Transcript Model-Based Systems Engineering: Conceptual modeling languages and their standardization efforts Dov Dori Technion, Israel Institute of Technology and Massachusetts Institute of Technology [email protected] KENOTE SPEECH 2009 International.

Model-Based Systems Engineering:
Conceptual modeling languages
and their standardization efforts
Dov Dori
Technion, Israel Institute of Technology and
Massachusetts Institute of Technology [email protected]
KENOTE SPEECH
2009 International Conference on Web Information
Systems and Mining (WISM’09) and
2009 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence
and Computational Intelligence (AICI'09)
based on ISO TC 184/SC 5 Plenary Session
Paris, April 23-24, 2009
© Prof. Dov Dori – All rights reserved 2009
Where are systems and
products headed?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Increasing complexity
Increasingly multidisciplinary
More stakeholders
Higher vulnerability
Products increasingly viewed as systems
Product Lifecycle Management is
increasingly needed
1
Systems Engineering
A methodological approach to the
development and lifecycle support of
complex systems that involves humans,
technology, society, and environment.
A superset of information systems engineering!
Model-Based Systems Engineering
Systems Engineering in which the model is
the pivotal artifact, serving as the basis
for all the system’s lifecycle phases and
activities
2
From Documents to Model
Past
• Requirements
• Alternatives evaluation
& trade-off analysis
• System Architecture
• Detailed design
• Testing & integration
• Deployment
• Use, service,
retirement
Future
ATC
Pilot
Airplane
Request to proceed
Authorize
Initiate power-up
Power-up
Report Status
Direct taxiway
Initiate Taxi
Executed cmds
The need: Moving from document centric to model centric specifications
3
Major SE Lifecycle Phases
Needs Analysis
Requirements Engineering
Concept Formulating
Optimize &
Evaluate
Alternatives
Logical Architecture
Physical Architecture
Validate &
Verify
System
A model must support all the stages
Design, Build, Test, Deploy…
4
Lifecycle Development
Models: Waterfall
Requirements
Specification
Analysis
Construction
(Implementation/
Coding)
Design
Testing and
Debugging
(Verification)
Operations
Royce, Winston W., “Managing the Development of Large Software Systems,” Proceedings of IEEE WESCON 26, pp. 1-9, Aug. 1970.
5
Lifecycle Development Models:
Analysis
Spiral
Requirements
Specification
Design
Operations
Construction
(Implementation/
Coding)
Testing and
Debugging
(Verification)
Boehm, Barry W., “A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement,” Computer, pp. 61-72, May 1988.
6
Lifecycle Development Models: The Vee
Model
Requirements
Specification
Operations
Analysis
Design
Testing and
Debugging
(Verification)
Construction
(Implementation/
Coding)
Forsberg, Kevin and Harold Mooz, “The Relationship of Systems Engineering to the Project Cycle,” Engineering Management
Journal, 4, No. 3, pp. 36-43, 1992.
7
A Language for Systems
Engineering
• Systems engineering is the youngest
engineering discipline
• Like any field of engineering, systems
engineering needs to have a language for
accurately and unambiguously specifying the
system of interest.
• In this language, system engineers and other
stakeholders should be able to express the
design concepts of the system under
development in a concise and easily
communicable way.
8
Multiple stakeholders talking
different languages
Electrical Engineers
Mechanical Engineers
Software Engineers
Industrial Engineers
…
Modeling is needed to improve communication
9
Model and Modeling Paradigms
• A model is an abstraction of a system,
aimed at understanding, communicating,
explaining, or designing aspects of
interest of that system.
• Modeling paradigms
– Natural Language
– Mathematics
– Graphics-based - both informal and formal
10
The Emergence of Model-Based
Systems Engineering - MBSE
• Information Systems Engineering is a subset of
Systems Engineering!
• Systematic specification, analysis, design and
implementation of new systems and products are
becoming ever more challenging and demanding.
• Contradicting requirements of shorter time-tomarket, higher quality, and lower cost are on the
rise.
• These trends have provided the basis for ModelBased Systems Engineering (MBSE) as a
foundational field of study within systems
engineering.
