activity.
(Indicate the customer, what benefits they will receive, and if possible, quantify the impact on the return on investment [ROI] if the Document is implemented.)
SEMI E87-0619 added the Carrier Ready to Unload Prediction (CaRTUP) functionality, which defines a state model on the carrier object to indicate it’s prediction for when it will enter the Ready to Unload state.
Implementers have identified some issues where it is not clear what the expected behavior in fully automated scenarios interacting with the Factory Automation (FA) Host (using Equipment Based Verification and Host Based Verification).
This Line Item Revision will investigate some clarifications and corrections to the CaRTUP functionality opportunities.
· Clarify the relationship between Tp, Te, and the actual time the Carrier is ReadyToUnload and provide some examples.
· Clarify use case scenarios where the Host specifies CaRTUP information, where the Host initiates carrier creation, and when the carrier is cancelled.
· Clarify when events are raised and behavior of carrier attributes.
These issues have been discussed with Byoung Min Im (Korea), Ballot Author for Document #4946 which added the CaRTUP functionality to SEMI E87-0619, and potential solutions have been considered. They were not included in Document #6695 which made changes to the CaRTUP state model and has been approved and is in the SEMI Publishing queue..
SEMI E87.1 may need to be updated to synchronize with changes in the primary standard (SEMI E87)
b. Estimate effect on industry.
2: Major effect on an industry sector - identify the relevant sector
Sector or Company Information:
Anyone implementing CaRTUP
c. Estimate technical difficulty of the activity.
II: Some Difficulty - Disagreements on known requirements exist but developing consensus is possible
Describe the technical areas to be covered or addressed by this Document development activity. For Subordinate Standards, list common concepts or criteria that the Subordinate Standard inherits from the Primary Standard, as well as differences from the Primary Standard:
As part of the work on this Line Item Revision, the task force will investigate:
Clarify the relationship between Tp, Te, and the actual time the Carrier is ReadyToUnload. Provide examples of the scenarios and how CaRTUPActualTime is calculated (Potentially in a Related Information or Appendix) Consider including a diagram showing the relationship between these times and the CaRTUPStatus state
Clarify scenarios where the Host specifies CaRTUSettingTime and CaRTUPTimeout values via ProceedWithCarrier, CarrierRecreate and Bind messages, and Host initiated Carrier Creation (when Carrier is instantiated before the Carrier is physically at the loadport ) Potentially in a Related Information or Appendix.
Clarify what happens when the carrier is cancelled (does not change the CaRTUP state, go to PredictionComplete or PredicitonAborted?)
Clarify events and attribute behavior related to CaRTUP functionality. For example,
- CarrierPrediction event is separate from the CarrierSMTrans23 event and it is raised only once for the lifespan of the carrier object.
- Clarify CaRTUPActual Time Description - perhaps change it to something like 'Difference of time (in seconds) from the initial predicted CRTU time (Tp) to the real CRTU'
Any other changes to address features or defects, or issues with the Style Guide raised by Task Force members during the development and review of the proposed changes related to CaRTUP functionality. Significant changes in scope still require a SNARF revision in compliance with SEMI Regulations.
b: Expected result of activity
Line-item revision to an existing Standard or Safety Guideline
For a new Subordinate Standard, identify the Primary Standard here:
Modification of an existing part of Standard(s) or Safety Guideline(s) including Appendices, Complementary Files, and Supplementary Materials, Addition of one or more Appendices or Complementary Files to an existing Standard or Safety Guideline, Addition of one or more Related Information sections or Various Materials to an existing Standard or Safety Guideline
For Standards, identify the Standard Subtype below:
3. Projected Timetable for Completion:
a: General Milestones
a. Activity Start:
b. 1st Draft by:
c. (Optional) Informational Ballot by:
d. Letter Ballot by:
e. TC Chapter Approval By:
4. Liaisons with other Global Technical Committees/TC Chapters/Subcommittees/TFs:
List SEMI global technical committees, TC Chapters, subcommittees, or task forces in your or other Regions/Locales that should be kept informed regarding the progress of this activity. (Refer to SEMI Standards organization charts and global technical committee charters and scopes as needed.)
I&C Global Technical Committee
Korea GEM300 Task Force
Japan GEM300 Task Force
List any planned Type I Liaisons with external nonprofit organizations (e.g., SDO) that should receive Draft Documents from Standards staff for feedback during this activity and be notified when the Letter Ballot is issued (refer to Procedure Manual § 7):
will not be issued
Identify the recipient global technical committee(s):
5. Safety Considerations:
The resulting document is expected:
NOT to be a Safety Guideline
to be a Safety Guideline
": When all safety-related information is removed from the Document, the Document is NOT technically sound and complete - Refer to Section 15.1 of the
for special procedures to be followed.
NOT to be a Safety Guideline
": When all safety-related information is removed from the Document, the Document is still technically sound and complete.
6. Intellectual Property Considerations:
For a new Standard or Safety Guideline and for any part to be modified or added in a Revision of published Standards and Safety Guidelines
the use of patented technology is NOT required.
If "patented technology is intended to be included in the proposed Standard(s) or Safety Guideline(s) " is selected above, then also check one:
For Revision, Reapproval, Reinstatement, or Withdrawal of existing Standard(s) and Safety Guideline(s):
there is no known material patented technology necessary to use or implement the Standard(s) and Safety Guideline(s)
The body of the Document and any Appendices, Complementary Files, Related Information sections, or Various Materials that may or may not be a part of the Document by reference:
the incorporation of Copyrighted Item will NOT be required
the use of patented technology or the incorporation of Copyrighted Item(s) is NOT required’
: If in the course of developing the Document, it is determined that the use of patented technology or Copyrighted Item(s) is necessary for the Document, the provisions of
§ 16 must be followed.
will incorporate Copyrighted Item’
: A copyright release letter must be obtained from the copyright owner prior to publication.
7. Comments, Special Circumstances:
TC Member Review:
is not required for this SNARF.
Member Review Start Date;
Member Review End Date:
‘TC Member Review’ is required by the
for a period of at least two weeks
before approval of a new, or a major revision of an existing, Standard or Safety Guideline. (Refer to
9. SNARF Approval Dates:
TC Chapter or GCS
Recorded in TC Minutes
10. SNARF Extension Dates:
TC Chapter Extension Granted on
Extension Expires on
Attach Pictures and Files here: