ifac-ifip task forceueml group meeting objective: draft major lines of road-map for the ueml...

IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group

Meeting objective: draft major lines of road-map for the UEML Interest Group

• UEML report by F. Vernadat

• Presentation of members' views

• Discussion of plans

agreement on way to proceed

• Delineate ISO and TF responsibilities

research / standardisation

Agenda for Dec. 16th, 1999 meeting in Paris


UEML Interest Group

IFAC-IFIP Task Force

(F. Vernadat, group leader)


UEMLUnified Enterprise Modelling Language

Rationale:

Towards an Esperanto

in the area of Enterprise Modelling

and Enterprise Engineering


The facts:

- Too many EM languages

- Unstable vocabulary and modelling paradigms

- Many incompatible EM tools / weak process interoperation

- Fragmented formal foundations of EM and EE

However, all these tools "talk" about the same thing



Some well-known EM techniques

- Data Flow Diagrams: SSAD, Yourdon, De Marco, …- Entity-relationship methods: MERISE, NIAM, M*, T-SER, …- SADT- IDEF suite of methods: IDEF0, IDEF1x and IDEF3- GRAI nets- OMT and UML- CIMOSA- IEM- ARIS method- SA / RT- Harel's Statecharts- Activity-Based Costing methods


• ARIS ToolSet• FirstSTEP• KBSI suite• NCR Metis• PrimeObjects• Bonapart• CimTool• …• Worfklow systems (WorkParty, IBM FlowMark, IBM

VisualAge, Action Workflow, COSA, Ensemble, …)

Some well-known EM tools


Wide variety of available languages and technical approaches Significant semantic gap between current mod. languages Poor interoperation capability of process modelling & mgt tools Insufficient coverage of modelling views as required by

integrated systems engineering and management Ignorance by most languages of so-called "soft issues" Diversity of graphical notations (syntax) and multitude of

meanings for similar concepts (inconsistent semantics) Lack of a common standard language and exchange format

model exchange from one tool to another nearly impossiblehigh potential for knowledge capitalisation annihilated

Some well-known business users' complaints


Consequences:


Tower of Babel situation

Refrained interest from business users


Earlier initiatives:

- ICEIMT 97: identified the need for UEML and proposed

a development framework

- CEN work on ENV 12 204

- WfMC meta-model

- ODP Enterprise Viewpoint

- IEMC'99: reiterated the need for such a language

- PSL: Process Specification Language (NIST initiative for manufacturing processes)



ICEIMT proposal for UEML development


To provide a standard representation of process to allow companies to clearly and precisely document and share their manufacturing processes among different functions both within and among organisations.

PSL: a language to be used as an interlingua to exchange process information among industrial applications

PSL: Process Specification Language


• A process is one or more activities that accurs over a period of time in which objects participate.

PSL: Process Specification Language (cont'd)

PSL

Activity TimePoint Object

Inf+ Inf-


IFAC-IFIP TF UEML Group Mandate (Beijing July 99):

To define requirements and prepare the ground for a unification process that could lead to the development of a unified EM language by

1) Establishing working collaboration with all relevant groups in the area of enterprise modelling and simulation

2) Proposing a road-map that would lead to a technically feasible and politically acceptable EM solution for EE



What is UEML intended to be:

Not the ultimate EM language to replace all previous ones

But a standard meta-model (and underlying ontologies) widely accepted by business users and tool developers

Easy to learn and to use with sufficient descriptive capabilities

Consensus in the EM community ( or )



Proposed Methodology:

Year 1:

- Identify and assess current EM languages

- Identify and assess current EM tools and their constructs

Year 2:

- Develop a comparison matrix and relevant criteria

- Identify and formally define the most relevant constructs

Year 3:

- Generalise and transfer results to standardisation level



Proposed Methodology (continued):

Additional actions:

- Establish liaison with other working groups (ODP, OMG, PSL/NIST, CDIF, …)

- Involve tool developers and business users in the process



Work done so far:

- Contact experts and form interest group

- Collect information on tools (exploratory phase)

- Collect information on languages (exploratory phase)

- Establish contact with PSL (C. Schlenoff)

- Get information on ODP Enterprise Language

- Collect information on TOVE and other projects

- Establish a French interest group on EM and EE



Modelling/language approaches considered so far:- CEN ENV 12 204- CIMOSA- ODP Enterprise Language- WfMC meta-model- ARIS- IEM- IDEF suite- IDEF*- TOVE, Enterprise Ontology, I*, - PSL



UEML: Starting point for UEML-core

Event

Time

Process

Activity

Agent

Environment

I/O object

happens at raises

raisestriggersraises

made ofinvolved

in

utilises

used by

performs is executed by

Functionmade of


Contributions received so far from TF members:

- David Shorter, UK

- Michael Gruninger, CDN

- Ang Cheng Leong, SG

- Mickael Petit, B

Interest from 10 other members of the TF



- Agree on the UEML IG mandate

- Approve the road-map (to be detailed)

- Clarify PSL vs. UML vs. UEML relationships and delineate ISO and TF responsibilities

- Distribute work for next meeting (June 2000)

- Agree to use UML + axiomatic specification to define the UEML language

- Proposal to establish questionnaires- For tool vendors

- For business users

Results achieved at Dec. 16th, 1999 meeting in Paris

ifac-ifip task forceueml group meeting objective: draft major lines of road-map for the ueml...

Documents