11
Model-Based Systems
Engineering activities
– 2007: SysML 1.0 as a profile of UML 2
– 2007, 2009, 2010: MBSE International
Conferences: MBSE’07, MBSE’09, MBSE’10
(March 2010, Fairfax, VA, USA)
– 2008: INCOSE MBSE Task Force – SysML
“challenges” e.g., telescope modeling
– 2009: RFI for SysML 2
– 2009: ISO Study Group to adopt ObjectProcess Methodology (OPM) as a basis for
enterprise standards
12
MBSE Methodology
• MBSE calls for the development of a
comprehensive methodology, capable of tackling
the mounting challenges that projects of
developing new systems and products pose.
• An MBSE methodology is a language and a
collection of related processes, methods, and
tools that support systems engineering.
• Modeling is a foundational process underlying
any MBSE methodology
• The resulting model is a central infrastructural
entity that supports systems development,
evolution, and lifecycle support.
• Referred to as “model-based” systems
engineering or “model-driven” architecture –
MDA (Soley, 2002).
13
Leading MBSE Methodologies
Motivation, vision
Widget example
(INCOSE Task Force, Estefan, 2008 p 43)
• IBM
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
Telelogic Harmony-SE
“Crash course” in OPM
Modeling Example
• INCOSE Object-Oriented Systems Engineering Ontology
Method
(OOSEM)
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
• IBM Rational Unified Process for Systems Engineering
(RUP SE) for Model-Driven Systems Development (MDSD)
• Vitech Model-Based System Engineering (MBSE)
Methodology
• JPL State Analysis (SA)
• Object-Process Methodology (OPM)
14
MBSE Benefits
• Shared understanding of system requirements and
design
–
–
–
Validation of requirements
Common basis for analysis and design
Communication with all stakeholders
–
–
–
–
Separation of concerns via multiple views of integrated model
Support for traceability through hierarchical system model
Support for impact analysis of requirements and design changes
Support for incremental development & evolutionary acquisition
–
–
Reduced errors and ambiguity
More complete representation
• Basis for managing complex system development
• Improved design quality
• Support for early and on-going verification &
validation to reduce risk
• Value throughout the system’s lifecycle:
documentation, testing, training…
15
© 2009 Prof. Dov Dori
Leading Modeling Languages
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
•UML – Unified Modeling Language (1997)
“Crash course” in OPM
• Intended and designed for software systems Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
•13 types of diagrams in UML 2.0 (2005)
Summary, discussion
• OMG standard
•SysML – Systems Modeling Language (2007)
• A profile of UML for modeling general systems
• 9 types of diagrams
• OMG standard
• OPM - Object-Process Methodology (1995) – Language
and methodology for conceptual modeling of systems
• 1 type of diagram with equivalent textual
representation
• In the process of becoming ISO Standard
16
Motivation, vision
Main UML Contributions
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
Copyright s: sa-depot.com
17
Motivation, vision
Why Model Enterprise Standards?
Widget example
• An enterprise is a complex system.
• As such, it must be modeled to get a full account
of all its intricacies.
• Text alone is insufficient – prone to ambiguities
and misinterpretations (examples follow).
• A model provides common ontology throughout a
set of related standards, putting all stakeholders
“on the same page”.
• A model promotes consistency and significantly
reduces “loose ends” and grey areas.
• A model can be visually simulated for visualization
validation, and communication purposes.
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
18
OPM: A basis for ISO
Enterprise Standards
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
• Motivation, vision, value proposition
• Widget Manufacturing Case Study
• Standard Modeling Example 1:
ISO/IEC 62264-1 6.4.1. Maintenance Management
• Why is OPM ideal for modeling enterprise
standards?
• “Crash course” in OPM
• Ontology Modeling Example: How can OPM
modeling enhance term/glossary definitions?
• Standard Modeling Example 2: Integrating
structure and behavior in iSO/IEC 62264-1
• Summary, discussion
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
19
In search for simplicity and accessibility:
Mayer’s Cognitive Assumptions (2003)
(1) Dual-channel processing – humans possess
separate systems for processing visual and verbal
representations (Clark & Paivio, 1991; Baddeley,
1992).
(2) Limited capacity – the amount of processing that
can take place within each information processing
channel is extremely limited (Miller, 1956;
Chandler & Sweller, 1991; Baddeley, 1992).
(3) Active processing – meaningful learning occurs
during active cognitive processing, paying attention
to words and pictures.
