towards integrated engineering models: clarifying the role of … · 2015-12-18 · bill beavin,...

Engineering, Operations & Technology

Copyright © 2015 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Boeing Research & Technology

Towards Integrated Engineering Models:

Clarifying the Role of OSLC

Bill Beavin, Technical Fellow

The Boeing Company OMG Technical Meeting; La Jolla, CA; 7-11 December 2015

OSLC Summit, 9 December 2015

Bill Beavin, 12/8/2015, Clarifying the Role of OSLC.ppt | 1


Boeing Research & Technology | Analytics and Simulation Technology

Biography

Bill Beavin, a Software Engineer and Boeing Technical Fellow, has supported the development and use of models and simulations to address real-world issues since 1985. Within those 30+ years he has directly supported many programs in the air, space, sea, undersea, manned, unmanned, and networked systems domains, as well as numerous live, virtual, and constructive simulation technology development efforts. As a member of the Boeing Research and Technology Analytics and Decision Support team, he is currently focused on the application of semantic related technologies towards engineering models and simulations.




Abstract

Many engineers use tools to interact with models that serve as the basis for a product. In the case of a highly complex product this pattern may be instantiated in thousands of engineers, and hundreds of tools and models, for a single product. This increasing product complexity drives the need for engineers to collaborate more effectively, tools to interoperate more seamlessly, and models to integrate intrinsically. OSLC has emerged as a promising technology to help address this need, but its role in doing so is currently unclear. This presentation will describe an attempt to clarify that role.




Approach

▪ Clarify a key problem a collaboration framework needs to solve

▪ Define some patterns the collaborative framework needs to support

▪ Identify and assess candidate collaboration framework solution approaches

▪ Make some observations




Clarify the Problem: Product Development Pattern


Engineer Tool* Model Product Uses Interacts Basis

P

E1 T1 M1 Uses Interacts Basis



Engineer Instances

Tool Instances

Model Instances

Product Instance

*Or tool suite

Co

llab

ora

tio

n “

Co

-Lab

or”

Th

read

s



Traditional Collaboration Approaches


Integrate the Models X Brittle X Recur with change X Limited Scale X Limited Scope

Integrate the Tools X Brittle X Recur with change X Limited Scale X Limited Scope

Std Processes/Train X Brittle X Recurring with change X Limited Scale X Limited Scope

Engineer Instances

Tool Instances

Model Instances

Product Instance



Desired Effect Approach: First Time Quality


T1

T2

T3

P

E1 M1 Uses Interacts Basis



Engineer Instances

Tool Instances

Model Instances

Product Instance

Product Wide Model

Consistency and Correctness

1st Time Quality Needs

MTOWM1

MTOWM2

MTOWM3

MTOWP



Desired Effect Approach: First Time Quality


T1

T2

T3

P




Engineer Instances

Tool Instances

Model Instances

Product Instance

Product Wide Model

Consistency and Correctness

1st Time Quality

Product Wide Model

Consistency with Tool Specific Correctness

Product Wide Model

Consistency with Expertise Specific

Correctness

Needs Needs Needs

MTOWM1

MTOWM2

MTOWM3

MTOWP



A Pattern for Correctness: Consistency


Model1 MTOWM1

Model2 MTOWM2

Model3

MTOWM3

Product Wide Model Consistency Goal

Model Instances

Is consistent

with

Is consistent

with

Consistency: A realization exists that is conformant to each model





Product Instance

Product

MTOWP

Model1 MTOWM1

Model2 MTOWM2

Model3

MTOWM3


Model Instances

Is consistent

with

Is consistent

with


May be a simulated product

Realization: Something planned turned into

something real





Product Instance

Product

MTOWP

Model1 MTOWM1

Model2 MTOWM2

Model3

MTOWM3


Model Instances

Is consistent

with

Is consistent

with



Realizes

Realization: Something planned turned into

something real





Product Instance

Product

MTOWP

Model1 MTOWM1

Model2 MTOWM2

Model3

MTOWM3


Model Instances

Is consistent

with

Is consistent

with

Is conformant to M2

Is conformant to M1

Is conformant to M3



Realizes



A Pattern for Correctness: Conformance


Conformance: A realization exists in a state that fulfills a required state defined in a model Model1

