Manufacturing Technology &
Industrial Systems Task Force
Click Here for schedule and details.
Status: Issued in Washington DC, November 2002. LOI's and Voting List are closed, two initial submissions were received and reviewed in Paris.
Uwe Kaufmann, Fraunhofer IPK, presented on behalf of PROSTEP the DaimlerChrysler submission in response to the Product Lifecycle Management Services V1.0 RFP. Background for this submission is the German PDTnet project (see www.pdtnet.org ) and the desire of the ManTIS DTF to retain the work being carried out for the former PDM Enablers V2.0 Specification and to reuse parts of the PDM Enablers under the new MDA framework of OMG.
The advantage if the PDTnet approach for "Web-Enabling" STEP PDM Schema over other approaches is that it defines a clever sub-set of the PDM Schema that is much less complex and therefore is better suited for definition of interfaces to PDM Systems. At the same time this approach also makes it easy to align the interfaces with the previously defined PDM Enablers specification. This qualifies the PDTnet Schema to become a basis for the definition of the PLM Services PIM, covering PDTnet XML Schema as well as PDME CORBA as a PSM to the PLM Services PIM.
In the presentation it was shown how the issued specification meets the RFP requirements. So far in the initial submission the following task has begun or has been completed:
For the revised submission the consideration of the full STEP PDM schema and the corresponding PIM Equivalence model has to be completed. Discussion:
A special session of the ManTIS task force was held by teleconference on 21-October-2002. In this session the Product Lifecycle Management Services V1.0 RFP coming out of the Helsinki meeting was recommended for issuance. The TF requested the Architecture Board to hold an eMail vote to approve the RFP. The minutes can be found at mantis/2002-10-02
The Product Lifecycle Management Services V1.0 RFP passed was recommended for issuance by the MfgDTF. The RFP ran aground in the Architecture Board, requiring three revisions. Needless to say, the AB did not approve the submission. However, several AB members assisted the task force in editing the RFP for consideration in a subsequent session. Since the funding of a number of members depended on issuance, a special session of ManTIS (its first session) was planned.
Status: The PDM Enablers V1.5 RTF was charted during the Danvers Meeting in July 2001. It was chartered to assure a seated RTF should any critical issues arise.
The Current RTF Schedule is:
Event Date Voting List Deadline 13 July 2001 RTF Public Comment Deadline 15 December 2001 RTF Revision Deadline 17 February 2002
7 October 2002
[Note: The RTF Revision Deadline was changed in Yokohama, April 2002. Interested parties are encouraged to continue submitting issues despite the apparent public comment closure]
Click here to view PDM RTF Issues
Register PDM Enablers Issues by Clicking Here
[Note: for a current voting list, see the PDM Enablers V1.5 RTF Technology Schedule
Company Date Voter Boeing July 13, 2001 Lance Bao Fraunhofer IPK July 13, 2001 Uwe Kaufmann Fujitsu July 13, 2001 Akiyoshi Katsumata MSC.Software Corporation July 13, 2001 Larry Johnson Metaphase Technology Group/SDRC July 13, 2001 Russ McCormick NIST July 13, 2001 Ed Barkmeyer ProSTEP July 13, 2001 Lutz Laemmer (CHAIR) SAP AG July 13, 2001 Dieter Krisch Unigraphics Solutions July 13, 2001 Mitchell Silverman University of Leeds July 13, 2001 Doug Brady
Staus: The PDME V1.4 RTF Report was approved by the Architecture Board in Danvers, July 2001. and has successfully completed the eMail Ballot period of the Domain Technology Committee. However, no vendor committed to the Business Committee of the Board of Directors to implement the standard. All current implementation plans are focused on V1.3 of the standard. This was not a surprise since the PDME V2.0 Standard was anticipated. The V1.4 implementation plans may change now that PDME V2.0 work has ceased.
Overview: The PDM Enablers V1.4 RTF was charted during the Oslo Meeting in June 2000, with Voter Registration Closure on 16 June 2000; a Public Comment Deadline of 18 September 2000 and an RTF Revision Deadline of 18 December 2000. At the Orlando meeting, The Public comment deadline and the RTF Report Deadline were moved to 12 January 2001 and 5 March 2001, respectively. In the Paris meeting, April 2001, the Report Deadline was moved to the business day following the Danvers meeting, 16 July 2001. The PDME V1.4 RTF Report was approved by the Architecture Board in Danvers, July 2001.
