 | Manufacturing Technology a Industrial Systems Task Force |  |
| | Manufacturing Technology a Industrial Systems Task Force | |
[Note: The work items of the Manufacturing Common Business Object (MfgCBO) working group (which was operating outside its charter) were moved here as appropriate.]
Ed Barkmeyer
NISTDavid Price
Eurostep AG
The Outreach Work Group may be contacted via e-mail at [email protected].
An important standard to the ManTIS is STEP (Standard for Exchange of Product Data – ISO-10303). STEP has extensively modeled the semantics of many areas of manufacturing. Consequently the ManTIS routinely asks submitters to consider mappability to and compatibility with applicable STEP standards. (See related topics: ISO TC184/SC4 Liaison, and STEP/OMG PDM Specification Harmonization.)
STEP uses the EXPRESS language to represent its models (ISO-10303-11); whereas the OMG uses the Unified Modeling Language (UML). It would be of great benefit to both the OMG and STEP standards communities if they could conveniently use one another's models.
The semantic representational power of EXPRESS and UML are largely compatible, but there are some areas wherein semantic constructs cannot be mapped between the two representations.
David Price delivered a presentation on MDA, EXPRESS, And EXPRESS-X to the Cross Domain Working Group meeting on Sunday, 23 June 2002. The presentation can be found at ormsc/2002-06-01
David Price provided an update on EXPRESS/UML harmonization activities. He has been representing SC4/EXPRESS requirements to OMG and the UML 2.0 submission teams. Members of the ManTIS have reviewed and commented on UML, MOF, XMI, EXPRESS and ISO 10303-25 (Part 25). ISO SC4 developed a one-way Part 25 EXPRESS to UML mapping for XMI, which the ISO CD TS recently approved for ISO SC4 ballot. David would appreciate any sort of “formal” review by members of the OMG. Any comments can be sent to David Price for official input to ISO through the UK ballot. Since ballot comments are due in July 2002, David would appreciate any input by mid-July.
SC4 representatives attended several OMG Technical Meetings, supporting EXPRESS requirements for UML 2.0. They developed a whitepaper surrounding Part 25, outlining issues in the EXPRESS/UML mapping. The paper was reviewed by one of the UML 2.0 submission teams, and there has been subsequent discussion via email on further issues with MOF and clarifications of EXPRESS concepts.
Collaboration with the UML 2.0 submission teams will continue at the Orlando meeting, where David Price will present an overview of EXPRESS-X.
OMG reviewers of Part 25 EXPRESS/UML/XMI recommended additional harmonization with Meta-object Facility (MOF). There is already a UML model of the UML language for MOF use. A UML model of the EXPRESS language is needed. This would enable EXPRESS schema (i.e., metadata) access in MOF repositories.
A UML model of the EXPRESS language subset has been developed. However, ISO SC4/OMG may need to standardize the UML model of EXPRESS at tome point in the future for standardized EXPRESS/MOF access.
The U2P team is continuing to work with Dave Price et al. of the MfgOutreach WG. U2P is working to accommodate our subtype constraint semantics in the core. There is disagreement within ManTIS on the semantic status of the "optional vs. cardinality" issue. The U2P team will therefore have to ignore that particular issue. (If we can't agree, we can't expect them to sort it out!)
ManTIS participants may wish to add themselves as Supporters to the U2P Submission, since it accommodates our manufacturing needs. MSC.Software has already done so.
Bernd Wenzel also presented on the support for UML 2.0 within SC4. He reminded the Task Force that SC4 invented its own modeling language, EXPRESS (ISO 10303-11) before UML existed. While UML is used in almost 60% of the cases, EXPRESS comes second with about 10%.
A team (consisting of NIST, IBM and EuroSTEP) was formed to work with all submission teams interested in the UML/EXPRESS harmonization. The team is seeking a strong list of supporters, among end user companies that use both EXPRESS and UML, and wish to see this harmonization happen. The control mechanism for this work is a voting list made of OMG members, at Influencing level or higher, with a closing date in June 2001. This is especially important since there are 50+ letters of intent on each of the three UML 2.0-related RFPs. Bernd made a plea for people to get on the voting list. Futhermore, we should also try to have a single representative of the Manufacturing Task Force participate in the UML 2.0 evaluation team, carrying as many proxies as possible from the Task Force members. [Refer to Bernd’s presentation, "ISO TC184/SC4 Support for UML 2.0", mfg/2001-02-09]
Workflow in the context of Manufacturing is being addressed, in conjunction with the Product & Process Engineering Working Group. The BODTF is promulgating workflow specifications and the ManTIS is looking into what is required to use them in the context of their own specifications.