MTOWM1

Model2 MTOWM2

Model3

MTOWM3

Product Wide Model Conformance Goal

Product Instance

Product

MTOWP

Model Instance

May be simulated

State: The condition of something with respect to

circumstances or attributes






MTOWM1

Model2 MTOWM2

Model3

MTOWM3


Product Instance

Product

MTOWP

Model Instance

Model1 ValueM1

Model2 ValueM2

Model3

ValueM3

Model State

Product

ValueP

Product State

May be simulated






MTOWM1

Model2 MTOWM2

Model3

MTOWM3


Product Instance

Product

MTOWP

Model Instance

Fulfills Modeled State

Model1 ValueM1

Model2 ValueM2

Model3

ValueM3

Model State

Product

ValueP

Product State

May be simulated






MTOWM1

Model2 MTOWM2

Model3

MTOWM3


Product Instance

Product

MTOWP

Model Instance

Fulfills Modeled State

Model1 ValueM1

Model2 ValueM2

Model3

ValueM3

Model State

Product

ValueP

Product State

May be simulated

Reification: Making something real



Patterns for Correctness: Conformance


Product Wide Model Correctness Goal

A realization exists in a state that fulfills a required state

1) Realization is Conformant

17 Realization Conformance Pattern

StateP

ValueP

Product

MTOWP

M1

MTOWM1

StateM1

ValueM1 Fulfills

Product Instance

Model Instance

Realizes



Patterns for Correctness: Consistency



18



A realization exists that is conformant to each model

2) Models are Consistent

Model Consistency Pattern

StateP

ValueP

Product

MTOWP

M1

MTOWM1

StateM1

ValueM1

M2

MTOWM2

StateM2

ValueM2

M3

MTOWM3

StateM3

ValueM3

Fulfills

Fulfills

Fulfills

Product Instance

Model Instances

Realizes



Patterns for Correctness: Completeness



19





Model Completeness Pattern

StateP

ValueP

Product

MTOWP

M1

MTOWM1

StateM1

ValueM1

M2

MTOWM2

StateM2

ValueM2

M3

MTOWM3

StateM3

ValueM3

Realized

Realized

Realized

Product Instance

Model Instances

Realizes

All model parameters have values realizable in a product

3) Models are Complete



Patterns for Correctness: Suitability



20





Realization Suitability Pattern

StateP

ValueP

Product

MTOWP

M1

MTOWM1

StateM1

ValueM1

M2

MTOWM2

StateM2

ValueM2

M3

MTOWM3

StateM3

ValueM3

Product Instance

Model Instances

Realizes

All model parameters have values realizable in a product

3) Models are Complete

Models produce a realization that fulfills all requirements

4) Realization is Suitable

Fulfills

Fulfills

Fulfills



Can We Assess “Correctness”???


We need the collaboration framework to be able to test the knowledge embedded in the models vs. knowledge patterns



Collaboration Framework: Building Blocks


Resource States

Resource Definitions

Resource State Representations

Resource State Representation Management

Product

MTOWP

Model1

MTOWM1

StateM1

ValueM1

Model2

MTOWM2

StateM2

ValueM2

Model3

MTOWM3

StateM2

ValueM2

StateP

ValueP

Model1

RDF/OWL Model2

RDF/OWL Model3

RDF/OWL ModelP

RDF/OWL

Model1

OSLC SP Model2 OSLC SP

Model3 OSLC SP

ModelP OSLC SP

Me

ta-

Kn

ow

led

ge

Me

ta-

Kn

ow

led

ge

Me

ta-

Kn

ow

led

ge



Collaboration Framework: Conformance Analytics


Product

MTOWP

Model1

MTOWM1

StateM1

ValueM1

Model2

MTOWM2

StateM2

ValueM2

Model3

MTOWM3

StateM2

ValueM2

StateP

ValueP

Model1

RDF/OWL Model2

RDF/OWL Model3

RDF/OWL

ModelP

RDF/OWL

Model1


Model3 OSLC SP

ModelP OSLC SP

Conformance Reasoner

Realization Fulfills

“A realization exists in a state that fulfills a required state”