The Current RTF Schedule is:
Event Date Voter Registration Close 16 June 2000 Public Comment Deadline 12 January 2001 RTF Report Deadline 16 July 2001
Lance Bao Boeing Manfred Köthe IONA John Jernigan Enovia Russ McCormick Metphase/SDRC Ilan Weitzer Ford Akioshi Katsumata Fujitsu Bob Peck Hewlett-Packard Ashish Sinha MatrixOne Larry Johnson MSC.Software Ed Barkmeyer NIST (CoChair) Lutz Lämmer ProSTEP (CoChair) Dieter Krisch SAP Nick Pascarella UG Solutions Doug Brady University of Leeds
Representatives of the STEP (ISO 103030) and OMG communities are working to keep their respective Product Data Management Specification sychronized, and to provide guidance to industry as to why the two standards exist and how they can be used separately or together, depending on the business scenario being addressed. It was decided to publish three white papers, an overview and guidance for technical managers, a guide for programmers, and a high level (~3-page) overview for publication.
The first paper has already been published (October 1999) as:
"STEP and OMG Product Data Management Specifications: A Guide for Decision Makers"
Work has begun on the second paper, "STEP and OMG Product Data Management Specifications: A Guide for Programmers"
Co-Editors of the paper are
Lutz Lämmer of ProSTEP and
Larry Johnson of MSC.Software.
Exerpt from Summary & Findings of the Proceedings of the STEP/OMG London Workshop, May 2000.
"Presentations were made of graphical approaches to mapping, both at high RM/ODP View mapping level and at more detailed instance mapping levels. The participants felt that these graphical techniques made the mapping more accessible, and since it addressed the mapping at different levels of abstraction, more conceptually complete. Since much of this graphical mapping was completed, it was decided to refine and tighten the conventions used in their generation and include them in the next draft of the next whitepaper, "STEP and OMG Product Data Management Specifications: A Guide for Programmers".
"An aggressive date was set to get the next draft of all material that is currently complete. The skeleton of the whole paper (including incomplete items) as established in this workshop will be represented in this early draft. The schedule is as follows.
- Proceedings, Larry Johnson June 5
- Working Draft with Structure & Already Completed Items, June 12
- Conference Call June 20 (Tue)
- Agenda: Status of Action Items ·
- Initial Paper Sections due to Editors: June 30
- Conference Call July 18 (Tue)
- Agenda: Planning Paper Completion"
Work has also been undertaken by the Joint PDM Enablers V2.0 Submission Team (JPDM) to re-align the PdmConfigurationManagement module with STEP AP214 FDIS (Final Draft International Standard. The original specification was based primarily on CD1 and CD2 (Committee Drafts 1 & 2)
In Orlando (December 2000) the Task Force chartered the Testability Working Group. Among the first activities is a Workshop to Establish a PDME Implementers' Forum for collaboration in conformance testing.
David Flater of NIST delivered a presentation on testability of specifications in Burlingame "Improving Testability of ManTIS Standards" (OMG Document mfg/2000-09-13). Based on the interest in the presentation, the ManTIS plans to charter a Testability Working Group in the Orlando December 2000 meeting to help guide submission teams responding to ManTIS RFPs and Revision Task Forces in defining interface specifications that can be used as a basis for testing compliance of implementations to the specification.
Because of the general nature of the interest, the "Testability Thread" has been moved to the Testability Working Group pages.
The RFP was issued by the Domain Technology Committee at the Mesa AZ Meeting, January 2000. This RFP was caught in the squeeze between the CORBA-centric and MDA-centric approaches in the OMG. Submitters lost interest in a CORBA only specification at about the time the work was completed (the final submission was made in time for the deadline). Other factors in the waning interest was the consolidation of several of the submitters into a single company. The final submission of the team was therefore voted down at the Orlando Meeting, June 2002. The work of the submission team will be carried forward in subsequent PDM RFP's (perhaps in the role of a reference model).
Click for the Technology Adoption Schedule (Includes RFP link, Letters of Intent List, Voting List, etc.)
The schedule is (as of 22 September 2001):
Event Date LOI to submit to RFP 16 October 2000 Initial submissions due 20 November 2000 Voter registration close 11 December 2000 Revised submissions due 18 June 2001
20 August 2001
22 October 2001
1 April 2002
- Yokohama, April 2002: Discussion encouraged taking a vote to turn down the last submission made for the 3-week rule of the Yokohama meeting since there are no active submitters behind it and we want to clear the way for moving the JPDM work that was done into a PDM work under Model Driven Architecture.
