athena put in perspective rainer ruggaber, sap arne berre, sintef

1© ATHENA Consortium 2007

ATHENA Put in PerspectiveRainer Ruggaber, SAP

Arne Berre, SINTEF

ATHENA M36 Final Review27.-29. March 2007Madeira, Portugal

2

ATHENA M36 Final Review, March 2007, Madeira

© ATHENA Consortium 2007

By 2010, enterprises will be able to seamlessly interoperate with others

no interoperability

Seamlessinteroperability

2010past

Main Objective:Contribution to enabling enterprises to seamlessly interoperate with others

ATHENA

3



Interoperability Definition

● Interoperability (Def): “the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged” (IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary)

• Seamless (Def): • “perfectly consistent and coherent” (WordNet)• “not having or joined by a seam or seams” (WordNet)

4



Outline

● From IDEAS to ATHENA● Motivation – Interoperability ● ATHENA Set-up● ATHENA Organizational Approach● ATHENA Technical Approach● ATHENA Results● ATHENA Evaluation


From IDEAS to ATHENA


6



Timeline of Enterprise Interoperability Activities

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

IDEAS

ATHENA IP

2007 …

ATHENAPrep

other research activities

INTEROP NoE

EIC

INTEROP VlabINTEROP

Prep

Enterprise Interoperability Clusterand Enterprise Interoperability Roadmap

7



Framework1st

Level

Framework2nd

Level

ONTOLOGY

QUALITY ATTRIBUTES

Semantics

Security

Scalability

Evolution

E

N

TER

PR.

M

O

D

EL

Business

DecisionalModel

BusinessModel

BusinessProcesses

Knowledge

OrganisationRoles

SkillsCompetencies

QUALITY ATTRIBUTES

KnowledgeAssets

Performance

Availability

Portability

A

R

CH

ITECT

Application

SolutionManagement

WorkplaceInteraction

ApplicationLogic

ProcessLogic

Data ProductData

ProcessData

KnowledgeData

CommerceData

Communication

IDEASInteroperabilityframework

EnterpriseModel

Architecture

Semantics

8



Building on IDEAS foundations

● IDEAS Interoperability Framework● IDEAS Roadmap as base for identification of Research

Challenges

Business

Knowledge

ICT Systems

Sem

antic

s

Simplified IDEAS InteroperabilityFramework used in ATHENA

● Business layer: business environment and business processes

● Knowledge layer: organisational roles, skills and competencies of employees and knowledge assets

● ICT Systems layer: applications, data and communication components

● Semantics: create mutual understanding on all layers


Motivation - Interoperability


10



Situation description – Interoperability ● Interoperability is strategically important

● Over 90% of CIOs consider Collaboration a “Strategic Necessity” or “Very Important” (AMR Research 2005)

● Interoperability is expensive● 30-40% of companies’ IT budget is spent on integration (Gartner and AMR) ● $29 billion by 2006 for application integration by IT professional services

(Gartner Group, 2003)● Interoperability is time-critical

● Integration of single Interface takes 2PM on average● In CPG the #2 to market sells 25% less than #1

● Interoperability is complex● Proliferation of B2B standards – with frequent changes ● Fragmented solutions - Islands of interoperability providing Industry or application specific

solutions● Wide variety of business network types with different requirements: more stable alliances

(e.g. Supply Chains) to more transitory alliances (e.g. virtual organizations)● Interoperability is not a product, it is a characteristic of a system

11



Challenges in Enterprise System Interoperability

Today‘s situation in integration projects

Therefore, there is a need to take a fresh look at interoperability and propose an integrated, holistic approach to address this problem.

ATHENA is addressing this topic.

Proprietary data formats without semantics, many incompatible standards; hard coded transformationsInformation

Processes embedded in application logic; modeling tools mainly for drawing; disjoint B2B process modeling; programmatic integrationProcesses

Capturing Enterprise Knowledge is too time consuming and expensive; no exchange of models; models and reality often not synchronized

EnterpriseModelling

Consensus efforts do not tap their full potential in industry usageCommunity

Static definition & usage; current WS standards landscape not interoperableServices

Incomplete models for value assessment of interoperability projectsBusiness

12



tech

nic

al s

tan

dar

dis

atio

ncontent standardisation

taken from Shai Agassi, SAP FKOM 05

Focus on optimizing operation of interoperability

Focus on using interoperability for differentiation

13



Towards a Process of Interoperability

• Starting point is the desire of two enterprises to work together. • Before they are able to work together they have to go through a

process to achieve interoperability.

