1. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML 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

2. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML Group UEML Interest Group IFAC-IFIP Task Force (F. Vernadat, group leader)

3. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML Group UEML Unified Enterprise Modelling Language Rationale: Towards an Esperanto in the area of Enterprise Modelling and Enterprise Engineering

4. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML 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 UEML Unified Enterprise Modelling Language

5. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML 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

6. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML 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

7. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML 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 impossible  high potential for knowledge capitalisation annihilated Some well-known business users' complaints

8. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML Group Consequences: UEML Unified Enterprise Modelling Language Tower of Babel situation Refrained interest from business users

9. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML 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) UEML Unified Enterprise Modelling Language

10. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML Group ICEIMT proposal for UEML development

11. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML 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

12. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML 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 ActivityTimePointObject Inf+Inf-

13. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML 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 UEML Unified Enterprise Modelling Language

14. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML 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  ) UEML Unified Enterprise Modelling Language

15. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML 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 UEML Unified Enterprise Modelling Language

16. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML 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 UEML Unified Enterprise Modelling Language

17. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML 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 UEML Unified Enterprise Modelling Language

18. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML 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 UEML Unified Enterprise Modelling Language

19. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML Group UEML: Starting point for UEML-core Event Time Process Activity Agent Environment I/O object happens atraises triggersraises made of involved in utilises used by performs is executed by Functionmade of

20. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML 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 UEML Unified Enterprise Modelling Language

21. IFAC-IFIP Task ForceUEML 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