1. 11 th NASA/ESA Workshop on Product Data Exchange 2009 Allison Barnard Feeney, NIST David Price, Eurostep

3.  Producing data exchange standards for 25 years - ~30 major information models for product data exchange ◦ formally specified in EXPRESS ◦ standardized by ISO ◦ in wide use in the manufacturing industry ◦ supported by dozens of software tools  Production implementations in US aerospace, automotive and ship building companies have resulted in actual savings of $150M per year  STEP information models are of the high fidelity, high quality needed by US industry

4.  Business requirements for IT have changed but STEP activities have not kept pace  EXPRESS and related implementation method standards work because people make them work, not because there is a consistent IT architecture behind them  STEP focus on data means its standards do not address other viewpoints that have become key to business process reengineering and systems integration over the past several years

5.  The IT world has moved on ◦ Web Services, Semantic Web, Ontologies, Reasoning ◦ XML Schema, XSLT, RDF, OWL ◦ Business Process/Rules Models, Topic Maps ◦ UML, XMI, MDA, ODM, MOF, QVT, OCL  None are “domain models,” they are all IT  OMG and W3C standards are more widespread than EXPRESS; many more modelers and implementors understand them ◦ Many good STEP models will not be widely used because STEP only uses EXPRESS  Bottom Line: The need for consensus information models remains, but STEP must adapt to keep its models relevant

6.  OMG’s Unified Modeling Language is “the standard” for software engineering ◦ Model Driven Architecture analogous to STEP Architecture ◦ UML 2 is a family of languages with domain-specific extensions (e.g. SysML) ◦ MDA relies on models expressed in the Meta Object Facility, and rendered in XML Metadata Interchange.  W3C technologies for the Semantic Web ◦ Resource Description Framework (RDF) and the Web Ontology Language (OWL) are “the standard” for modelling semantics on the Web

7.  The “bigger vision” should be an architecture where modelers use the languages that appropriate for the task ◦ UML for software, OWL for ontologies, EXPRESS for constrained data exchange ◦ OMG’s MDA is a start in that direction  Standards and good open-source reference implementations in this area are required

8.  Many in this room have been in agreement for the past 5 years that STEP must adapt  STEP projects have addressed this through mappings to XML Schema (Part 28) and UML (Part 25) ◦ These mappings were specified entirely in text and targeted version 1 of XML Schema and UML  Open-source projects have supported this migration “exff.org,” EU F6 projects “MEXICO” and “Interop S-10” ◦ Initial mappings to UML and OWL and prototype tools published on exff.org in 2004  STEP PLCS and now AP233 projects are extending less strongly typed models with OWL Reference Data

9.  OMG has adopted the EXPRESS metamodel ◦ EXPRESS is now an OMG language ◦ OMG RTF underway now  Provides formal basis for mappings to UML and OWL that have existing OMG metamodels ◦ EXPRESS schema exchange between MOF tools via XMI ◦ EXPRESS-based data exchange using XMI ◦ OMG Model Driven Architecture languages applied with EXPRESS schemas as input or output  For example, a formal mapping between AP233 EXPRESS and the OMG Systems Modeling Language (SysML) using OMG Query/View/Transform (QVT)

10.  It is now possible to reproduce “the STEP architecture” in OMG’s MDA ◦ MOF metamodel of EXPRESS defines the language ◦ Use Object Constraint Language (OCL) for detailed constraints ◦ Use Query/View/Transform for mapping between models and EXPRESS-X style transformations ◦ EXPRESS schema exchange between MOF tools via XMI ◦ EXPRESS-based data exchange using XMI  We can also do a lot more ◦ Ontologies using OMG Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM), Reasoning, Web services

12.  To enable enterprise integration based on inter-related data exchange, ontology and service specifications  To enable the selective harvesting of ISO STEP standards into ontologies and other widespread modeling languages via OMG Model Driven Architecture™ approach ◦ Leverage STEP community knowledge, lessons learned and capability regarding data exchange ◦ Possibly harvest improvements made in OMG and W3C back into ISO STEP standards ◦ Possibly lead ISO STEP to adopt OMG/W3C technology

13. SC4 AP OMG Schema Implemented as EXPRESS published Model of EXPRESS Model Driven Architecture Convert to published Can process UML Web Services ODM Ontology Can harvest standards from Can use SysML Based on Activity Models Can map to/from Formally defines