20
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
OPM design accounts for the three Cognitive Assumptions
21
Motivation, vision
What is Object-Process
Methodology (OPM)?
• A simple comprehensive language backed by
philosophy for
–
–
–
–
–
Modeling and knowledge capturing,
Documenting,
Communicating
Engineering, and
Lifecycle support
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
of complex, multi-disciplinary systems and standards
• Based on simultaneous bimodal (graphics and text)
representation of
– structure (via stateful objects) and
– behavior (via processes)
22
What is in an OPM Model?
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
• The OPM model consists of a set of
Object-Process Diagrams (OPD)
set
and a corresponding
Object-Process Language (OPL)
paragraphs set.
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
OPL is a subset of English
23
Motivation, vision
Widget example
The OPM bimodal Representation
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
A single diagram type:
Object-Process
Diagram (OPD)
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
A corresponding subset
of natural language:
Object-Process
Language (OPL)
24
Major OPM features
– Unification of structure and behavior in a single
diagram
– Generic ontology of stateful objects and processes
that transform them
– Models systems and standards comprising
hardware, software, regulations, humans, enterprises…
– Bimodal model expression via:
• intuitive yet formal graphics - Object-Process
Diagrams (OPDs)
• equivalent subset of natural language - ObjectProcess Language (OPL)
– Built-in abstraction-refinement mechanisms for
complexity management
– Executable, can be simulated and animated
25
Motivation, vision
“Each level has structure and behavior”
(Richard Martin)
OPM Aspect Unification
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
– Structure (static aspect: what is the
system made of), and
– Behavior (dynamic aspect: how the
system changes over time)
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
Are expressed in OPM bi-modally in a single
model.
The model multiplicity problem is avoided –
no mental integration load.
26
“Crash Course”
OPM Entities – the bricks
• Object: A thing that exists or might exist.
– Objects are stateful:
• Objects can have states
Object
• At each point in time a stateful object is
– at one of its states - static, or
– in transition between two states – undergoing change
• Process: A thing that happens to an object
and transforms it.
– Transforming an object is:
• creating it,
Processing
• consuming it, or
• changing its state.
27
Motivation, vision
State: A situation an object can be at
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
OPL:
Summary, discussion
OPD:
28
OPM Links – the mortar connecting the entities
• Link: A connection between two OPM entities
(process, object, or object’s state).
• Two link types:
– structural link – a link specifying a static aspect of
the system
• Connects two objects or two processes
• Examples: aggregation-participation (whole-part),
generalization-specialization
– procedural link – a link specifying a dynamic aspect of
the system
• Connects an object and a process
• Examples: effect (state change), result, consumption
29
Procedural link examples:
Result and consumption links
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
creating it,
consuming it, or
changing its state
Result link
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
Consumption link
The automatically-generated Object-Process Language
text:
Creating yields Created Object.
Consuming consumes Existing Object.
30
OPM Link examples
Structural link:
Generalization-Specialization
Woman is a Person.
Man is a Person.
Procedural link:
Input-output link pair
Marrying changes Person
from single to married.
31
The OPD Hierarchy – System Map
32
Resources:
OPM book
Dov Dori, Object-Process
Methodology - A Holistic
Systems Paradigm,
Springer Verlag, Berlin,
Heidelberg, New York,
2002 (ISBN 3-540-654712; Foreword by Edward
Crawley. Hard cover, 453
pages, with CD-ROM).
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
Publications:
www.opcat.com
33
Motivation, vision
OPM main links
Structural links
Connect 2 objects or 2 processes
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Procedural links
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
Connect an object to a process
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Consumption
GeneralizationSpecialization
Summary, discussion
AggregationParticipation
Result
Effect
ExhibitionCharacterization
ClassificationInstantiation
Agent
Instrument
Uni- and Bidirectional
Tagged link
object
object
34
A process changes the state of an object
Input-output
The automatically-generated
Objectlink pair
Process Language
text:
Creating yields Created Object.
Consuming consumes Existing Object.
35
Motivation, vision
Abstraction/Refinement
via State Suppressing/Expressing
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Refined:
Busier,
more
detailed,
complete
Summary, discussion
abstraction
refinement
Person can be single or married.
Marrying changes Person from
single to married.