- Anaheim, January 2002: Submission Work Ceases on PDM Enablers V2.0 RFP All submitters agreed that the "CORBA only" nature of the RFP is now archaic. Although CORBA is a good way to implement the broad standard, we need to allow, enable, and encourage implementations in J2EE, Webservices, and other technologies as provided for in the OMG's Model Driven Architecture (MDA) thrust. This RFP bridges the two generations of OMG specifications (the old CORBA-only, and the MDA approach for mapping Platform Independent Models into Platform Specific Models and implementations see http://www.omg.org/mda.)
- Dublin, November 2001: Submission Work Ceases on PDM Enablers V2.0 RFP Incremental improvements are being made while we wait for the merger/acquisitions of PDM Submitters to be finalized before going forward. The JPDM intends to vote on adoption in the Yokohama meeting, 22-26 Apr 2002. The new revised submission date is set for 1-April-2002, the 3-week rule date for Yokohama.
- Toronto, September 2001: Incremental improvements are being made while we wait for the merger/acquisitions of PDM Submitters to be finalized before going forward. The JPDM intends to request a Vote-to-Vote in Dublin just in case the submitters will be able to announce plans at that time. The new revised submission date is set for 22-October-2001, the 3-week rule date for Dublin. Meanwhile the clarity and partitioning of the specification is being improved. (Click here)
- Danvers, July 2001: After the evaluation of the JPDM Submission in Danvers, it was felt that most issues were non-substantive, but would editorially would generate many change bars and errata. In order to present a cleaner Submission/Errata to the voting process in Toronto, the JPDM requested that another revised submission date be created for 20 August 2001 (the 3 week rule for Toronto). The ManTIS complied.
- Irvine, February 2001: Although the Berlin meeting was very productive, all of the necessary items for the submission were not completed (the task of module partitioning took longer than anticipated). Consequently the JPDM asked for the Revised Submission Date to be moved to the 3-week rule for Danvers, 18-June-2001
- Orlando, December 2000: The schedule Revised Submission Date was moved what was thought to be one last time. This was done in order to allow internal review by submitting companies. The draft delivered before the Irvine meeting at the end of February should be close to the final draft. It is planned to have a vote-to-vote in Paris. Consequently the technology adoption should move to plenary at the same time as under the previous schedule.
- Oslo, June 2000: The original RFP schedule was changed in the Oslo Meeting, June 2000. and subsequently in the Burlingame CA Meeting, September 2000. The initial submission date and LOI dates were reopened after initial submissions were presented in Burlingame. (The schedule was changed with the required unanimous consent of the LOI Respondents).
The OMG PDM Enablers specification was adopted in April 1998. It establishes a framework for interfaces to PDM services, and a base object model. It exposes most PDM-supported objects in detail and provides "fine-grained" operations to manipulate those objects and their relationships. This RFP solicits proposals to extend the adopted PDM Enablers to provide support for the following objectives:
An important requirement for this RFP is compatibility with the existing enablers. These services must be a natural and incremental extension of PDM Enablers capability rather than a different approach.
All the submitters have withdrawn from the submission process:
Quadrite failed to get its second round of VC funding and therefore withdrew. Eurostep was very active in the definition of the PDMEv2, but changed their product plans shortly after Bernd Wenzel left the company.
This left SDRC (Metaphase) and UG Solutions (IMAN). EDS purchased both of these companies last year. The "reorganization dust" finally settled this quarter and EDS noted that since it is the only submitter, they saw no sense in continuing the submission.
Additionally, all submitters agreed that the "CORBA only" nature of the RFP is now archaic. Although CORBA is a good way to implement the broad standard, we need to allow, enable, and encourage implementations in J2EE, Webservices, and other technologies as provided for in the OMG's Model Driven Architecture (MDA) thrust. This RFP bridges the two generations of OMG specifications (the old CORBA-only, and the MDA approach for mapping Platform Independent Models into Platform Specific Models and implementations see http://www.omg.org/mda.)
Manfred Koethe suggested that the submission continue in order to preserve the good work that has been done to this point. The Revised Submission Date is 1 April 2002, the 3-week rule for Yokohama. At that time the last submission made becomes "The Submission". If ManTIS were to vote the submission through task force, it would buy a year to get it through the Business Committee.