14. XML Schema STEP EXPRESS Schemas Harvesting Process, Specs & Tools UML Profile for EXPRESS UML 2 Tool & Executable UML STEP as UML OWL Reference Data ODM/OWL Reasoner Data Software Systems Integration APIs & Services OMG EXPRESS ISO Future STEP Project OMGIndustry Inter-related suite of stds

15.  Harvesting process to/from STEP  Technical Specifications  Proof-of-concept Tools: EXPRESS converters, QVT mappings  Demonstrations: Using AP233 for Change Management of SySML models, SysML/AP233/OWL and reasoning  AP233 reference artifacts : EXPRESS, UML, XSD, OWL, SOA, Reference Data

16.  Provide recommendations to OMG and ISO STEP on how to work together better, for example ◦ Can ISO STEP adopt OMG MDA instead or in addition to current modeling tools? ◦ Can OMG MDA approach/tools learn any lessons from ISO STEP modular architecture? ◦ What in ISO STEP is worth harvesting into OMG? ◦ ISO EXPRESS is now an approved OMG language, should OMG take more advantage of that?  End Goal ◦ Present recommendations for “Future STEP” to ISO STEP community in May – we hope that starts the process

17. Standardized Core Ontologies And Mapping SOA ROA Reasoning Data Exchange Industry Extensions

18.  EXPRESS/UML mapping ◦ make UML class diagrams suitable for UML-based data exchange ◦ compatible with EXPRESS-based data exchange  AP EXPRESS to ODM OWL mapping ◦ EXPRESS to OWL mapping as QVT may be RFC to ODM specification  UML Profile for EXPRESS stereotypes specification  AP233/SysML mappings

19.  Vanilla UML class diagrams from EXPRESS schema  AP-based OWL ontology from AP, RD and instance data  EXPRESS-as-UML class diagrams ◦ Using proposed UML Profile for EXPRESS diagram notation  EXPRESS schemas represented using MOF of EXPRESS ◦ NIST implementation already exists but needs upgrade to XMI 2  OMG XMI for data exchange using UML driven from EXPRESS

20.  Using an appropriate subset of AP233 as the example, the specification of: ◦ AP233 as EXPRESS for data exchange ◦ AP233 as UML Profile for EXPRESS ◦ AP233 as vanilla UML for data exchange ◦ AP233 as XML Schema for data exchange ◦ AP233 as OWL for at least one scenario where reasoning is possible ◦ AP233-based Class diagrams for higher level Systems Engineering Web services

21. AP233 ARM XML Schema AP233 ARM API or Service AP233 ARM EXPRESS EXPRESS-based code generators AP233 ARM UP4E XMI UML 2 Tool AP233 ARM UML 2 XMI AP233 OWL Ref Data UML-based code generators AP233 ARM OWL Reasoner

22.  Core team ◦ NIST : Feeney, Denno, Wallace, Barkmeyer ◦ Eurostep : Price, Spiby, Shaw, Holm, Bodington  Core team facilitates participation of ◦ OMG : SysML team, QVT expertise ◦ SC4 : AP233 team, review by IDW Ad Hoc group, etc. ◦ INCOSE : Model Based Systems Engineering initiative, Model Driven System Design Working Group, Requirements Working Group, Architecture Working Group, etc. ◦ OASIS PLCS TC : Looking at use of OMG technology for DEX specifications (e.g templates)

23.  Draft 1 of EXPRESS/UML mapping  AP233 as UML provided to NIST for plug-fest, transformation tools ◦ Issue resolution underway  OMG RTF underway for EXPRESS Metamodel  Held INCOSE and OMG mapping workshops for SysML/AP233 common areas  Participating in OMG Model Interchange team to ensure XMI capable of data exchange  Participated in NIST Ontology Summit 2009 – Ontologies as Next Generation Standards

24.  Process for enterprises to adapt STEP for software integration needs ◦ Report to SC4 in May  Finalize mappings between STEP and OMG/W3C languages, models and data ◦ June 2009 – publish working drafts for review ◦ September 2009 – deliver specifications and demonstration

25.  How far should we “push” SC4 towards use of OMG MDA and related technologies?  Getting vendor buy-in ◦ SysML vendors for AP233 export/import ◦ EXPRESS vendors for OMG metamodel support  Testing new technologies ◦ XMI for data exchange ◦ QVT for computer-interpretable mappings – finding QVT tools to specify mapping is a problem  Turns out we are “the pioneer” in this area for publishing a standard transformation in an OMG standard  Transformation is key to MDA!