GapsIdentified

Collaboration Context

Decision to evaluate collaboration

Decision to realize collaboration

InteroperableSolution

Implementation Analysis Definition Operation

Identify Interoperability Situation

Resolve Interoperability Mismatches

Implement Interoperability Solution

Maintain Interoperability

Decision to go operational

Decision to create solution

Set-Up

… …

14



Approaches for the “Definition” StepE

nter

pris

e A

Bottom up:

Top down:

Collaboration space:

Standards, best practices

Ent

erpr

ise

A

Ent

erpr

ise

A

Enterprise B

Enterprise B

Enterprise B


ATHENA Set-up


16



Decomposition of ATHENA Objectives

Overall Objective

Business Objectives

Strategic ObjectiveS&T Objectives

AL A Projects AL B Activities

cont

ribut

ion

achi

eve

Technicalresults

Business results

Strategic results

Means/Actions

17



Business Objectives*

● to realise more economic businesses through improvements in efficiency, productivity and cost effectiveness;

● to realise more flexible, fluid and nimble businesses which are able to move into new markets and product areas rapidly;

● to realise more knowledge-intensive businesses which are based on the wide diffusion and re-use of knowledge assets;

● to realise more robust businesses through stable and dependable solutions which are scalable and recoverable;

● to realise more valuable businesses from a long term and more general perspective

* objectives have been set for the 5 year programme

18



Scientific and technology objectives*

● to define a technologically neutral reference model that provides a stable, generic foundation for specific technical innovations;

● to define interoperability requirements for applications, data and communications and provide solutions that meet these requirements;

● to provide methods which enterprises can use to manage organisational roles, skills, competencies, and knowledge assets for its own operation and for collaboration with other enterprises;

● to provide semantic mediation solutions which enable and support the above;

● to provide components of interoperability infrastructures


19



Strategic Objective*


● to establish, become and be recognised in research and industry as a permanent world-class European Hub acting as a reference point in interoperability.

20



Identification of research challengesB

usin

ess

Kno

wle

dge

Sys

tem

s

year 1 year 2 year 3 year 4 year 5

persistent services

business process ontology

process model interoperability

modeling cross-organizational business

processes

Unified Paradigm Interoperability Infrastructure

Federated Paradigm Interoperability Infrastructure

Flexible Enterprise & Process Customisation

Support

networked EM

language\

Enterprise Visual Scenes/Holistic Enterprise Design and Operation

roles and policies

enterprise model interoperability

(distributed) model generated solutions and work

places

servicedescription

Service discovery

service negotiation

Cross-organizational Business Process Execution

Semantic Mapping & Mediation

Autonomous Architectures

Model Driven SoA

ActiveModels

FederatedArchitectures

Non-functional

Interoperability

semantic annotation

ontology authoring and management

Networked Enterprise Operation

Support

serviceorchestration

service brokering

& mediation

Integrated Paradigm Interoperability Infrastructure

21



Defined Projects and ActivitiesAction Line A: Research

A1 Enterprise Modelling in the Context of Collaborative Enterprises

A2 Cross-Organisational Business Processes

A3 Knowledge Support and Semantic Mediation Solutions

A4 Interoperability Framework and Services for Networked Enterprises

A5 Planned and Customisable Service-Oriented Architectures

A6 Model-driven and Adaptive Interoperability Architectures

A7 Business Documents and Protocols

A8 SME Interoperability in Practice

Action Line B: Community Building

B1 Community Creation and EIC Establishment

B2 Knowledge Sharing

B3 Business Interoperability Research

B4 Dynamic Requirement Definition

B5 Piloting including Technology Testing Coordination and Pilot Infrastructure

B6 Training

Action Line C: Management

C1 Programme Administration

C2 Scientific Coordination

C3 Exploitation

C4 IT Integration

22



ATHENA - Consortium

Technology Providers

Industry Partners

Academic / Research Partners

University St. Gallen

23



Involved Research Communities

Business Process

ManagementATHENAIntegrated

Project

ATHENAIntegrated

Project

EnterpriseModeling

WebServices

Model-DrivenArchitecture

Business / Economic Research

Semantics

24



ATHENA Industry Pilots

● AIDIMA● eProcurement in the SME Furniture Industry

● CR FIAT● Strategic Sourcing in the Automotive Industry

● EADS CCR● Collaborative Product Design in the Aerospace Industry

● INTRACOM● Product Portfolio Management in the Telecommunication

Equip. Industry

● AIAG● Inventory Visibility in the Automotive Industry

● CAS● Vehicle Configuration in the Automotive Industry

25



ATHENA Programme Building Blocks

RequirementsPiloting / Testing

Community Building

B4, B3 B5

B1,B2,B3, B6,C3

Research & Technology Development

A1-A8

26



“Research Guiding and Evaluation Cycle”

