SEMI International Standards
Standards New Activity Report Form (SNARF)
Date Prepared: 02/01/2019Revised (if Applicable):

Document Number: 6572
SNARF for: Revision to SEMI E30-0418: Specification for The Generic Model for Communications and Control of Manufacturing Equipment (GEM)

Originating Global Technical Committee: Information & Control
Originating TC Chapter: North America
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)

1. Rationale:
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.)

1. GEM defines a lot of ways to implement process recipe management. It is confusing to some users and needs reorganization and refinement.
a. There seems to be little interest in implementing E42 stream 15 for recipe management, yet it remains as an option. This confuses implementers and users of GEM alike. Some task force members have asked that E42 be removed.
b. New Stream 21 messages were recently added to the E5 SECS-II standards to implement simple messages for large unformatted process program. They are not yet part of the GEM standard and there aren’t any usage scenarios defined. Support for these messages makes it much easier to support large recipe sizes.
c. Existing Large Unformatted Process Program might become superceded by the new E5 messages from ballot 6114 and should be evaluated for removal or deprecation from E30.
d. Determine whether Large Formatted Process Programs are used or not. Formatted process programs don’t suffer from the same size limitations as unformatted process programs. It seems worth discussing whether Large Formatted Process Programs should be removed or deprecated.
e. If there are fewer options for implementing recipes, this makes GEM easier to implement and easier to use.

2. The Limits Monitoring feature in GEM seems to provide little value and is rarely used by factories except during equipment acceptance. It was designed for an age when computer to computer communication was slow. Today’s host systems monitor limits using trace data collection or S1F3 data polling. Yet Limits Monitoring is a lot of work for an equipment supplier to implement and support. Many equipment suppliers implement Limits Monitoring because it is in E30 yet never see the feature used. If they can avoid implementing it without repercussions, this will reduce implementation time and simplify acceptance testing.

3. The GEM compliance statement does not clearly indicate which specific options are supported by an equipment. If the GEM Compliance better expresses what is and is not implemented, it can make it easier to evaluate the usefulness of a GEM interface. Some examples:
a. From the GEM compliance statement, you cannot tell which method of process programs are implemented, formatted or unformatted, binary or ASCII. And it would be nice to see from the compliance state if the new Stream 21 messages are supported or not.
b. From the GEM compliance statement, you cannot tell which GEM remote commands are supported. Or if custom remote commands are supported. Interpretation of “implemented” and “compliant” differ among experts.

4. GEM does not currently identify each equipment uniquely. It would be nice if a host could distinguish two identical equipment of the same model and software. Device ID, MDLN, SOFTREV and even IP address are not sufficient since these are configurable.

5. GEM does not recommend specific device IDs. Having recommended device ID(s) would make plug and play easier.

6. E172 documents a GEM interface in an XML file, but does not provide a way to distribute the file. It would be convenient if the E172 file was transferred through the GEM interface.

7. It is often very difficult to locate the correct GEM documentation for an equipment. It would be convenient if the GEM documentation was transferred through the GEM interface.

8. In some instances, the term “data variable” seems to be misapplied where it should be “variable data” as revealed in ballot 5832B voting.

9. During the adjudication of ballot 6348B, there was some task force discussion regarding the definition of collection event. Some members would like to review and possibly change the definition.

b. Estimate effect on industry.
2: Major effect on an industry sector - identify the relevant sector
Sector or Company Information: Anyone implementing or using GEM

c. Estimate technical difficulty of the activity.
II: Some Difficulty - Disagreements on known requirements exist but developing consensus is possible

2. Scope:
a: 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:

This proposal suggests updating E30 as follows:

1) Consider a major rework of section 7.7 Process Program Management with potential changes including but not limited:
A. Removing stream 15, but consider adoption of some E42 concepts
B. Adding the new stream 21 messages to be used as an option for process recipe management.
C. Adding scenarios to clarify the usage of the stream 21 messages
D. Eliminating or deprecating unused process recipe management options and scenarios such as E42 and Large Formatted Process Programs

2) Consider removal or deprecation of Limits Monitoring

3) Consider modifications to the GEM compliance statement to clarify the meaning of implementation and compliance. This will include reviewing remote commands & process program management, but is not limited to these two items.

4) Consider a new feature in GEM to support one or more additional Status Variables (with a separate row in the GEM compliance table) to identify each equipment uniquely (perhaps a Universally Unique ID—UUID). Also consider an Equipment Constant that allows a factory assigned equipment name.

5) Consider recommending a specific device ID.

6) Consider allowing SEDD files to be transferred through the GEM interface using stream 21.

7) Consider allowing GEM documentation, such as a PDF file, to be transferred through the GEM interface using stream 21.

8) Consider revising the usage of terms like “data variable” and “variable data ID” which appear to be misused or inconsistent with E5.

9) Consider improvements to the definition of “collection event”.

Note that the actual proposed changes that will be proposed in the ballot related to the above listed topics depends on task force member feedback on what features in GEM are actually in use. The ballot does not intend to remove items from E30 that are deemed to be important.

The ballot will also include any minor editorial changes or technical errors identified during the ballot creation.

b: Expected result of activity
Major 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 Related Information sections or Various Materials to an existing Standard or Safety Guideline

For Standards, identify the Standard Subtype below:

Miscellaneous (describe below):

3. Projected Timetable for Completion:

a: General Milestones
a. Activity Start: 07/01/2019b. 1st Draft by: 08/01/2019
c. (Optional) Informational Ballot by: d. Letter Ballot by: 08/01/2019
e. TC Chapter Approval By:04/01/2020

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.)

b. 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):

c. Intercommittee Ballots:
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

NOTE FOR "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 Regulations for special procedures to be followed.

NOTE FOR "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:
a. 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:

b. 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)

c. 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:
will incorporate Copyrighted Item

NOTE FORthe 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 Regulations 16 must be followed.

NOTE FORwill incorporate Copyrighted Item’: A copyright release letter must be obtained from the copyright owner prior to publication.

7. Comments, Special Circumstances:

8. TC Member Review:
took place between (put dates below ) before approval at the TC Chapter Meeting, or

Member Review Start Date; 06/25/2019.
Member Review End Date: 07/09/2019.

NOTE FOR ‘TC Member Review’ is required by the Regulations 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 Regulations 8.2.1)

9. SNARF Approval Dates:
TC Chapter or GCS07/31/2019
Recorded in TC Minutes


10. SNARF Extension Dates:
TC Chapter Extension Granted on
Extension Expires on

Attach Pictures and Files here: