interop project

26
INTEROP INTEROP Kick Of Meeting Kick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 1 Common Enterprise Modelling Framework (CEMF) (JR1, WP5) INTEROP Kick Of Meeting Bordeaux, Jannuary 11 th to 14 th 2004 Dr. Giuseppe Berio, UNIVERSITA DI TORINO, [email protected] Frank-Walter Jaekel, FRAUNHOFER IPK, frank- [email protected] INTEROP Project

Upload: gur

Post on 05-Jan-2016

87 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

INTEROP Project. Common Enterprise Modelling Framework (CEMF) (JR1, WP5). INTEROP Kick Of Meeting Bordeaux, Jannuary 11 th to 14 th 2004 Dr. Giuseppe Berio, UNIVERSITA DI TORINO, [email protected] Frank-Walter Jaekel, FRAUNHOFER IPK, [email protected]. Agenda. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 11

Common Enterprise Modelling Framework (CEMF)

(JR1, WP5)

INTEROP Kick Of Meeting Bordeaux, Jannuary 11th to 14th 2004

Dr. Giuseppe Berio, UNIVERSITA DI TORINO, [email protected] Jaekel, FRAUNHOFER IPK, [email protected]

INTEROP Project

Page 2: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 22

Agenda

History and WP5 Content DescriptionPresentation of Each Partner Organisation (Objectives and Background)General Work PlanDetailed Descriptions of TasksOrganisation and Contribution of Partners (Review of Efforts from Partners Assigned to the Tasks)Milestones, DeliverablesFurther Actions, Schedule of MeetingsReview WP5 Action List and Assignment of Responsibilities

Page 3: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 33

History of WP5

As you probably have understood the new WP5 is the result of the joint work between the University of Torino and the IPK, Berlin. The former WP5 and WP6 were merged together in a unique WP5 mainly because of grant amount (no technical reason) finally stated during the last summer. Since then, UoT and IPK have tried to integrate the planned work for common objectives. However, even currently, there still remains a partial area of overlapping because in the previous descriptions one WP was really oriented towards modelling languages in a broad and wide sense, while the other WP was strongly focused on distributed simulation and means for achieving and maintaining coherence among multiple, independent, distribute enterprise models. As a consequence, to maintain as much as possible joint objectives:- Modelling aspects should take into account distribution, independency, and simulation requirements, concerning enterprise models (without may be having a common shared and unified model);- Needs related to simulation and consistency problems have to be supplied (as user-oriented requirements).The notes we are providing with this document are the most important concerning our joint work in WP5, discussed during the last Governing Committee on 6th November 2003, and under final approval. .......

Page 4: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 44

To integrate Partner’s research

To carefully show the benefits for achieving better INTEROPERABILITY

To continue the development of UEML in term of distributed enterprises

Goals

Page 5: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 55

1. to provide the UEML 2.0 based on

(i) a requirement analysis (requirements issued from the UEML Project) following

a refined requirement analysis method (first version issued from the UEML

Project), and

(ii) a selection of languages for enterprise modelling;

2. to report the state of the art in languages for representing (semantic) mappings

between models;

3. to propose a first positioning report for integrating the UEML 2.0 with

Architectural and Ontological approaches and solutions;

4. to analyse and to define objectives and requirements for synchronisation and

interoperability of different distributed enterprise models.

Objectives

Page 6: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 66

UEML development (Tasks 5.1 and 5.2)

1) Requirements of UEML (user-oriented and language-oriented)

2) Languages (abstract syntax, semantics, enterprise modelling languages)

3) Approaches to UEML (formerly the Strategy for UEML and its extensions)

State of the art about languages for representing mappings between languages (Task 5.3)

Position of UEML in the context of Ontology and Architecture (Task 5.4)

Synchronisation of enterprise models (Analysis and Structuring) (Task 5.5)

1) Meta Framework (classification structure) of approaches around Enterprise Model Synchronisation

2) Interview Guide for Collecting Case Studies

3) Collecting Different Approaches

Analysis of Use Cases in Synchronisation of enterprise models (Task 5.5)

1) Collecting of Case Studies and Use Cases

2) Definition of an Evaluation Metric

3) Identification of Benefits and Gaps

4) Set-up or selection of a first Show Case

Tasks

Page 7: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 77

Method of Work Initiate and manage dissemination of INTEROP knowledge to the industrial

and education community via Workshops, conferences, events, Publications Project web site and web portal (if available)

Activate communication with Industry, interested work groups, universities… Complementary FP6 Projects (ATHENA, ….) Interview Guide (within a web portal?)

Role of the partners (WP5 and INTEROP) Contribute to the identified tasks and take the responsibility for subtasks Explore new channels and support collaboration Discussion and Evaluation of the results and of contributions

Internal communication and synchronisation Discussion via e-mail of contributions and documents Discussion and a forum for collaborative work within a web portal (if available) Coordination meetings via phone and internet Work and milestone meetings

Page 8: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 88

Presentation of Involved Partners

Objectives

and

Background

Presentation by one Person per Organisation

max. 30-120 sec.

