1 UCA/CIM TSC Enterprise Application Integration Task Force  Scope: Drive the understanding and implementation of CIM-based message exchange to support efficient and effective communication while establishing a forum for the sharing of such information as well as best practices for exchange of CIM-based information  Co-Chairs: Andre Maizener, and Harry Garton (Xtensible Solution) (vendor)   EAI Status

2 WG Status  No activity in 2006, 2007 except interesting CIMug meeting, and breakout session in Salt Lake City   Trying to get some traction, generate interest, and come up with real issues and real solutions Fact: each time we have had interesting and fruitful meetings and break out sessions  We make each time the conclusion that this action is most useful => the question is: how to proceed more efficiently?  One personal view: utilities should get more involved and give more resources

3 Some ideas from SLC meeting

4 Enterprise Application and Information  2 major directions for the group :  Exchange best practices and difficulties in using CIM and be a source of request and issues for the various TC57 working groups  Contribute to finalize the methodology to derive messages, which has been presented so far, based on 4 layers:

Direction 1: exemple Response from TVA to our questionnaire - What would you do differently if you had to start your project again? - What extensions/restrictions were required within CIM model? We extended the CIM predominantly in the area with such things as Customer, Supplier, Invoice Header, Purchase Order Header and Line, etc. using the OAG 9.1 model as our basis. We also added additional detail in the area of Work, Projects and Project Schedules using a modified schema based on a schema supplied with Primavera’s P3e Project Management Tool. - And more generally what was the most serious difficulty you had to solve while using CIM approach?  The most serious difficulties we had was in managing our extensions and merging extensions based on external sources not in UML format, such as the Project schema mentioned above.  For managing our extensions we chose to stereotype classes accordingly. For example, if we added something without help from an external reference we gave the extension a UML stereotype of >, next if e added something directly from an external reference such as OAG we used >, and lastly if we based the extension on a concept found in an external reference such as the OAG, but we altered it in some way we used >.  We put new classes, diagrams, domains and data types into TVA UML packages (ROSE folders)......

Direction 2: the methodological approach : a need for choices Information level layer Contextual level layer Message Assembly level layer Syntax level layer Requirements

7 Agenda – EAII Breakout session  Presentations (20 minutes – 10 minutes of questions)‏ Direction1: * Rex on the inquiry launched in May : TVA, EDF * Managing Assets in CIM Xtensible Solutions and Alabama Power * DMS Group proposal on CIM improvement * OFFIS : Implementation of an RDF-based versioning system for the CIM using the topology difference model Direction 2 * EDF : CIM-Un-Cefact methodology Rex on UML/XML workshop Minneapolis Meeting * EDF : CDPSM profile : rex on June 4th workshop Others participants are welcome Organisation of the Working Group A Maizener, E.Lambert (EDF R&D)