View
212
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
UEML Interest Group
IFAC-IFIP Task Force
(F. Vernadat, group leader)
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
UEMLUnified Enterprise Modelling Language
Rationale:
Towards an Esperanto
in the area of Enterprise Modelling
and Enterprise Engineering
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
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
UEMLUnified Enterprise Modelling Language
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
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
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
• 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
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
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
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
Consequences:
UEMLUnified Enterprise Modelling Language
Tower of Babel situation
Refrained interest from business users
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
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)
UEMLUnified Enterprise Modelling Language
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
ICEIMT proposal for UEML development
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
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
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
• 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 Task Force UEML Group
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
UEMLUnified Enterprise Modelling Language
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
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 )
UEMLUnified Enterprise Modelling Language
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
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
UEMLUnified Enterprise Modelling Language
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
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
UEMLUnified Enterprise Modelling Language
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
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
UEMLUnified Enterprise Modelling Language
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
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
UEMLUnified Enterprise Modelling Language
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
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
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
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
UEMLUnified Enterprise Modelling Language
IFAC-IFIP Task Force UEML Group
- 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
Recommended