Collaboration Framework: Suitability Analytics


“Models produce a realization that fulfills all requirements”

Product

MTOWP

Model1

MTOWM1

StateM1

ValueM1

Model2

MTOWM2

StateM2

ValueM2

Model3

MTOWM3

StateM2

ValueM2

StateP

ValueP

Model1

RDF/OWL Model2

RDF/OWL Model3

RDF/OWL

ModelP

RDF/OWL

Model1


Model3 OSLC SP

ModelP OSLC SP

Conformance Reasoner Suitability Reasoner

Realization

Fulfills

Fulfills

Fulfills



Example


Analysis

Model3

MTOWM3

Tool3

Design

Model2

MTOWM2

Tool2

Requirements

Model1

MTOWM1

Tool1

Tool1 is used to define a required value for MTOW and stores the value in Model1

Tool2 serves as the central design manager and “Single Source of Truth” (SSOT), accessing the required MTOW value from Model1 and presenting it as part of the SSOT in Model2

Tool3 needs to reference the required MTOW value from Model2 in the SSOT for use in Tool3 via Model3

Get Get



Example Mapped to Collaboration Framework


Resource States




Requirements

Model1

MTOWM1

ValueM2

StateM1

MTOW = 100,000

Model1

model1.rdf

Model1

OSLC SP

Design

Model2

MTOWM2

ValueM2

StateM2

MTOW = null

Model2

model2.rdf

Model2

OSLC SP

Analysis

Model3

MTOWM3

ValueM2

StateM3

MTOW = null

Model3

model3.rdf

Model3

OSLC SP



Key Issue: Resource State Synchronization


ValueM2

StateM1

MTOW = 100,000 ValueM2

StateM2

MTOW = null ValueM2

StateM3

MTOW = null



Approach 1: State Synchronization via OSLC


StateM3

MTOW = 100,000

StateM2

MTOW = 100,000

StateM1

MTOW = 100,000

Model1

model1.rdf

Model1

OSLC SP

Model2

model2.rdf

Model2

OSLC SP

Model1

MTOWM1

“Serialize” “Deserialize”

Model2

MTOWM2

Model3

MTOWM3

Model3

model3.rdf

Model3

OSLC SP

“Deserialize”

“Update”

“Read”

or

“Update”

“Read”

or



Approach 2: State Synchronization via DDS


StateM3

MTOW = 100,000

StateM2

MTOW = 100,000

StateM1

MTOW = 100,000

DDS

“Publish” “Subscribe”



Approach 3: OSLC and DDS


• Initiate and manage representation changes via OSLC • Propagate state changes via DDS, etc. • Consistency Reasoner tests state propagation

Note that these patterns all include a representation of the Product



Example – Reshaped with Product


Requirements

Model1

MTOWM1

Tool1

Design

Model2

MTOWM2

Tool2

Analysis

Model3

MTOWM3

Tool3

Product

Model3

MTOWM3

Product

MTOWP

StateM3

MTOW = null

StateM2

MTOW = null

StateM1

MTOW = 100,000

StateP

MTOW = null

StateM3

MTOW = 100,000

StateM2

MTOW = 100,000

StateP

MTOW = 100,000

“Product” is not specifically called out in the example but is needed for consistency and correctness checking throughout the lifecycle



Framework Example – Consistency Check


StateM2

value

StateM3

value

StateM1

value

Model2

MTOWM2

Model2

RDF/OWL

Model2 OSLC SP

Model3

MTOWM3

Model3

RDF/OWL

Model3 OSLC SP

Realization

Fulfills

Model1

MTOWM1

Model1

RDF/OWL

Model1

OSLC SP

ModelP

RDF/OWL

Product

MTOWP

StateP

value

ModelP OSLC SP

Consistency Reasoner

Res

ou

rce

St

ate

s

Res

ou

rce

Def

init

ion

s R

eso

urc

e S

tate

R

epre

sen

tati

on

s R

eso

urc

e S

tate

R

ep M

gmt

DDS

100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000



So… Where are the Tools/Suites in this Picture?