RequirementsAnalysis

Research

Pilots

Validation

RefinedRequirements

Methodology, Guidelines, Reference Architectures

Scenario

27



CATS – Cross-Action Line Teams

● Created in the first year of ATHENA to improve collaboration between AL A and AL B

● Goal to support definition and set-up of the Pilots ● Originally 4 CATS have been established

● Assigned to pilot● Pilot owner is leading the CATS● AL A representatives


ATHENA Organisational Approach


29



Adapting 1: Implementation Plan Updates

● Update in M12● New Projects planned (A7, A8, A1 Extension)● Improved and adapted the number of deliverables and subproject

calls

● Update in M24● reclassification of Deliverables● minor re-allocations of resources and refocusing of projects /

activities

● Goal: Revisit the DoW, keep it “alive”

30



Adapting 2: Calls for new project partners

● B3 open call● Goal: “contributions in the space of Business Interoperability Framework

and Interoperability Impact Assessment”● INSEAD and University of St. Gallen formally joined the ATHENA

consortium in M18● B5-1, B5-2 open calls

● Goal of B5-1: Outbound Logistics ● Goal of B5-2: Inventory Visibility● Overall 15 proposals received● Review of the proposals by at least two independent reviewers● For B5-1: CAS, AVAG, SMC formally joined the ATHENA Consortium in M25● For B5-2: AIAG, FOS formally joined the ATHENA Consortium in M25

● Conclusion: worth the effort for the project

31



Project / Sub-project Schedules

A1

M1 M12 M24 M36

A2A3

A4A5A6

A7A8

B5 Sub-Proj. 1B5 Sub-Proj. 2

B3 Sub-Proj.

Updated Implementation Plan

B5 Sub Project Calls

B3 Sub Project Call

“Original” ATHENA

A1’

C4’


ATHENA Technical Approach


33



ATHENA Big Picture – Abstract View

Enterprise A Enterprise B

Business

Business Processes

Services

Information / Data

Semantics

Mismatches prohibit interoperability

Vision: Seamless Interoperability of Business Systems and Applications to enable collaboration

Approach: Interoperability must address all aspects of Enterprise collaboration

34



Organization B

ATHENA Big Picture - External Views

Organization A

Internal View Internal View

private interaction – ensures autonomy of participants

public interaction – ensures interoperability by defining a collaboration context

ExternalView

ExternalView

35



ATHENA Interoperability Reference Architecture (A4)with ATHENA technical solutions to bridge the gap

Enterprise/Business

Processes

Services

Information/Data

Cross-OrganisationalBusiness Processes

Collaborative EnterpriseModelling

Flexible Execution and Composition of Services

InformationInteroperability

Mo

del-D

rive

n In

tero

pera

bili

ty

Sem

an

tics

and

On

tolo

gie

s

Enterprise/Business

Processes

Services

Information/Data

Provided Required

A4 – Interoperability Framework A8 – SME Interoperability in Practice

A6 A3

A1

A2

A5

A7

A6

36



ATHENA Interoperability Methodology (AIM)

Definition

Phases

Analysis Negotiation Realisation Operation Termination

Def. #1 Analyis. #1 Neg. #1 Real. #1 Real. #2 Oper. #1 Term. #1

Iterations

Support disciplines

Interoperability disciplines

Project management

Business collaboration modelling

Testing

Implementation

Interoperability maturity analysis

Deployment and assessment

Analysis and requirements

Solution mapping and design

37



ATHENA Interoperability methodology (AIM)

EIMM

Interoperabilityanalysis

Requirementssolutionmapping

Test definition

Implementation

Testing

IIAM

Implicit strategicbusiness

needs Optimizedco-operation

model

Interoperabilitymaturity and

modelling approach

Requirements related to

business needs

Solution blueprint(generic solutions)

Solution instance(actual solutions)

Testprocedure

Solutionimplementation

ROI(impact)

Methodology overview(V-model view)

Formalized interoperability business needs

BIF


ATHENA Results


40



Updated ATHENA Key Results (D.C2.2 – M37)

ATHENA:Contribute to enabling enterprises to interoperate.

