Modular Design Systems

🧩 PJ Onori's proposal for a standard schema for design system documentation could solve one of the biggest limitations in our industry: documentation that can't travel. In a recent update, PJ shared version 0.15.2 of the specification he's been developing over the past several months, with contributions from Afyia Smith and Suleiman Ali Shakir. His argument is simple: if the industry had agreed on a common documentation schema years ago, design system content would already be portable, interoperable, and ready for automation. This is much bigger than documentation itself. Today, every design system team organizes guidance differently. Component pages, accessibility notes, design decisions, usage rules, and implementation details are all stored in proprietary formats that AI agents and external tools struggle to understand consistently. The content exists, but it's locked inside individual platforms. A shared schema changes that equation. Once documentation follows a common structure, it becomes possible for different tools to exchange knowledge, generate documentation automatically, validate content quality, and enable AI agents to reason about design systems without relying on brittle, platform-specific integrations. Documentation stops being static pages and becomes structured knowledge. As AI becomes a bigger part of product development, structured information will matter just as much as structured code. We standardized design tokens because consistency mattered. Standardizing documentation may be the next foundational step for making design systems truly machine-readable. Do you think the design systems community is ready to converge on a common documentation standard, or will every organization continue building its own approach? Drop your comment below 👇 💡 Source: PJ Onori, "Design System Documentation Schema" (v0.15.2). 🔗 https://lnkd.in/d8WsUkxG #DesignSystems #Documentation #DesignOps #AI #ProductDesign #UX #OpenSource #Standards

Navisworks can now create Autodesk Data Exchanges!   That’s a big step forward for interoperability.   Data Exchanges use a neutral format that works across any application with a connector, including: Autodesk tools - Revit, Inventor, Civil3D, Navisworks, AutoCAD and Dynamo Other design tools - Rhino, Grasshopper, SolidWorks and Tekla Business applications - Power Automate and Power BI   Once created, an exchange can be shared between these applications without needing to convert files.   What’s New: You can now create Data Exchanges directly from Navisworks Manage.   💡That means any format supported by Navisworks can now feed into other connected tools.   Here I took advantage of another recently released feature: the scan to mesh workflow using ReCap Pro.   ReCap → Navisworks → PowerBI   This allows point clouds to be converted to segmented meshes, and exported as native Navisworks and Revit files.   In PowerBI I can now dashboard all design components across a project, not just Revit files.   Think Point Clouds, SketchUp, MicroStation and more.   Check out what applications are on the data exchange roadmap and submit your ideas here:  https://lnkd.in/g3TykV9f   For more check out my previous post on running clash detection on scans in ACC: https://lnkd.in/g85jsTUY   See the Data Exchange help page to join the Beta and get set up: https://lnkd.in/gestwGX4   #Autodesk #RealityCapture #Revit #PowerBI

France is moving ahead with plans to transform up to 20 A400M transport aircraft into long-range strike platforms capable of deploying cruise missiles, drones and precision-guided munitions. The French defence procurement agency (DGA) has awarded Airbus a contract to develop a Payload Management System (PMS), with six mission kits planned and certification targeted by the end of 2028. The modular system is intended to allow A400Ms to integrate with tactical aircraft and ground forces while deploying stand-off weapons. Based on earlier Airbus concepts, each aircraft could potentially carry up to 12 Taurus-class cruise missiles or around 50 drones, extending the A400M beyond its traditional airlift role. The programme reflects a broader shift in military aviation. Rather than relying solely on dedicated strike aircraft, air forces are exploring how existing transport fleets can become flexible weapons carriers, increasing mass at lower cost while complicating an adversary's targeting and air defence planning. It also demonstrates how software-defined payloads and modular mission systems are reshaping defence procurement. Future combat capability is increasingly determined not just by the aircraft itself, but by how quickly it can be reconfigured for new operational roles. #A400M #Defence #MilitaryAviation #AirPower #DefenceInnovation Japanese Translation: フランスは、最大20機のA400M輸送機を巡航ミサイル、無人機、精密誘導兵器を運用できる長距離打撃プラットフォームへ転用する計画を進めています。 フランス国防調達庁（DGA）は、Airbusに対しペイロード・マネジメント・システム（PMS）の開発を発注しました。6セットのミッションキットを整備し、2028年末までの認証取得を目指しています。このモジュール式システムは、A400Mが戦術航空機や地上部隊と連携しながらスタンドオフ兵器を運用できるようにするものです。これまでAirbusが示してきた構想では、1機あたり最大12発のTaurus級巡航ミサイル、または約50機の各種ドローンを搭載できる可能性があり、従来の輸送任務に加えて打撃任務も担えるようになります。 この計画は、軍用航空の考え方が変化していることを示しています。専用の攻撃機だけに依存するのではなく、既存の輸送機を柔軟な兵器プラットフォームへ転用することで、比較的低コストで打撃能力を拡大し、敵の防空網や標的選定を複雑化する狙いがあります。 同時に、ソフトウェアで制御されるペイロードとモジュール式ミッションシステムが、防衛装備の調達や運用を大きく変えつつあります。将来の航空戦力は、機体そのものの性能だけでなく、新たな任務へどれだけ迅速に再構成できるかによって決まる時代になりつつあります。 #A400M #防衛 #軍用航空 #航空戦力 #防衛技術