There is precedent that the Business Committee can pass a submission even if no submitters implement it, but someone else from the OMG community does. Possibilities might be:
If we think that this is a viable approach, but that we need more time, we can start by once again moving the Revised Submission date.
The definition of the specification is essentially 95% complete; however,
As it stands, Ed Barkmeyer of NIST and Larry Johnson of MSC.Software, who have served as co-chairs of the submission team, can spend no more time on an activity that has no submitters. The same applies to Dave Flater of NIST and others. (However, Larry said that if some workers stepped forward, he may be able to spend some personal time on it, but so far, no one has stepped forward.)
Caution was urged by Larry Johnson in that spending time in this resuscitation is time taken away from the next generation effort Since we need a Platform Independent Model anyway . the work spent in the resurrection may be applicable to the future or the work can simply be fed forward to future submission teams under a Model Driven Architecture Thrust for PDMEv1+.
It was decided that we need not be precipitous in retiring the RFP. We will consider our options and decide where we wish to go with it at the Orlando TC meeting currently scheduled for June 2002.
In either case we will definitely be moving the PDM work
(as well as all ManTIS work) into the MDA Architecture. (See the
The Final Report of the PDM Enablers V1.3 RTF was approved as Adopted Technology by the Board of Directors in the Burlingame Meeting in September 2000. Compilable IDL for the standard can be found in OMG Document dtc/2000-06-03.
Enablers V1.3 RTF was charted during the Cambridge Meeting in November
Public Comment Deadline: 3 April 2000
RTF Revision Deadline: 12 June 2000
The PDM Enablers V1.3 RTF report was approved by the Architecture Board in the Oslo OMG Meeting, June 2000. The report is currently in the technology adoption process
The Final Report of the PDM Enablers V1.2 RTF was approved as Adopted Technology by the Board of Directors 1-Feb-00 by Email vote.
NCMS by MSC.Software Corporation
A Revision Task Force (RTF) was chartered to address editorial and minor technical changes (which would impede implementation) to the PDM specification. The RTF disbanded on 31 March 1999, after producing its final report which can be found in OMG Document dtc/99-02-01
The RTF's final report was issued for Vote in the Philadelphia Meeting on 23-26 March 1999. The OMG PDM Enablers Specification V1.1 based on the report, passed the DTC Technology Adoption Vote, and was approved by the Business Committee & Board of Directors during the San Jose Meeting, August 1999.
NCMS by MSC.Software Corporation
Currently Adopted and Available OMG Technology in PDM.
In August, 1996, the ManTIS issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) which sought to establish standard interfaces for the services provided by Product Data Management (PDM) systems. These interfaces, made available through ORBs, will provide the standards needed to support a distributed product data management environment as well as providing standard interfaces to differing PDM systems.
The RFP solicited proposals for the following Enablers:
Six initial responses, representing the efforts of 11 companies, were received in April, 1997. After review, the original submitters decided to collaborate on a joint submission, called JPDM for Joint PDM, which was submitted to the OMG on January 16, 1998. The submission document may be found at mfg/98-01-01.
The joint submission was evaluated by the task force at its February, 1998 meeting (see report) and recommended for adoption, along with its errata. A "convenience document", which reflects inclusion of the errata into the revised submission, is available as mfg/98-02-02. The OMG Architecture Board also recommended adoption. Subsequently the joint submission successfully passed electronic ballot at the Domain Technical Committee level. The submission will face its final vote by the OMG Board in its July 1998 meeting.
The whitepaper "STEP and OMG Product Data Management Specifications: A Guide for Decision Makers" is now issued and available. This paper was recommended for issuance by the ManTIS in the Cambridge Meeting, on 16 Nov 1999, and subsequently issued by the Domain Technical Committee of the OMG on 19 Nov 1999. During the week of 9 Nov 1999, the paper was endorsed by the ISO STEP community through unanimous resolution.
This paper represents the culmination of 10 months of international collaboration. The following companies and organizations contributed as representatives of themselves and variously of OMG, ISO TC184 SC4, PDES Inc., ProSTEP, and NCMS.
- The Boeing Company
- EuroSTEP Limited
- IBM Corporation
- INSO Corporation
- MSC.Software Corporation
- PDES Inc.