Technical Results6 - ATHENA Interoperability Framework and Methodology7 - Collaborative Enterprise Modelling Platform8 - Cross-Organisational Business Process Modelling and Enactment9 - Ontology-based Semantic Annotation and Reconciliation method/language/tool10 - Adaptive and Service Oriented Infrastructure11 - Model-driven and Adaptable Interoperability Framework

Strategic Results4 - Enterprise Interoperability Centre (EIC)

5 - ATHENA Outreach

Business Results1 - Business Interoperability Framework

2 - ATHENA Applications in Industry

3 - Interoperability Impact Assessment

41



ATHENA Key Results and Contribution Areas

Business Document Mgmt.

RequiredProvided


Collaborative Enterprise Modelling


Data TransformationMod

el-D

riven

Dev

elop

men

tInformation

Services

Processes

EnterpriseModelling

Ont

olog

ies

and

Sem

antic

Information

Services

Processes

EnterpriseModelling

Policy Action Recommendations

Interoperability Impact Assessment Model - IIAM

Business Interoperability Framework - BIF

ATHENA Applications in Industry

Enterprise Interoperability Center - EIC

ATHENA Conference – i-ESA

Business Results

Strategic Results

“Community Building”

Technical Results

Business Interoperability

Industry

Policy

Community

Technology

43



ATHENA Results (D.C2.2 – M37) – Part 1Key Result Contributing ATHENA Result

1 - Business Interoperability Framework

- Business Interoperability Framework (page 10)

2 - ATHENA Applications in Industry

- Inventory Visibility and Interoperability Pilot in the Automotive Industry (page 12)- Vehicle Configuration Pilot in the Automotive Industry (page 14)- Collaborative Product Development Pilot in the Automotive Industry (page 16)- Networked Collaborative Product Development Pilot in the Aerospace Industry (page 17)- eProcurement Pilot in the Furniture Industry (page 19)- Product Portfolio Management Pilot in the Telecommunication Equipment Industry (page

21)- ATHENA Technical Solutions (page 22)- Provisioning Model for SME Interoperability Services (page 23)

3 - Interoperability Impact Assessment

- Interoperability Impact Assessment (page 11)

4 - Enterprise Interoperability Centre (EIC)

- Enterprise Interoperability Centre (EIC) (page 24)

5 - ATHENA Outreach

- ATHENA Conference (page 26)- Visibility and Awareness Created (page 28)- Policy Action Recommendations (page 29)- ATHENA Interoperability Training (page 30)

6 - ATHENA Interoperability Framework and Methodology

- ATHENA Interoperability Framework (AIF) (page 31)- Dynamic Requirement Definition Approach (page 32)- Testing Methodology (page 34)

44



ATHENA Results (D.C2.2 – M37) – Part 2Key Result Contributing ATHENA Result

7 - Collaborative Enterprise Modelling Platform

• POP* Language Interchange Format and Methodology (page 35)• MPCE Modelling Platform for Collaborative Enterprises (page 36)• EIMM Enterprise Interoperability Maturity Model (page 37)• Interoperability Establishing Methodology for SMEs (page 38)

8 - Cross-Organisational Business Process Modelling and Enactment

• Modelling Cross-organisational Business Processes in ARIS and MO²GO (page 39)• Cross-organisational Business Processes Modelling Tool (Maestro) (page 40)• Cross-organisational Business Process Engine (Nehemiah) (page 41)• Task Management Engine (see page 42)• ATHENA Event and Document Correlation (AEDoC) (page 43)• Service Enablement of Cross-Organisational Business Processes (Gabriel (page 44)• Business Document Modelling (page 45)• Mapping of Business Documents (page 46)• Repository for Business Documents (page 47)• Business Protocol Support (page 48)

9 - Ontology-based Semantic Annotation and Reconciliation method/language/tool

• ATHENA Ontology Management System (ATHOS & OPAL) (page 49)• ATHENA Semantic Annotation System (A*) (page 50)• ATHENA Reconciliation Rule Generator (ARGOS) (page 51)• ATHENA Reconciliation Engine (ARES) (page 53)• Management of RDF Schemas (THEMIS) (page 54)• XML-to-RDF-to-XML Transformations (X2R2X) (page 55)

