1 © ATHENA Consortium 2006 Dynamic Requirements Definition System Interoperability Issues Mapping Nicolas Figay, EADS ATHENA M30 Intermediate Audit October 2006 Brussels, Belgium

2 ATHENA M30 Intermediate Audit, September 2006, Brussels © ATHENA Consortium 2006 B4 through showcase DRDS: Repository and management system for interoperability requirements for accessing business and technical needs B4 B5 D2RMAP Mapping Approach: advanced approach to relate interoperability needs to ATHENA solutions through piloting activities and consolidate the AIF. B4-A4-B5

3 ATHENA M30 Intermediate Audit, September 2006, Brussels © ATHENA Consortium 2006 Presentation Outline ● DRDS Objective ● DRDS functionalities ● DRDS Achievements ● Objective of the Mapping Approach ● Mapping Approach Overview ● Mapping Approach Implementation ● Relation between DRDS & Mapping Approach

4 ATHENA M30 Intermediate Audit, September 2006, Brussels © ATHENA Consortium 2006 DRDS Objectives and Functionalities ● Support the interaction between different people in the project ● Provide different views of requirements ● Requirements’ Elicitation and Analysis ● Requirements’ Classification ● Requirements Negotiation ● Requirements Validation ● Cross Action Line Teams (CAT) Roles ● Repository and management system for interoperability requirements for accessing business and technical needs ● Storing different kind of requirements ● Support requirements collection ● Support change management

5 ATHENA M30 Intermediate Audit, September 2006, Brussels © ATHENA Consortium 2006 DRDS Achievements ● State major achievements ● 519 Requirements ● Classified according to different view points ● Methodology for abstraction (Business needs) and analysis ● Link between Business Needs and Solutions ● Lessons learned ● Interoperability is not a product –fit is a feature of systems ● Direct mapping between solutions and requirements is difficult to achieve ● Guidelines are a key for good requirements quality ● Comparison needs a precise context definition

6 ATHENA M30 Intermediate Audit, September 2006, Brussels © ATHENA Consortium 2006 Mapping Approach Objectives Mapping approach was developed in order to: ● Track the specific solutions that are used to solve specific needs and requirements defined in the Business Scenarios ● To filter this correspondence through a level of abstraction (generic needs/issues against generic solution) in order to: ● allow factorization of common needs coming from different sectors (Aerospace, Telecom, Furniture, Automotive…) or family of application (SCM, e-Procurement, PLM, Portfolio Management…) ● apply gain know-how during ATHENA through the AIF (generic solutions and needs are structured by the AIF) ● Obtain a knowledge base that will allow to continuously improve efficiency of AIF and associated methodology through analysis

7 ATHENA M30 Intermediate Audit, September 2006, Brussels © ATHENA Consortium 2006 Mapping Approach Overview Interoperability Issues B4  A4 ATHENA Generic Solution A4  B5 Specific Solutions Ax Projects Specific Requirements B4 Context Elements (from A4) Contextualized Issues and Solutions Contextualisation Mapped issues and solutions are those belonging to the same contexts or set of contexts. Several analysis viewpoints may exist, related to set of context. Generalisation

8 ATHENA M30 Intermediate Audit, September 2006, Brussels © ATHENA Consortium 2006 Mapping Approach Realisation ● A knowledge model was created in OWL, using the Protégé editor: ● Federation of heterogeneous information coming from ATHENA ● No development ● Commercial or proprietary tools independent ● Potential usage of advanced querying or reasoning on the WEB ● Contextualisation ● Identification of context elements coming from the different projects (e.g. phases of Interoperability project methodology from A4) ● Creation of “contextualised_element” class allowing to associate any contextualised element to the context by means of properties ● Contextualisation of solutions and issues by dynamic typing of individuals ● Elaboration of set of queries (in SPARQL) to analyse: ● Quality of contextualisation ● Accuracy of context elements usage to improve interoperability and speed up collaboration... through successive analysis campaigns

9 ATHENA M30 Intermediate Audit, September 2006, Brussels © ATHENA Consortium 2006 DRDS & Mapping Approach ● DRDS application ● operational tool allowing to enter, classify and manage the requirements ● on the WEB, for numerous users (robust, scalable) ● Mapping approach ● Establishment of relationships with information that are not within the DRDS, through context elements that are under continuous development and evaluation within ATHENA ● It was not appropriate to extend the DRDS ● A utility will be used in order to export the content of the DRDS as RDF- XML file that will be integrated in the knowledge base ● Knowledge base was designed in order to allow such an approach

10 © ATHENA Consortium 2006 Drawback slides

11 ATHENA M30 Intermediate Audit, September 2006, Brussels © ATHENA Consortium 2006 DRD Process CATS activity Interoperability Issues Business Needs

12 ATHENA M30 Intermediate Audit, September 2006, Brussels © ATHENA Consortium 2006 DRD Process