𝗕𝗘𝗔𝗞 𝗶𝘀 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗲. 𝗜𝘁'𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗲𝘁-𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗳𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗕𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 🛰️ 𝗕𝗘𝗔𝗞 — a reusable, jamming-resistant quadcopter by Latvia’s Origin Robotics — is now deployed in Ukraine. It’s not another disposable FPV. It’s a rugged, battlefield-proven scout/strike drone that delivers precision munitions up to 15 km away, even under total signal denial. 🔧 Modular mission kit: One drone. Two missions. Add a Munition Integration Module in the field — no tools needed — and BEAK shifts from ISR to strike in seconds. Interchangeable payloads include EO/IR cameras and PGM-18 precision-guided munitions with onboard tracking. 🧠 True autonomy: BEAK navigates visually when GPS and comms are jammed. That means autonomous return, visual target reacquisition, and software-driven precision — not just operator skill. 🔬 Built-in precision: BEAK attacks from higher altitudes than FPVs, delivering munitions with superior accuracy using onboard targeting software — and, soon, unjammable, self-guiding PGMs that “lock and glide” without radio signals. 🛡️ Survivability edge: Unlike kitchen-table FPVs, BEAK is hardened for long service life. Ukraine’s bombers average 69 sorties before loss — BEAK aims to exceed that, reducing cost per strike dramatically vs. Javelins or SwitchBlades. 💡 Strategic value for NATO: • Reusable > expendable in prolonged attrition wars • Autonomy beats RC in EW-dominated zones • Made in 🇱🇻Latvia = no Chinese parts, no export headaches • Easy to scale: built for production, not improvisation ⚠️ With Russia accelerating drone-on-drone warfare and widening the drone arms race, BEAK offers NATO and Baltic allies an off-the-shelf system designed for near-peer conflict, not just COIN ops. 🗣️ As Origin CEO Agris Kipurs said: “Improvised solutions work in wartime, but professional militaries must think beyond them.” 📍From kitchen FPVs to autonomous bombers, the frontline is changing — and BEAK is a signpost for the future: modular, precise, and survivable. #DroneWarfare #BEAK #Ukraine #BalticSecurity #FPV #NATO #Innovation #DefenseTech #ElectronicWarfare

Plant 3D 🤝 Revit - not competitors, but a coordination problem waiting to be solved Everyone loves to argue: 👉 “Plant 3D is better for piping” 👉 “Revit is better for BIM” Both are true. And also completely irrelevant on real projects. Because in reality, you almost always have both. Where things actually break: Plant 3D models → fabrication-ready, but poor BIM integration Revit models → BIM-perfect, but not fabrication-ready Result → two parallel realities And the moment you hit: - pipe supports, - penetrations, - equipment connections and - module interfaces …things start falling apart. The real issue isn’t software It’s this: No defined interoperability workflow. Typical mistakes I keep seeing: ❌ Exporting dumb solids instead of structured data ❌ No agreed LOD between disciplines ❌ Late-stage clash detection (Navisworks “firefighting mode”) ❌ Supports completely ignored until site What actually works (in practice) ✔ Use Plant 3D as source of truth for piping ✔ Use Revit for building + coordination model ✔ Exchange via: - IFC (carefully configured) - Navisworks (federated coordination) - Shared coordinate systems ✔ Define early: - who owns what - required level of detail - what gets modeled vs what stays schematic The key insight Interoperability is not a technical problem. It’s a workflow + responsibility problem. If that’s not defined early → you’ll solve it later on site… the expensive way. My rule If your model: - can’t produce isometrics → it’s not ready for construction - can’t coordinate in Navisworks → it’s not ready for BIM You need both. Curious how others handle this: 👉 Do you treat Plant 3D as primary, or try to force everything into Revit?