Abstracted:
Clearer,
less
detailed,
incomplete
Person can be single or married.
Marrying affects Person.
36
Motivation, vision
Combining structure and behavior
in the same OPD
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
37
Why OPM for enterprise standards modeling?
OPM integrates structure with behavior in
the same diagram type
Behavior:
Robot
State transition
disengaged
engaged
Structure:
Whole-part
Engaging
Behavior:
Robotic Arm
Workpiece
Processing
38
Why OPM for enterprise standards modeling?
OPM is bimodal: combines graphics and text
• OPM has a single type of diagram (“view”) – the
OPD – Object-Process Diagram.
• The graphic modality is translated on the fly into
OPL – Object-Process Language – a simple English
subset.
• Each modality can be reconstructed from the
other (text-to-graphics also possible).
• This is in line with the human dual-channel
processing principle.
• Caters to preferences of both visual- and
textual-oriented people.
• Provides for engaging all the stakeholders.
39
About ISO
http://www.iso.org/iso/about.htm
• ISO (International Organization for
Standardization) is the world's largest developer
and publisher of International Standards.
• ISO is a network of the national standards
institutes of 162 countries, one member per
country, with a Central Secretariat in Geneva,
Switzerland, that coordinates the system.
• ISO is a non-governmental organization that
forms a bridge between the public and private
sectors.
• ISO enables a consensus to be reached on
solutions that meet both the requirements of
business and the broader needs of society.
40
Motivation, vision
Motivation
• ISO TC 184 Mission: Streamline
and enhance ISO enterprise-related
models by adding a modeling dimension
• OPM is in the process of becoming a
common standard modeling language
for standards with complex systems
aspects, notably enterprises
• Meta-standardization: A standard
for authoring and maintaining
standards
• A “solution waiting for a problem”
• Win-win
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
41
Timeline of the metastandardization process
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
• July 2008: INCOSE Symposium,
Utrecht, The Netherlands: Richard Martin
from ISO proposes to Dov Dori to
consider OPM for standards modeling
• April 2009: In the Plenary Meeting of
TC 184/SC 5 in Paris, Dov Dori presents
the case.
• The Plenary Meeting unanimously
resolved to establish a study group
• March 2010: Presentation to TC 184 WG
Plenary Meeting in Tokyo
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
42
OPM ISO Study Group Terms of Reference
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
43
P-Member
Name
e-mail
Organization
Canada
Michael Gruninger
[email protected] University of Toronto
Canada
Mark Richer
[email protected]
Pratt & Whitney Canada
China
China
France
Liu Wenyin
Qing Li
Daniel Krob
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
City University of Hong Kong
City University of Hong Kong
Ecole Polytechnique
Germany
Great Britain
Uwe
Kaufmann
David Short
uwe.kaufmann@modelalch OMG Co-chair of ManTIS
emy.com
[email protected]
IT Focus;Convenor of CEN TC310 WG1
Israel
Israel
Italy
Pnina Soffer
Arnon Sturm
James Brucato
[email protected]
Haifa University
[email protected]
Ben Gurion University
james.brucato@palermoeur
Korea
Korea
Dongmin Shin
S.K. CHA
oterminal.it
[email protected]
[email protected]
Singapore
Yeo Khim Teck
[email protected]
Sweden
Switzerland
Charlotta
Johnsson
Alain Wegmann
charlotte.johnsson@control Lund University
.lth.se
[email protected]
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
USA
USA, Israel
Jim Clevenger
Dov Dori**
[email protected]
[email protected]
Silverglobe, Little Rock, Arkansas
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Technion
USA
Dave Howes
[email protected]
Silver Bullet Solutions, Inc. San Diego, CA (ret.)
USA
USA
USA
Israel
Israel
USA
USA
USA
Richard Martin**
Astier Sylvain
Olivier de Weck
Mor Peleg
Amira Sharon
Thomas Speller
Keith Unger
Ricardo Valerdi
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Tinwisle Corporation
Axway, Inc. Phoenix, AZ
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Haifa University and Stanford University,
Israel Aerospace Industies and Technion
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Stone Technologies, Inc.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
[email protected]
Hanyang University
Advenced Computer Service Co., Ltd. Appointed by KATS –
Korean Agency for Technology and Standards
Nanyang Technological University
44
The Vision
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
• In the future, standards for complex systems
(enterprises as a case in point) shall be based on
models rather than on free, unconstrained text.