StateM2

value

StateM3

value

StateM1

value

Model2

MTOWM2

Model2

RDF/OWL

Model2 OSLC SP

Model3

MTOWM3

Model3

RDF/OWL

Model3 OSLC SP

Realization

Fulfills

Model1

MTOWM1

Model1

RDF/OWL

Model1

OSLC SP

ModelP

RDF/OWL

Product

MTOWP

StateP

value

ModelP OSLC SP


Res

ou

rce

St

ate

s

Res

ou

rce

Def

init

ion

s R

eso

urc

e S

tate

R

epre

sen

tati

on

s R

eso

urc

e S

tate

R

ep M

gmt

DDS

100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000



So… Where are the Tools/Suites in this Picture?


StateM2

value

StateM3

value

StateM1

value

Model2

MTOWM2

Model2

RDF/OWL

Model2 OSLC SP

Model3

MTOWM3

Model3

RDF/OWL

Model3 OSLC SP

Realization

Fulfills

Model1

MTOWM1

Model1

RDF/OWL

Model1

OSLC SP

ModelP

RDF/OWL

Product

MTOWP

StateP

value

ModelP OSLC SP


Res

ou

rce

St

ate

s

Res

ou

rce

Def

init

ion

s R

eso

urc

e S

tate

R

epre

sen

tati

on

s R

eso

urc

e S

tate

R

ep M

gmt

DDS

100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

Modeling Tool/Suite

1

Modeling Tool/Suite

2

Modeling Tool/Suite

3

Simulation and/or

Prototyping Tools/Suites

Analytics Tools/Suites



How do the Tools/Suites Communicate?


StateM2

value

StateM3

value

StateM1

value

Model2

MTOWM2

Model2

RDF/OWL

Model2 OSLC SP

Model3

MTOWM3

Model3

RDF/OWL

Model3 OSLC SP

Realization

Fulfills

Model1

MTOWM1

Model1

RDF/OWL

Model1

OSLC SP

ModelP

RDF/OWL

Product

MTOWP

StateP

value

ModelP OSLC SP


Res

ou

rce

St

ate

s

Res

ou

rce

Def

init

ion

s R

eso

urc

e S

tate

R

epre

sen

tati

on

s R

eso

urc

e S

tate

R

ep M

gmt

DDS

100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

Modeling Tool/Suite

1

Modeling Tool/Suite

2

Modeling Tool/Suite

3

Simulation and/or

Prototyping Tools/Suites

Analytics Tools/Suites

OSLC Service Provider Related Standards Catalog, Resource Shape, Query, Creation, Oauth, etc.

Linked Data Related Standards RDF, OWL, JSON, SPARQL, etc.

State Exchange Related Standards DDS, DIS, HLA, CORBA, etc.

Resource Related Standards Mechanical (AP203), Electrical (AP210), PLCS(AP239), etc.

Zoom in for a “Tool1

to ToolN” pattern Resource States

Resources





The “N-Dimensional Semantic Zipper”


Resource States




Tool/Suiten Tool/Suite1

Only focusing here is like

“Semantic Duct Tape”

OSLC Service Provider Related

Standards

Linked Data Related

Standards

State Exchange Related

Standards

Resource Related

Standards

OSLC Service Provider Related

Standards

Linked Data Related

Standards

State Related Exchange Standards

Resource Related

Standards

Catalog, Resource Shape, Query,

Creation, Oauth, etc.

RDF, OWL, JSON, SPARQL, etc.

DDS, DIS, HLA, CORBA, etc.

Mechanical (AP203), Electrical

(AP210), PLCS(AP239), etc.



Observations: Key to Interoperability


The

Resource ->

Resource State ->

Resource State Representation ->


“Meta-Knowledge” pattern is key to multi-layer interoperability



Observations: What OSLC Adds


OSLC adds capability at the

“Resource State Representation Management”

Level



Contact Info

Bill Beavin [email protected]


towards integrated engineering models: clarifying the role of … · 2015-12-18 · bill beavin,...

Documents