What if mission capabilities could be reused instead of rebuilt? Today, integrating a new drone, sensor, AI model or mission application often requires significant custom development. With the OMNISS Marketplace, the objective is to move from repeated, project-specific integration to a catalogue of reusable and trusted building blocks. These building blocks can include: ⚙️ Connectors and adapters 🧠 AI models 🤖 Robotic skills 🛰️ Mission applications 🔗 C2 plugins 🧪 Simulation assets and datasets Operators and industrial partners can select the capabilities required for a mission, deploy them into an integration environment, and compose them with existing systems. The marketplace is therefore much more than a software catalogue. It is an ecosystem mechanism designed to accelerate innovation while supporting security, sovereignty, version control and certification. It is also a way for technology providers to expose their capabilities to a broader community of users. The principle is simple: Reuse rather than rework. Because interoperability should not have to be rebuilt for every mission. #OMNISS #Defence #Interoperability #AI #UAV #Marketplace #Sovereignty #Capgemini

Interoperability does not happen because institutions “agree to cooperate”. It happens when there is a shared architectural logic, clear interface expectations, and concrete cross-functional requirements that apply across teams, vendors and systems. That is why the GovStack Architecture Specification stood out to me. What it describes is not abstract architecture theory, but a practical model for building digital public infrastructure that is modular, interoperable and governable at scale. GovStack explicitly treats cross-functional requirements as a core part of architecture, covering areas such as development, deployment, security, quality, data and operations. It also highlights principles such as interoperability, observability and policy as code. For Estonia, this is particularly interesting because this logic is not new to us. We have for years pushed a similar approach through our own cross-functional requirements framework for government technology, architecture and development requirements, intended to serve as a foundation for public sector digital development.   And it is great to see that Estonia has also helped shape this work internationally. Exemplary work by Kristo Vaher, former Government CTO of Estonia. That connection is visible. The emphasis on interoperability, architecture discipline and cross-functional requirements strongly reflects the kind of thinking Estonia has been advancing for years. This is also a good reminder of something we do not say often enough, good digital government is not built only through services, AI or platforms. It is built through the underlying rules of the system - the requirements, architecture and governance choices that make scale, trust and reuse possible. If countries want digital public infrastructure that is resilient and future-proof, they should spend far more time on: 🔹shared cross-functional requirements 🔹interoperability by design 🔹reusable building blocks 🔹architecture that survives political and vendor cycles This is where a lot of the real state capacity is built. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/dWf7aMx3

Unify Piping and Structural Design and Analysis — without losing a single data point. See how CAESAR II®, CADWorx®, and GT STRUDL® now work together to connect design and analysis in one intelligent workflow. 🔁 No rework: Piping and structural data transfer automatically—saving hours and eliminating manual entry errors. 🧱 Real-world accuracy: Structural stiffness replaces the old “infinitely rigid” assumption, producing results that reflect true field behavior. 👀 3D reference model: Overlay design and analysis models directly in CAESAR II to spot discrepancies, validate restraints, and plan design changes in context. 🔄 Smarter collaboration: When engineers send post-analysis models back, designers see updates instantly—reducing revision cycles and improving communication. ⚙️ Automated data exchange: CAESAR II and GT STRUDL share loads, geometry, and results directly—no manual re-entry of massive datasets. 🎥 Watch the Interoperability Video Here: https://lnkd.in/gy3QBVtC This is what digital engineering should look like: seamless data flow, accurate results, and real collaboration between disciplines. #CAESARII #CADWorx #GTSTRUDL #Hexagon #PipeStressAnalysis #StructuralAnalysis #PlantDesign #EPC