- ProSTEP GmbH
The paper best explains itself. The following is the "Executive Summary" and "Introduction" from the document:
"Product Data Management (PDM) is an increasingly important technology for engineering and manufacturing enterprises. The information technology that supports Product Data Management requires standards in order to allow interoperability between systems and the sharing of product information between organizations. Two important sources of standards in this area are the Object Management Group (OMG) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) STEP community (officially ISO TC184/SC4 Industrial Data). This document will show how these two standards work together to support engineering and manufacturing processes in today's business environment.
"OMG and ISO are organizations that develop and promote standards. The OMG and STEP communities work independently to develop standards for different purposes and that differ in scope, abstraction level, and operational characteristics. The OMG standard defines a standard interface to the services of a PDM system in a distributed, object oriented environment. The STEP standard defines a standard representation of product data including data that is typically managed by a PDM system.
"However, the OMG and STEP communities have worked together to harmonize their respective standards in the area of Product Data Management Standards so that the standards complement each other rather than conflict or overlap. A formal liaison relationship has been established between OMG and ISO TC184/SC4 to facilitate this harmonization. This document provides a technical comparison of the OMG and STEP standards; a high level architectural approach for the use of these complementary standards to satisfy business requirements in real world scenarios; and guidelines for how and when to use these standards."
"The focus of this document is to provide information on the comparison and harmonization of the Product Data Management Standards developed and promoted by both the OMG and STEP Standards Communities. The OMG and STEP communities have come together to specify the complementary aspects of these two standards defined herein. This document outlines scenarios and defines the high level architectural approach for the use of these complementary standards and provides decision criteria for how and when to use these standards to satisfy business requirements.
"STEP and the PDM enablers are different in purpose, scope, abstraction level, and operational characteristics. Despite these differences, and because of these differences, each provides an essential piece in the process of defining and managing product data."
"This document was written for managers, designers and implementers of applications, which will employ OMG and STEP Standards to share and exchange PDM information."
The paper is the product of an ongoing series of telephone conferences, network meetings, and two workshops. The workshops are described below
On March 17-18, 1999 a second joint workshop was held between the developers of the OMG PDM Enablers and the STEP PDM Schema. The focus of the workshop was to continue work on the two major deliverables identified at the first joint workshop held in December 1999.
The group reconfirmed the major conclusions of the first workshop, which
1 - all parties agreed that the two organizations
were indeed producing complementary standards;
2 - the developers of both standards would continue to coordinate efforts
in producing a joint set of deliverables addressing the use of and
relationship between the standards;
3 - coordination in other areas of development should continue.
This second workshop resulted in an initial working draft of a white paper,
directed at managers and system integrators, outlining scenarios and a high
level architectural approach for the use of these complementary standards. The
workshop also continued work on the technical mapping between the two
standards, directed at implementors, completing a high level semantic
comparison of the two standards and agreeing to an approach for documenting a
detailed mapping between the two standards. The plan is to distribute a public
draft of the scenarios and architectural approach white paper in May 1999 with
the technical mapping document to follow shortly thereafter.
For more information about this workshop and future activities of the work group please monitor the scpdm.aticorp.org web site or contact one of the participants.
On December 9-11, 1998 a joint workshop was held between the developers of the OMG PDM Enablers and the ISO 10303 (STEP) PDM Schema. The focus of the workshop was the comparison and harmonization of Product Data Management standards being promulgated by both the OMG-ManTIS and ISO-STEP communities. The major conclusions of the workshop were:
The work group identified two major deliverables to the PDM community in support of the goals of the workshop. The first deliverable will be a white paper outlining scenarios and a high level architectural approach for the use of these complementary standards to help users, managers and system integrators in making decisions about how and when to use these standards to satisfy their business requirements. The second deliverable will be a formal mapping between the two standards to help implementors understand the relationship between the technical capabilities of the two standards. The plan is to complete these papers during the first half of 1999.
A number of companies and consortia interested in implementing pilots employing the PDM Enabler specification held a PDM Enablers Implementation Workshop, February 25-26, 1998, in Costa Mesa CA. This workshop was formed to bring vendors together with those organizations interested in using standard interfaces to their PDM systems.
- PDM vendors, and
- PDM implementation projects
concerning the application of the OMG PDM Enablers to real-world business environments, both in pilot and production systems.
Among the issues discussed were:
The proceedings of this workshop are available as OMG document mfg/98-06-15 .
Last updated on: 11/09/2007