10 - Adaptive and Service Oriented Infrastructure

• Perspectives in Service-Oriented Architectures and their Application in Environments that Require Solutions to be Planned and Customisable (page 56)

• Semantic support for the description and modelling of the service description framework (page 57)• Service Execution Framework (Johnson/Lyndon) (page 58)• WSDL Analyzer (page 59)• JACK Autonomous Agents Framework (page 60)• ATHENA Conformance Testing Suite (page 62)• WS-I Compliant Web Service Security (page 64)

11 - Model-driven and Adaptable Interoperability Framework

• Model-driven development (MDD) framework for Web Services (page 65)• Model-Driven and Adaptive Interoperability Runtime Tools and Services (page 66)• CIM to PIM Transformations (page 68)• UMT2OWLS Transformation (page 70)• PIM4SOA Metamodels (page 71)• PIM to PSM Transformation (page 72)• Model-Driven and Adaptive Interoperability Development Tools (page 73)• ATHENA Autonomous Computing Framework (page 74)• Model-Driven and Adaptive Interoperability Runtime Tools and Services (page 75)• Model-Driven and Adaptive Interoperability Methodologies and Guidelines (page 77)


ATHENA Evaluation


46



Validation of ATHENA Research Results

Scenario Level● Goal: Validate that the Research Results meet the requirements of an

application in industry ● Carried out on the level of the Pilot● Documented: D.B5.4 (M36)

Technical / Research Level● Goal: Validate that the Research Results meet the requirements of the AL A

project set out in the beginning● Carried out on the level of the individual AL A project● Documented: D.A1.6.1 (M24), D.A2.5 (M24), WD.A3.2 (M36), D.A4.6

(M36), D.A5.5 (M24), WD.A6.7.1 (M24)

47



Expectations for Scenario-Level Validation

● Research● Goal: Realize a novel research concept as a prototypical implementation /

tool● Constraints: Integration with other tools, Usability

● Piloting● Goal: Realize an industry use case using multiple tools ● Constraint: Industrial users use the tools; Demo Deployment environment

● Industry Application● Goal: Realize a business application ● Constraint: industry strength and industry level infrastructure / deployment

environment

48



ATHENA Objective was …

● … contribute to enabling enterprises to seamlessly interoperate with others

or in other words …● “better interoperability”● “better” could mean cheaper, faster, economic to realize a

new process, easier, …● B3 and Pilot evaluations show

● ATHENA contributes to ● easier integration of additional business partners (e.g. CRF)● improved quality of business collaboration (e.g. AIDIMA)● lower cost of set-up of interoperability (e.g. AIAG)● faster set-up of interoperability (e.g. CRF)● realize new business opportunities (e.g. CAS)● lower cost for operation of interoperable solutions (e.g. AIDIMA)● leveraging knowledge for improved decision making (e.g. INTRACOM)

49



Approaches for the “Definition” PhaseE

nter

pris

e A

Bottom up:

Top down:

Collaboration space:

Standards, best practices

Ent

erpr

ise

A

Ent

erpr

ise

A

Enterprise B

Enterprise B

Enterprise B

INTRACOMCASCRM

AIDIMADocumentsAIAG

EADSinfrastructure

CRFDocuments

CASConfig

EADSProcess

CRFProcess

AIDIMAProcess

50



tech

nica

l sta

ndar

disa

tion

content standardisation

taken from Shai Agassi, SAP FKOM 05

AIAG CAS

AIDIMACRF

INTRACOM

EADS

51



Business Objectives* (revisited)

● to realise more economic businesses through improvements in efficiency, productivity and cost effectiveness;

● to realise more flexible, fluid and nimble businesses which are able to move into new markets and product areas rapidly;

● to realise more knowledge-intensive businesses which are based on the wide diffusion and re-use of knowledge assets;

● to realise more robust businesses through stable and dependable solutions which are scalable and recoverable;

● to realise more valuable businesses from a long term and more general perspective


● optimize operation of interoperability

● reduce time in the set-up phase

● enterprise assets are explicitly modelled for later reuse

● improvements with respect to robustness possible

● understand the business value of interoperability and have a method to improve it

52



Scientific and technology objectives* (revisited)

● to define a technologically neutral reference model that provides a stable, generic foundation for specific technical innovations;

● to define interoperability requirements for applications, data and communications and provide solutions that meet these requirements;

● to provide methods which enterprises can use to manage organisational roles, skills, competencies, and knowledge assets for its own operation and for collaboration with other enterprises;

● to provide semantic mediation solutions which enable and support the above;

● to provide components of interoperability infrastructures


● AIF, Reference Architecture and AIM defined

● Industry Scenarios and the DRDS

● Tools for modelling of enterprise assets on different abstraction level.