• This will increase standards’
• reliability,
• consistency,
• usability,
• reuse,
• compatibility,
• ability of systems being developed to be
checked for compliance with the pertinent
standards
• ability of being automated…
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
45
Motivation, vision
How Do We Get There?
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
• Develop an OPM model-based standards
authoring environment using advances in NLP
• Construct a standard Web-based repository
of OPM model modules – “snippets” – for
enterprise architecture and design
• Base and align the modules with existing and
evolving ISO standards
• Provide a Web-based platform for universal
access and reuse of the model modules
• Facilitate integration, coherence, and
interoperability across all enterprise-related
standards via shared common standard modelbased ontology
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
46
Motivation, vision
Why OPM for enterprise standards modeling?
OPM is generic
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
• Building on the generic concepts of
stateful objects and processes, OPM does
not make any assumptions regarding the
domain or nature of the system in question.
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
• Applied in diverse areas as avionics,
project management, banking, biology…
• Can be applied in any domain of human
study or endeavor, in particular standards
for industrial automation.
47
Case Study: Widget Manufacturing
specified by Richard Martin
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
A customer order initiates a production request
for 1000 units of widget A, for which all raw
material is already on hand. The machine tool
that makes widget A, by a four-step machining
process, has a preventive maintenance cycle of
350 units, at which time it requires inspection to
assure proper tolerance limits and lubrication
before resuming production. After the first cycle,
the reserve of lubricant is exhausted and must
48
be replenished from a supplier.
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
Widget Manufacturing –
OPM System Diagram (SD)
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
49
The equivalent, automatically-generated text:
50
SD1: Widget Manufacturing process in-zoomed
51
The equivalent, automatically-generated text:
52
Motivation, vision
SD1.1: Widget Producing in-zoomed
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
53
SD1.1.1: Machining in-zoomed
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
54
SD1.1.2: Machine Tool Maintaining in-zoomed
55
The OPD Hierarchy – System Map
56
Animated simulation of the OPM model
Provides for:
• Visualization
• Understanding
• Testing
• Conceptual “debugging”
• Communication
• Analysis via lifespan diagram:
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
57
Widget animated simulation step 2: SD
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
58
Widget animated simulation step 2: SD1
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
59
Widget animated simulation step 2: all OPDs
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
60
Widget animated simulation step 4: SD1
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
61
Widget animated simulation step 4: all
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
62
Widget animated simulation step 9: SD1.1.1
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
Lifespan graph
63
Widget animated simulation step 9: all
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
64
Widget animated simulation step 26: SD1.1.2
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
65
Widget animated simulation step 26: all
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
66
Widget animated simulation step 37: SD1.1.2
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
67
Widget animated simulation step 37: all
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
68
Widget animated simulation step 42: SD1
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
69
Widget animated simulation step 42: all
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
70
Widget animated simulation FINAL step 46: SD
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
71
Widget animated simulation FINAL step 46: all
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
72
Standard Modeling Example:
ISO/IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Enterprise-control system integration
Part 1: Models and terminology, Section 6.4.1. p. 29
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
“6.4.10 Maintenance management (10.0)
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
The functions of maintenance management typically include
Summary, discussion
a) providing maintenance for existing installations;
b) providing a preventative maintenance programme;
c) providing equipment monitoring to anticipate failure, including selfcheck and diagnostic programmes;
d) placing purchase order requests for materials and spare parts;
e) developing maintenance cost reports, and coordinating outside contract
work effort;
f) providing status and technical feedback on performance and reliability to
process support engineering.
The functions of maintenance management typically generate or modify
the following information for use in other control functions.
1) Maintenance schedules that specify the plan for future work orders.
2) Maintenance work orders that specify specific equipment to be taken
out of service and made available for maintenance functions.
3) Diagnostic and self-test requests to be performed on the equipment.”
73
OPD of ISO 62264-1 6.4.1. Maintenance Management
self-check or self test????
