Framework: ISA-95 WG

• August meeting is the kickoff on a journey to ease and improve implementation of ISA 95 / B2MML

CommonPatternsPracticesProfiles

Tech reports

User cases Studies

Scenarios Challenges

Opportunities

Execution

InitiateB2MML/ISA

UpdatesCompanionPublications

Etc., etc. ??????

We are here

The process is agile - iterativeTact will change as we learn

Recommendations

Catalogue of case studies

Industry ApplicationElectronic DiscussionFace to Face followed by electronic discussion

Electronic discussionAnalysis

Framework

• Describe the challenges across industry domains / verticals – Case studies

• Identify common patterns• Classify in terms of:– Common application level work flows / patterns– Message level payload requirements– System level infrastructure functions

• Analyze– Generate suggestions for consideration

Case study format• What ? – Describe the challenges faced today– Enumerate the impact of these challenges

• Why ?– The gaps , inconsistencies that impacted the

challenge • How ?– What was done to work around the hurdles ?

Agenda• Collect the Whats and Whys and Hows• Then – after all whats and whys are presented

– Look for common challenges– Identify new challenges that come to mind

• Important: Do not try to solve / delve into detail on the hows until all this information is collected from participants. – hard to do

• Finalize Case Studies (may be work following meeting)• Analyse case studies and options to develop suggestions:• Then after all case studies are presented

– Look for common patterns in suggestions– Align short list with challenges– Identify gaps still outstanding.– Identify profiles and tech reports that may help address issues

User cases Studies

Scenarios Challenges

Opportunities

CommonPatternsPracticesProfiles

Tech reports

Catalogue of Case Studies• Include– Industry vertical organization is within– Landscape / environment– Applications / Technologies involved– Solutions being implemented ( inventory tracking,

Batch management, performance reporting…)– What worked well – Challenges– Opportunities

Analysis Options• A - What information should be included in current B2MML to

support application and system level functions (I have presented an base on this in previous email

• B - What needs to be adopted into ISA 95 representation to formally / generically represent system and application scenario dialogs, (what the dialogs are)

• C - The level and how ISA represents detailed application level user scenarios dialogs, Middleware and system level user scenario dialogs as supported by vendors, integrators, vendors, customers (How the dialogs are used in industry)

Outcomes• There may be one or more of the following or

some other options not presented. – Update or new sections in existing ISAd-95 Parts– A new part of ISA-95– Another standard. Ex. ‘Application / system level

work flow for information exchange in manufacturing systems’ (might be two standards)

– A set of documented Profiles - Worked examples / scenarios with user code / toolkit

Remember: manufacturing infrastructure varies widely across installations – ideas that support complex

environments should collapse to support simple ones.

Use of 1 to many and 1 to 1 conversation's in synchronous and asynchronous modes vary across user environments. Bus type environments are increasingly common as part of the environment in larger companies others still use simple systems such as file transfer.

Infrastructure

Middleware

Application

For purpose of discussion: break down context into the 3 Layers of Activities that Message Dialogs

Typically Pass Through

Application A Application B Application C Application A

Message Orientated Middleware

Activities

Message Orientated Middleware

Activities

InfrastructureActivities

Configurations are applied one or more levels

Implementation specific workflows information flow semantics

Information exchange and processing semantics

Message exchange semanticsP2P, PUB-SUB

System level functionsMessage dissemination, DeliveryBroadcast, Connection…

B2MML

Application process work flow

Classification of case study• Application level – Application work flow• Process centric models• Information centric models

– Identify common patterns (profiles)• Service level– Interfaces to B2MML• Generic interfaces for contract negotiation• Updates to B2MML constructs

• System level– Message delivery– Failure modes

Framework for B2M• Configure system

– Connection of systems– Identify application level semantic mappings

• Field mappings• Message exchange dialog templates (sets of messages exchanged

for actions)• Simple mappings (UOM…)• Message batching, transactions

– Identify MOM level mappings• Compression, security, message delivery, message priorities

– Identify System level configurations• Network diagnostics• Message delivery configuration

• Execute message dialogs– …

Presentations

• Fill out for all attendees….• Title– Presenter:– Title:– Industry vertical:– Abstract:

Process Centric MessagingIn a process centric approach to SOA the business process is translated into a service orchestration (mostly in BPEL) and executed with a business process engine (BPEL engine). This service orchestration calls services which need to be provided by IT applications.Read more at: http://www.theenterprisearchitect.eu/blog/2010/01/13/the-process-centric-vs-information-centric-approach-to-soa/

Information centric Messaging – Event driven SOA

The implementation is very flexible and stateless. The state of a process is based on (derived from) the state of the business objects. Services are not orchestrated by a central process engine but react on events. The example above should listen to events send when the status of an Order changes. Once it is set to “delivered” (and the other pre conditions are met) the service will execute its implementationRead more at: http://www.theenterprisearchitect.eu/blog/2010/01/13/the-process-centric-vs-information-centric-approach-to-soa/

Supports business processes by defining activities with pre and post conditions