● ATHENA Semantic Tool Suite

● Full Set of Tool chains addressing different aspects of interoperability

53



Strategic Objective* (revisited)


● to establish, become and be recognised in research and industry as a permanent world-class European Hub acting as a reference point in interoperability.

● EIC was founded and had its launch event (27. April 2007, Brussels)

● Additional EIC Forums providing value to members to be set-up

● ATHENA Outreach (Dissemination, Training, …)

54



By 2010, enterprises will be able to seamlessly interoperate with others

no interoperability

Seamlessinteroperability

2010past

ATHENA has achieved its objective by enabling enterprises to connect and link up their systems….Still, new research questions remain:

ATHENA

• Dynamic, automatic Interoperability

• Interoperability in enterprise networks with new, changing, and previously unknown partners

• Retain Interoperability in times of change


Thank You


56



Dimension 2: Conceptual levels● Multiple stakeholders are involved in collaborations:

● Business Expert● IT Architect● Administrator

● Support stakeholders by appropriate views of the collaboration:● Business Expert - Business View ● IT Architect - Technical View● Administrator - Execution View

● Views are realized through abstraction levels● Business View - Business level (~ CIM / EM)● Technical View - Technical level (~ PIM)● Execution View - Execution level (~ PSM)

57



AIF Technical architecture

58



AIF Technical architecture – Services

Enterprise/Business

Processes

Services

Information/Data


Collaborative EnterpriseModelling


InformationInteroperability

Mo

del-D

rive

n In

tero

pera

bili

ty

Sem

an

tics

an

d O

nto

log

ies

Enterprise/Business

Processes

Services

Information/Data

Provided Required

59



AIF - Example configuration and implementation

MPCE

ServiceCompositionand Execution

Data Access andTransformation

Collaborative Product Design and Development

Enterprise/Business

Processes

Services

Information/Data

Knowledge ModelRepository

Enterprise/Business

Processes

Services

Information/DataXML Messages

Business ProcessModels

WSDL

BPEL

POP*

ConceptualView

“Requirements”

ConceptualView

“Requirements”

Model-GeneratedWorkplace

Model-GeneratedWorkplace

FunctionalView

“BoM”

FunctionalView

“BoM”

Context View“Ramp Up”

Context View“Ramp Up”

Context View“Qualification”Context View“Qualification”


ATHOS

Ontology

A*

Annotations

ReconciliationRules

THEMIS

ARGOS

ARES

Messages/Services

(Johnson)

SOA Modelling andTransformations

BPELExecution

Engine

PIM4SOA

ServiceConfiguration

(Johnson)

XML Schemas

AgentExecution

Framework

CBP Execution(Nehemiah)

Service Access(Gabriel)

CBP Definitions(Maestro

Service Enabling(Gabriel)

60



ATHENA Interoperability Methodology (AIM)Definition

Phases

Analysis Negotiation Realisation Operation Termination

Def. #1 Analyis. #1 Neg. #1 Real. #1 Real. #2 Oper. #1 Term. #1

Iterations

Support disciplines

Interoperability disciplines

Project management

Business collaboration modelling

Testing

Implementation

Interoperability maturity analysis

Deployment and assessment

Analysis and requirements

Solution mapping and design

61



AIM Baseline methodology

EIMM

Interoperabilityanalysis

Requirementssolutionmapping

Test definition

Implementation

Testing

IIAM

Implicit strategicbusiness

needs Optimizedco-operation

model

Interoperabilitymaturity and

modelling approach

Requirements related to

business needs

Solution blueprint(generic solutions)

Solution instance(actual solutions)

Testprocedure

Solutionimplementation

ROI(impact)

Methodology overview(V-model view)

Formalized interoperability business needs

BIF

62



other targets (e.g. agents, P2P)

BPELNehemiah MM

WSDL XSD

ATHENA Integrating Dimensions

POP*

SOA Meta Model

BusinessLevel

(~EM/CIM)

TechnicalLevel(~PIM)

ExecutionLevel

(~PSM)