Page 9: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 99

General Plan I

M1

M1

UEML ProjectResults

Different Kinds of Enterprise

Models

Meta Framework ofapproaches aroundEnterprise Model Synchronisation

M6

Interview Guide for Collecting

Case Studies

Workshop: Collecting Different Approaches

and FinalReview of Framework,Interview Guide andUEML approaches

M8

M6

Portal/Platformfor Collaboration

(WP2)

M4

Meeting on first Results(Review and

Structure of the State Of the Art)

UEMLReport on Requirements,Languages, Approaches

INTEROP Milestone 5.1M9

Page 10: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 1010

General Plan II

M4

M7

M8

Collecting of Case Studiesand Use Cases

M10

Metrics, Benefitsand Gaps

M10

M16

EvaluationMeeting

Preparation

Interviews

Setup of a firstShow Case

(May a Selection of Existing One)

M10

M18

Workshop

D5.2

Infrastructure(WP1/WP2)

Portal/Platformfor Collaboration

(WP2)

UEML2.0Strategies and Concepts

Report on Extending the UEML Definition

andFirst Position Report M18

D5.1

Page 11: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 1111

UEML 1.0 Development

In the previous UEML project (www.ueml.org), it has been developed: A meta-model in UML (only class-diagram), i.e. a way for describing an abstract

syntax of a language, with mappings with the original languages A Set of Requirements coming from experts in enterprise modelling A Strategy for building integrated meta-model from meta-models of existing

enterprise modelling languages A complete Methodology for integrating the Requirements into the meta-model Problems:

• A UEML mission statement is almost challenging

• The mappings are a critical area of interest

• Overlapping between the Strategy with, we can say, some Ontology integration, database and data integration approaches

• Requirements are critical and experts define them in a very high level: more analysis is required

• How to chose languages to be integrated

• Mappings between integrated languages and UEML are really general (pragmatics could be a problem)

• No mathematical semantics (does any mathematical semantics for a UEML exist?)

Suggestions:• If possible, standardise mappings

• Ensure traceability from requirements

Page 12: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 1212

UEML 2.0 Development

UEML requirements concerns The elicitation (with specific interest in requirements concerning distributed

modelling, distributed enterprises, distributed simulation and so on) The harmonisation The classification The synthesis of a mission statement …

UEML languages concerns Knowledge about existing EM languages Frameworks for modelling languages (syntax, abstract syntax, semantics) Framework for classifying existing EM languages according to their strenghts

and weaknesses Modelling existing EM languages …

UEML approaches concerns Any way to define how to define a UEML taking into account existing languages,

ways of working and requirements Perform the approaches to define a UEML …

Start: M1 - End: M18

Page 13: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 1313

State of the Art about Mappings

Collecting languages able to define mappings between languages (or between structures)

Definining a framework for classifying mapping languages with strenghts and benefits

Performing the classification according to this framework

Start: M1 - End: M18

Page 14: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 1414

Position of UEML

Because of many overlappings, any “Position of UEML” has to be clarified according to what is being under development in other research work-packages, especially by clarifying how the UEML can be used in the context of Ontologies and Architectures for realising interoperability: WP6 (Design for interoperability) WP7 (Customised Enterprise Software) WP8 (Ontologies) WP9 (Architectures)

Start: M8 - End: M18

Page 15: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 1515

Synchronisation of enterprise models

Analysis and Structuring

Meta Framework of approaches around Enterprise Model Synchronisation

Structuring of approaches related to Enterprise Model Synchronisation

- Application Domains (Simulation (MISSION), Enterprise Modelling (UEML), …)

- Basic Concepts (UML Profiles, …)

- Basic Technical Concepts (HLA, CORBA, …)

Start: M1 - End: M6

Interview Guide for Collecting Case Studies

- Design of an Interview Guide to retrieve information from industry (Web based within a INTEROP portal, direct interviews, …

- the Guide may in the national language (France, Italian, Norway, German, …)

Start: M1 - End: M6

Collecting Different Approaches

- Collecting different approaches from partners and external parties (e.g. HLA-CSPIF, XMSF, …) and integrate into the framework.

Start: M4 - End: M8

Page 16: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 1616

Synchronisation of enterprise models

Analysis of Use Cases

Collecting of (existing) case studies and use cases

- Interviews (Industrial Oriented Partners)

- National Selection of Partners (France, Italy, Germany, ….)

- Interviews within Industry

Identification partners and interviewers will be done during the meeting M4

Start: M4 - End: M10

Definition of an Evaluation Metric and Identification of Benefits and Gaps

- Definition of an Evaluation Metric to classify the use cases.

- Analysis and evaluation of the identified approaches and use cases according the metric.

Start: M8 - End: M16

Set-up or selection of a first Show Case

The show case could be a selection or a merge of existing approaches. The objective is a illustration of benefits and gaps identified within the project.

