Could it be possible to create 'social behaviour' in a PLC?

Every human can communicate their thoughts, their feelings, what they see or what they believe with a single click. Could it be possible for a PLC to communicate its information socially?

"Social” implies a group of entities able to share information with other entities of the same kind, with similar interests or sharing similar experiences. So, if "social” means to share information in that way to others, is it possible that an electronic device such as a PLC could share relevant information with other devices, with or without a trigger, just for enhancing its own capabilities; or even those of the group?

In Ladder, FBD, or ST languages it is impossible to develop that behaviour, because a PLC is just a logic controller, and their programming languages are very limited for those functions. But we should take a look beyond the IEC 61131-3 standard: some PLCs have a high level language such as Java integrated in their servers; you can program and link PLC variables directly through a Java Applet for monitoring on a web page, and this could be accessible for everyone around the globe?

Don Fitchett, President of Business Industrial Network, a St Louis-based Industrial Automation Training company says no. Quite apart from speed, randomness is not desirable in machine control systems which have physical repercussions, even though it can be powerful in PC software or social networking.

Jim May, a Process Automation Specialist: Creating a soft-logic fuzzy feeling environment would add so much cost and development to a project, let alone how do you confirm to your regulators that it was not your new process that changed the outcome - it is not a position that any management team or board would want to be in.

August Tassin, Regional Control Systems Leader at Castrol: Programmers have been using Control Networks for PLC to PLC status communication for many years. Line synchronization, OEE, batch controls, master slave all can be status messages over a network. Calling this "social" is a bit of a leap but I get the idea. However, PLCs or PACs are not going to generate new responses due to new social stimuli. Nor would you want them to.

Tom Keeley, President of Compsim: Most "suppliers" are risk intolerant, so only make incremental changes to their systems (smaller, cheaper, faster) where the risk is minimal. Changing the behaviour of a machine probably scares most of them. And adding "social behaviour" may scare them the most.

Brian Chapman, HMI Software Engineer at It's a Secret: What the article really seems to be talking about is something like a merger between PLC and SCADA. This kind of technology is at the "toy" level today. It's a neat idea. But the reality check is that no one wants to put this stuff on their PLC. Most electrical engineers don't like people messing around with the PLCs they program.

Bill Evans, Business Development Manager at Festo in Brighton, UK:  In 2008 Festo created the Aquajelly. Each 'fish' in a swarm is autonomous but communicates with the other fish. They negotiate with each other regarding position in the tank, amount of charge etc. to maintain the health of the swarm. The motive was to look at how robots of the future might negotiate on a production line based on availability of components, resources available etc. This would appear to be programming of 'social behaviour' albeit at a very simple level.

Gallardo Arenas: I understand that Festo invest a lot of money and time developing new products that are really amazing, Schneider invest almost 5% of all revenues for R&D - that's the idea! Create better products for best results, but the first step is imagine it and leave behind the old stereotypes and prejudices.