Business Process

ServicesInformation

/ Data

Transformation

Transformation

otherAspects

Nehemiah Johnson Johnson

Maestro LyndonGabriel

Gabriel

MPCE

UML Profile

UML Profile

ATHOS

A*

ARGOS

ARES

Semaphore

ARIS- SOA MMMO²GO – SOA MMPOP* – SOA MM

Testing

METIS MO²GO ARISGRAI

MGWP

BDI Agents BRMF

SOA MM - WSDL

AKM Exec

UML Profile

WSDL Analyser

POP*

PIM4SOA

SOA MM - BDISOA MM - BPEL

STEP - SOA MM

BPEL Eng

63




BPELNehemiah MM

WSDL XSD

Demonstration 1:Definition and management of the Collaboration Space

POP*

SOA Meta Model

BusinessLevel

(~EM/CIM)


ExecutionLevel

(~PSM)

Business Process

ServicesInformation

/ Data

Transformation

Transformation

otherAspects

Nehmiah Johnson Johnson


Gabriel

MPCE

UML Profile

UML Profile

ATHOS

A*

ARGOS

ARES

Semaphore

ARIS- SOA MMMO²GO – SOA MMPOP* – SOA MM

Testing

MO²GO ARISGRAI

BDI Agents BRMF

SOA MM - WSDL

UML Profile

WSDL Analyser

PIM4SOA


BPEL Eng

STEP - SOA MM

METIS

AKM Exec

POP* MGWP

AKM Execution platform as the access point for the networked organizationProjects: A1, A6, A4 with links to all AL A projects

64




BPELNehemiah MM

WSDL XSD

Demonstration 2: Support collaboration of actors (business partners, IT department, external consultants)

POP*

SOA Meta Model

BusinessLevel

(~EM/CIM)


ExecutionLevel

(~PSM)

Business Process

ServicesInformation

/ Data

Transformation

Transformation

otherAspects

Nehmiah Johnson Johnson


Gabriel

UML Profile

UML Profile

ATHOS

A*

ARGOS

ARES

Semaphore

ARIS- SOA MMMogoo – SOA MMPOP* – SOA MM

Testing

MGWP

BDI Agents BRMF

SOA MM - WSDL

WSDL Analyser

PIM4SOA


AKM Exec

BPEL Eng

STEP - SOA MM

POP*MPCE

MO2GO ARISGRAI UML Profile

METIS

POP* and MPCE for horizontal and vertical exchange of Enterprise ModelsProject: A1

65




BPELNehemiah MM

WSDL XSD

Demonstration 3: Definition and automation of Change Management Process

POP*

SOA Meta Model

BusinessLevel

(~EM/CIM)


ExecutionLevel

(~PSM)

Business Process

ServicesInformation

/ Data

Transformation

Transformation

otherAspects

Johnson

UML Profile

UML Profile

ATHOS

A*

ARGOS

ARES

Semaphore

ARIS- SOA MMPOP* – SOA MM

Testing

MGWP

BDI Agents

SOA MM - WSDL

WSDL Analyser

PIM4SOA


AKM Exec

STEP - SOA MM

POP*MPCE

ARISGRAI UML Profile

BPEL Eng

METIS

Nehemiah Johnson


Gabriel

MO²GO – SOA MM

BRMF

Mo2go

Cross-organisational Business Processes and their Service Enactment including robust execution. Projects: A2, A5, A1, A6

66




BPELNehemiah MM

WSDL XSD

Demonstration 4: Meta-Models and Model Transformation to support multiple implementation targets

POP*

SOA Meta Model

BusinessLevel

(~EM/CIM)


ExecutionLevel

(~PSM)

Business Process

ServicesInformation

/ Data

Transformation

Transformation

otherAspects

Johnson

ATHOS

A*

ARGOS

ARES

Semaphore

POP* – SOA MM

Testing

MGWP

WSDL Analyser

AKM Exec

STEP - SOA MM

POP*MPCE

GRAI UML ProfileMETIS

Nehmiah Johnson


Gabriel

Mogoo – SOA MM

Mogoo

UML Profile

UML Profile

ARIS- SOA MM

BDI Agents

SOA MM - WSDL

PIM4SOA


ARIS

BRMF

BPEL Eng

Business level models -> PIM-for-SOA -> PSM models and Flexible enactment using BDI agents. Projects: A6, A1, A5

67




BPELNehemiah MM

WSDL XSD

Demonstration 5: Management of Service-Oriented Architectures

POP*

SOA Meta Model

BusinessLevel

(~EM/CIM)


ExecutionLevel

(~PSM)

