1 / 26

INTEROP Project

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, berio@di.unito.it Frank-Walter Jaekel, FRAUNHOFER IPK, frank-walter.jaekel@ipk.fhg.de. Agenda.

gur
Download Presentation

INTEROP Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. INTEROP Project Common Enterprise Modelling Framework (CEMF) (JR1, WP5) • INTEROP Kick Of Meeting • Bordeaux, Jannuary11th to 14th 2004 • Dr. Giuseppe Berio, UNIVERSITA DI TORINO, berio@di.unito.it • Frank-Walter Jaekel, FRAUNHOFER IPK, frank-walter.jaekel@ipk.fhg.de

  2. Agenda • History and WP5 Content Description • Presentation of Each Partner Organisation (Objectives and Background) • General Work Plan • Detailed Descriptions of Tasks • Organisation and Contribution of Partners (Review of Efforts from Partners Assigned to the Tasks) • Milestones, Deliverables • Further Actions, Schedule of Meetings • Review WP5 Action List and Assignment of Responsibilities

  3. 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. .......

  4. Goals • 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

  5. Objectives • 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; • to report the state of the art in languages for representing (semantic) mappings between models; • to propose a first positioning report for integrating the UEML 2.0 with Architectural and Ontological approaches and solutions; • to analyse and to define objectives and requirements for synchronisation and interoperability of different distributed enterprise models.

  6. Tasks ÄUEML 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) ÄState of the art about languages for representing mappings between languages (Task 5.3) ÄPosition of UEML in the context of Ontology and Architecture (Task 5.4) ÄSynchronisation 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 ÄAnalysis 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

  7. 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

  8. Presentation of Involved Partners Objectives and Background Presentation by one Person per Organisation max. 30-120 sec.

  9. General Plan I INTEROP Milestone 5.1M9 UEML Report on Requirements,Languages, Approaches M1 M6 Interview Guide for Collecting Case Studies UEML Project Results Portal/Platformfor Collaboration(WP2) M4 M8 M1 Meeting on first Results (Review and Structure of the State Of the Art) M6 Workshop: Collecting Different Approaches and Final Review of Framework, Interview Guide and UEML approaches Meta Framework of approaches around Enterprise Model Synchronisation Different Kinds of Enterprise Models

  10. General Plan II Report on Extending the UEML Definition and First Position Report UEML2.0 Strategies and Concepts M18 D5.1 M4 M8 Workshop Preparation Evaluation Meeting M7 M10 Interviews M10 M10 M16 M18 D5.2 Collecting of Case Studies and Use Cases Metrics, Benefits and Gaps Setup of a first Show Case (May a Selection of Existing One) Portal/Platformfor Collaboration(WP2) Infrastructure(WP1/WP2)

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. Contribution of Partners IRCCyN TOTAL 2 UB1 (LAP/GRAI) - (CRAN/LORIA) 17 COMPUTAS 26 Untes (IRIN) 43 Telematica 16 SINTEF 44 UNITILB 38 POLIBA 14 TU/e 23 ECN 19 UPV 4 UHP 45 NTNU 5 UoN 53 UNIL 9 UoT 6 IPK 47 KHT 29 UoO 8 DFKI 46 UiB 50 UJI UEML 2.0 development Requirements Languages Approaches State of the art in mapping languages Position of UEML Synchronisation of enterprise and models (Analysis 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 0.2 97.4 4

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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?

  21. Sub Milestones to M5.1

  22. Milestones M5.1

  23. Sub Milestones to M5.2

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

  25. Regular WP5 Meeting Proposals Draft • M4 Work meeting (Valencia) • M8 Open workshop and work meeting (Berlin) • M10 Work and decision meeting (Torino) • Three Additional Meetings with Core Members

  26. Agenda • History and WP5 Content Description • Presentation of Each Partner Organisation (Objectives and Background) • General Work Plan • Detailed Descriptions of Tasks • Organisation and Contribution of Partners • Milestones, Deliverables • Review of Efforts from Partners Assigned to the Tasks • Further Actions, Schedule of Meetings • Review WP5 Action List and Assignment of Responsibilities

More Related