🚀 🚀 Open BIM file formats: -IFC for interoperability: Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) is an open, standardized, vendor-neutral BIM file format. IFC files contain detailed information about building elements, facilitating the seamless exchange of data across various BIM applications. It empowers architects, engineers, and construction professionals to collaborate more efficiently, regardless of the BIM tools they use, promoting better decision-making throughout a project’s lifecycle. For instance, by using IFC formats, structural engineers can seamlessly integrate their models with those created by architects and other specialists, using different tools. This accurate data exchange encourages efficient teamwork and reduces errors in complex construction projects. -BCF for communication: The BIM Collaboration Format (BCF) is a standardized format designed to boost communication and facilitate efficient issue tracking and management among BIM project stakeholders. BCF files include information about model issues, screenshots, and comments. They promote collaboration and coordination during the design and construction of a project. By using BCF files, you provide a centralized way of discussing and resolving issues, reducing misunderstandings and potential errors. It separates communication from the model, enabling you to track and manage issues without altering the model files. For example, in a large-scale construction project, using BCF could streamline the coordination process by providing a platform where architects, engineers, contractors, and even non-technical stakeholders can pinpoint and discuss specific model-related issues. This ensures that solutions are efficiently implemented and tracked through the project lifecycle. -IDS for meeting requirements: Information Delivery Specification, or IDS, is an open BIM file format that defines the Data Exchange Requirements in BIM. Based on IFC, it defines how objects, classifications, materials, properties and values must be delivered and exchanged. IDS promotes the creation of high-quality BIM models from the start by sharing the model exchange requirements with key stakeholders involved in a project. It gives project participants a clear insight into what they need to deliver and how, ensuring everyone is on the same page. This structured approach facilitates easy collaboration and improved operability throughout a project’s lifecycle, ensuring high-quality models leading to better project outcomes. -Native BIM file formats: Native file formats are specific to a software tool. They are often proprietary as they are not always compatible with other software applications. That is why they are often converted or exported to the open BIM formats we have just discussed to bridge the gap between software systems and improve interoperability. #BIM

A novel missile-like air vehicle called Roadrunner, with high degrees of modularity and autonomy, and that can be readily reused, has been unveiled by defense contractor Anduril. There is already a version, the Roadrunner-M, with a high-explosive warhead that can be used as a low-cost loitering anti-air interceptor with the ability to return home for refueling and reuse if it isn't expended in the course of its mission. This is just one potential application for this twin-jet-powered platform that boasts high subsonic speed and takes off and lands vertically. Anduril formally announced Roadrunner and Roadrunner-M today, but the company's founder Palmer Luckey and Chief Strategy Officer Chris Brose spoke about them both at length to The War Zone and other outlets during a media call earlier this week. Though only revealed now, the Roadrunner design, which began as a sketch on a napkin, has been in development for just under two years. Full-sized prototypes have been flight-tested extensively already, including in operationally-representative demonstrations for an unspecified U.S. customer. “It's somewhere between a reusable missile and ... a full-scale autonomous aircraft," Luckey said in introducing the Roadrunner. "Roadrunner itself is a totally reusable aircraft and there's a lot of payloads you can put on it where it is totally reusable." Luckey and Brose could only offer limited details about Roadrunner's specific performance parameters and capabilities. They were able to say that it is capable of reaching high subsonic speeds, is shorter than Luckey is tall (his words), and is small enough to be moved around by a single average individual. It is powered by a pair of small turbojets that Anduril has developed in-house, but exactly how fast it can fly, at what altitudes, or for how long are so far undisclosed. Roadrunner is launched vertically and, if it returns in one piece from a sortie, it lands vertically on four flip-down outriggers at the base of its body, not unlike a SpaceX Falcon 9 space launch rocket booster. Unlike a Falcon 9 booster, Roadrunner can be quickly refueled and sent back out, if desired. “I love SpaceX, but what they're doing requires a lot of refurbishment in between each rocket landing and relaunch … like weeks or months of work typically," Luckey explained. "This [Roadrunner] is something that can land, get refueled, and take off inside of a couple minutes." #Roadrunner #Modular #Autonomous Image: Roadrunner. (Anduril)