Start: M10 - End: M18

Page 17: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 1717

Contribution of Partners

2 U

B1

(LA

P/G

RA

I)

4 U

HP

(C

RA

N/L

OR

IA)

5 U

oN

6 IP

K

9 U

oT

14 T

U/e

16 S

INT

EF

17 C

OM

PU

TA

S

19 U

PV

23 E

CN

-IR

CC

yN

26 U

nte

s (I

RIN

)

29 U

oO

38 P

OL

IBA

43 T

elem

atic

a

44 U

NIT

ILB

45 N

TN

U

46 U

iB

47 K

HT

50 U

JI

53 U

NIL

8 D

FK

I T

OT

AL

UEML 2.0 development Requirements Languages Approaches

State of the art in mapping languages

Position of UEML Synchronisation of enterprise models (Analysis and Structuring)

Meta Framework of approaches around Enterprise Model Synchronisation

Interview Guide for Collecting Case Studies

Collecting Different Approaches

Analysis of Use Cases in Synchronisation of enterprise models

Collecting of Case Studies and Use Cases

Definition of an Evaluation Metric

Identification of Benefits and Gaps

Set-up or selection of a first Show Case

Total effort M1-18 2 3 5 2.91 5 1.5 2 6 3.6 3 6 6 12.4 12 2.5 6 2.25 8 7 1 0.24

97.4

Page 18: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 1818

Contribution of Partners

The efforts should be comparable to what has been declared in the Annex 1

If this does not happen, we need to report the problem to the governing committee which makes a decision

Page 19: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 1919

Reporting to the WP leader(s)

Each involved Partner will be invited to submit a report of activity each three months (during the last Governing Committee at the end of the Kick-Off Meeting, it has been decided to evaluate a common reporting period for all work-packages) containing:

Hours spent (by whom)

Results achieved (papers, reports, etc.)

Topics approached

Meetings attended (by whom)

Proposed to the Governing Commitee

Page 20: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 2020

How to evaluatepartners contributions ?

Number of publications within the WP5 domain ?Author, Title, Abstract and Journal, Book or Conference

Responsibilities in Tasks, sub-tasks ?

Support in the organisation of workshops, conferences ?

Number of contributions in the portal?

Contributions of Use Cases and Approaches?

Responsibility of sub milestone results?

Page 21: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 2121

Sub Milestones to M5.1

M4 MS1: Structure for the State Of the Art First framework (Classification Template) proposal of approaches around Enterprise Model Synchronisation available. Proposal of a first interview guide available. Identification of partners and interviewers for collecting of existing case studies and use cases (national selection: French, Italy, German, Norway, ....).

M6 MS2: Framework and State of the Art

The framework of approaches around Enterprise Model Synchronisation and of the Interview Guide is available. UEML Report on Requirements, Languages, Approaches

M8 MS3 Open Workshop on a Common Enterprise Modelling Framework

Final Review of the framework of approaches around Enterprise Model Synchronisation and of the Interview Guide, collecting of different approaches according to framework and interview guide. Collection of UEML Approaches

Page 22: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 2222

Milestones M5.1

M9 M5.1 INTEROP Milestone First versions of requirement analysis report, positioning report, state of the art in mappings and a first structure of the different approaches related to synchronisation are available

Page 23: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 2323

M10 MS4 Evaluation of Use Cases and Approaches Collecting of case studies and use cases available, Interview results available, first concept for the description of benefits and gaps according the framework. Report on Extending the UEML Definition and First Position Report

M16 MS5 Description of Metrics, Benefits and Gaps available

Definition of an evaluation metrics by benefits and gaps available Framework including the identified approaches available. Description of the position of UEML

M18 MS6 UEML2.0 and Set-up of a first Synchronisation Show Case

The show case could be a selection or a merge of existing approaches draft deliverable 5.2 including the Framework, Approaches, Metrics, Benefits and Gabs and further requirements. UEML2.0, draft deliverable 5.1

Sub Milestones to M5.2

Page 24: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 2424

Milestones M5.2 and Deliverables D5.1, D5.2

M18 M5.2 INTEROP Milestone Delivering of UEML 2.0: D5.1 is available A first show case in synchronisation is available including benefits and gabs: D5.2 is available

Page 25: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 2525

Regular WP5 Meeting Proposals

M4 Work meeting (Valencia) M8 Open workshop and work meeting (Berlin) M10 Work and decision meeting (Torino)

Three Additional Meetings with Core Members

Draft

Page 26: INTEROP Project

INTEROPINTEROP Kick Of MeetingKick Of Meeting January 2004 January 2004 2626

Agenda

History and WP5 Content DescriptionPresentation of Each Partner Organisation (Objectives and Background)General Work PlanDetailed Descriptions of TasksOrganisation and Contribution of PartnersMilestones, DeliverablesReview of Efforts from Partners Assigned to the TasksFurther Actions, Schedule of MeetingsReview WP5 Action List and Assignment of Responsibilities