Business Process

ServicesInformation

/ Data

Transformation

Transformation

otherAspects

ATHOS

A*

ARGOS

ARES

Semaphore

POP* – SOA MM

MGWPAKM Exec

STEP - SOA MM

POP*MPCE


Nehmiah

Maestro Gabriel

Mogoo – SOA MM

Mogoo

UML Profile

UML Profile

ARIS- SOA MM

BDI Agents

SOA MM - WSDL

PIM4SOA


ARIS

BRMF

BPEL EngJohnson

Testing

WSDL Analyser

Johnson

Lyndon

Gabriel

Flexible service infrastructure providing built-in services and Reconciliation of Service Definition mismatches. Projects: A5

68




BPELNehemiah MM

WSDL XSD

Demonstration 6: Identifying and resolving mismatches in product data exchange

POP*

SOA Meta Model

BusinessLevel

(~EM/CIM)


ExecutionLevel

(~PSM)

Business Process

ServicesInformation

/ Data

Transformation

Transformation

otherAspects

Semaphore

POP* – SOA MM

MGWPAKM Exec

STEP - SOA MM

POP*MPCE


Nehmiah

Maestro Gabriel

Mogoo – SOA MM

Mogoo

UML Profile

UML Profile

ARIS- SOA MM

BDI Agents

SOA MM - WSDL

PIM4SOA


ARIS

BRMF

BPEL Eng Testing

WSDL Analyser

Johnson

Lyndon

Gabriel

ATHOS

A*

ARGOS

ARES

Johnson

Using Semantic annotation and reconciliation to resolve mismatchesProjects: A3, A5

69



Three main areas of action (Impl Plan Update M12)

● Implement DoW Changes for ● Content / Resources● Unlock “frozen” resources (A2/A4) – B4

● Improve / Adapt /revise● Scrutinise number and structure of deliverables● Numbers of Sub-project calls

● Define new projects● Extension of A1● Two project areas planed / resources available (A7, A8)

70



Implementation Plan Up Date (M24)

● Implementation Plan Up Date after 1. Reporting Period was spanning year 2 and 3

● Year 2 binding, year 3 to be updated● Only minor amendments were needed for this Implementation

Plan Up Date after 2. Reporting Period● 23 deliverables were re-classified to be able to provide them to

specified recipients after PCC decision● Several minor resource re-allocation within WP’s or projects or

between partners● New Work Package B5.11 to test the applicability of ATHENA tools in

a consensus building process in an EIC Forum● PGM appreciates clarification for timing of “Due-date /

Submission” for deliverables for finalisation of up date

71



B5 Sub-Project Calls - I

● Two Calls: ● B5-1 Outbound Logistics ● B5-2 Inventory Visibility

● Call open from 10 October to 17 November 2005● Publication via the press, email, web● Call document downloads: 1.851● Expressions of Interest received: ~ 60● Proposals received via EPSS: 15● Involving 34 organisations with grants requested ranging from 125

T€ to 320 T€.● Coordinators: 9 OMS, 2 NMS, 2 Ass. C. , 1 USA

72



B5 Sub-Project Call - II

● Evaluation completed on: 30 November 2005● 4 Evaluators in total / 2 per Call● Retained proposals:

● B 5-1: 37990 CAS, total cost: 648 T€, grant: 313 T€ ● CAS Software AG (Coordinator)● SMC InformationsTechnologien AG● AVAG Holding AG

● B 5-2: 37975 AIAG, total cost: 1.100 T€, :grant 320 T€● AIAG (Coordinator)● NIST● KorBIT● University of Belgrade

73



Yearly update of the implementation plan (M12)

74



Tools to be used during different phases (early draft)

Analysis Negotiation Realization

Document Compare

Capability Tables

Gap table Collaboration Context

CBP Modelling

Enterprise & Business Modelling

tools

EM/CIM--> PIM mapping

OntologyBuilder

Model Transformation

Process View / Private Process

Modelling

Enterprise & Business

Modelling tools

Task/Activity Modelling

EM/CIM--> PIM mapping

MPCE with POP* files

Semantic Annotator

Semantic Reconciliator

Runtime Reconciliator

Service Enactment

Agent Modelling and

Execution

Business Process

Enactment

BPEL Engine

Task/ActivityEnact

ment

Service Modelling

MGWP

Enterprise & Business Modelling

tools

Data Mapping

CBP simulation

Model Transformation

Data Instance Mapping

Data Mapping