ManTIS's existing specification, the Product Data Management Enablers is being used as a typical case. It is unclear as to whether it is simply necessary to issue a whitepaper explaining how to use the workflow services (a direction to implementers in industry), or whether each specification must explicitly accommodate the workflow services. This later case would require the ManTIS to require the specifications via its RFP's, or would require small, specifically targeted RFP's to bridge between ManTIS and BODTF specifications.
A number of meetings addressing workflow in manufacturing were held at the Philadelphia meeting. Refer to the minutes.
Current efforts are taking place in the Product Data Management Enablers V1.4 Revision Task Force.
Orlando Meeting, December 2000 – The Workflow Process Definition RFP was voted out of the BODTF. This RFP (of which Evan Wallace was editor) asks primarily for an interchange form for "process specifications" in UML and XML, and as such relates to PDM and Engineering workflows, manufacturing floor scheduling and dispatching, and manufacturing simulations. This RFP should be advertised to scheduling and simulation vendors.
[Item Transferred from the dissolved MfgCBO Working Group]
Note: In Denver it was decided that the "People Who Like People" work will proceed under the BODTF. See their web pages For results and postings of this work after the Denver Meeting.
Over the last year a number of Submissions have been made across Domain Task Forces that contain models of "People" to meet the needs of the particular domain or submission. Many of these Submissions have become Adopted Technology. Examples are:
As a result of numerous informal discussions in Philadelphia, an initial meeting of the "People Who Like People" Working Group was held in Tokyo, facilitated by Larry Johnson of the Manufacturing DTF. There was a great deal of interest from many Task Forces and the Architecture Board.
This working group has two of objectives:
However, the objective goes beyond the issue of "People" models alone.
During this first two-hour meeting, a "brain-storming" session was conducted. The collected items were roughly organized into the following categories:
These items can be found in the minutes of the Tokyo meeting in OMG Document mfg/99-05-02.
During the second meeting, presentations were made of all the "People" models in Adopted Technology across all Domain Task Forces. It was decided that we need to examine the business case of bringing these models together (or not). Rich Lemieux was to lead a group in the examination of the business case and the results were to be presented in Cambridge. More can be found in the minutes of the San Jose meeting in OMG Document mfg/1999-08-06
The Business Case analysis was not completed in time for this meeting. During discussion it was thought that synthesizing a "common" model out of all the TF specifications involving "people" would be a useful exercize to identify commonalities as well as collisions and inconsitencies. Dave Zenie volunteered to produce these models for review at the Mesa AZ meeting. The minutes of the Cambridge meeting can be found in OMG Document mfg/1999-11-05
Three Presentations were made during the session:
Relationships: In modeling people and their roles, it is important to address both abstract relationships and specifically modeled relationships. In many contexts software must know that certain relationships exist semantically so as to follow them specifically. Other applications need to be able to "discover" relationships, and must therefore be accessible at an abstract level. Support of higher abstractions also assists in customizing and extending software functionality. (Manufacturing also found this to be the case for object attribution.)
Roles and Independent Existence: Over the last two meetings there has been growing support for addressing people almost exclusively in terms of the Role they are addressing. This provides a great deal of flexibility in each technology standardization among all the task forces. It was argued that there is an independent existence that needs to be manifested through Common Identification. However, this argument was countered by the fact that identification is meaningful only in a known context (name space… as accommodated, for example, by PIDS of CORBAmed and PdmFoundation in Manufacturing DTF.)
Future Focus: It was decided that three areas need focus as we go forward from here:
During the Denver Meeting it was decided to fold the effort into the Business Object Domain Task Force (BODTF), effectively dissolving the People Who Like People group. The MfgCBO will continue to work the issues in the context of the BODTF
Agenda:
Organization Structure – Two revised proposals for the Organization Structure RFP were presented, and there is an evaluation team ([email protected]). BODTF will be asked to vote at the next meeting. This RFP covers persons, groups, positions, and roles and some parts of it will become the replacement for the PdmResponsibility module of PDM Enablers
The Workflow Process Definition RFP – The RFP was voted out of the BODTF. This RFP (of which Evan Wallace was editor) asks primarily for an interchange form for "process specifications" in UML and XML, and as such relates to PDM and Engineering workflows, manufacturing floor scheduling and dispatching, and manufacturing simulations. This RFP should be advertised to scheduling and simulation vendors.
Competency vs. Capability – There was a single response to the Resource Assignment Interface RFP (from NIIIP) and the BODTF has moved the LoI and initial submission dates to encourage additional submitters. This relates primarily to manufacturing scheduling and dispatching. The Human Resources SIG is de-veloping a Competency Management RFP, providing interfaces to a system that tracks training, skills, certifications and authorizations, expecting to have a draft for discussion at the next meeting and release at the Paris meeting. Since there is a significant overlap between elements of a com-petency model with the "capability" elements of the Resource Assignment proposal, Craig Woods (NIIIP) has asked the HRSIG to work with the RAI submitters.
Last updated on: 11/09/2007