Self-test/selfcheck dilemma
Self-test/selfcheck dilemma
74
A small consistency problem
In 62264 IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Enterprise-control system integration —
Part 1: Models and terminology (p.29) – 6.4.10 Maintenance
management (10.0):
"c) providing equipment monitoring to anticipate failure, including
self-check and diagnostic programmes;"
Then, just ten lines later:
"3) Diagnostic and self-test requests to be performed on the
equipment.”
• Are self-check and self-test the same?
• Self testing is more comprehensive than self checking.
• If self-check and self-test are the same, why use two different
words, especially in such proximity?
• If they are different, then a clear definition of each and explanation
regarding the distinction between them are in order.
75
OPL of ISO 62264-1 6.4.1. Maintenance Management
“developing maintenance cost reports”
Can be compared with the free text for verification and consistency.
76
14258
Levels of abstraction
Lower levels reveal detail and the
means to achieve purpose – more
concrete
Higher levels reveal the role of system
within environment – more abstract
Each level has structure and behavior
Context
Reference
14258
15704
Summary
Copyright 2008 by Richard Martin
Presented at the WG1/WG42 joint session - Berlin 2008
77
What is there in each system aspect?
• the structural (form, static, existential) aspect:
–
–
What is out there, what is the system made of?
What are the objects in the system?
• the behavioral (procedural, dynamic, time-varying)
aspect:
–
–
–
How does the system behave along the time line?
What makes the system change its states?
how is this done?
Modeling is most effective when it address both
aspects simultaneously
OPM combines the two aspects in a SINGLE coherent
diagram type using a compact set of concepts
78
systems, enterprises, and standards are
inherently complex
• We cannot ignore the inherent complexity of
systems, enterprises, and standards specifying
them- this is a given.
• Using a complicated language to model a complex
standard is likely to fail.
• One has little hope to effectively model
complex, multidisciplinary systems and
standards using an approach and a language that
has overlapping concepts represented in many
diagram types.
79
Simplicity is a must for a standards and
complex systems modeling language
• We must reduce unnecessary complicatedness by
using a simple, intuitive, yet formal modeling
language.
• The number of concepts, symbols, and diagram
types in such a language must be minimal.
• The language must have built-in refinementabstraction mechanisms for managing complexity.
• Building on the minimal set of concepts is key - no
accuracy is sacrificed, no detail spared!
• “Simplicity is Power”
80
STRUCTURAL LINKS
Name
OPL
Symbol
AggregationParticipation
Allowed Sourceto-Destination
connections
A consist of B.
Object-Object
Process- Process
ExhibitionCharacterization
A exhibits B.
Object-Object
Object-Process
Process-Object
Process- Process
GeneralizationSpecialization
B is an A. (objects)
B is A. (processes)
Object-Object
Process- Process
ClassificationInstantiation
B is an instance of
A.
Object-Object
Process- Process
Tagged structural
According to text
links: Unidirectional
added by user
Bidirectional
Object-Object
Process- Process
Semantics/ Effect on
the system flow/
Comments
Whole -Part
Describes structural
information.
81
PROCEDURAL LINKS II
Symbol
Name
OPL
Allowed Source-toDestination
connections
Semantics/ Effect
on the system
flow/ Comments
Effect Link
B affects A.
Object (A) to
Process (B)
Used when details of
the effect are not
necessary or will be
add at a lower level
(also created when
states lined to a
process with an
input-output pair are
hidden-suppressed)
Consumption Link
Result Link
Input-Output Link Pair
B consumes A.
B yields A.
B consumes s1 A.
B yields s1 A.
B changes A from s1 to
s2.
Object to Process
Process to Object
State to Process
Process to State
Process – State
s1 to Process and Process
to s2.
Process consumes
the object.
Process creates the
object.
Process changes the
state of object.
Process-Process
Execution will
proceed if the
triggering failed (due
to failure to fulfill
one or more of the
conditions in the
precondition set).
Invocation Link
B invokes C.
82
PROCEDURAL LINKS III
Symbol
Name
Instrument Event Link
Consumption Event
Link
OPL
A triggers B.
s1 A triggers B.
A triggers B, which, if
occurs, consumes A.
s1 A triggers B, which,
if occurs, consumes A.
Allowed Sourceto-Destination
connections
Semantics/ Effect on
the system flow/
Comments
Object (A) to
Process (B)
State (s1) to
Process (B)
Execution will proceed if
the triggering failed (due to
failure to fulfill one or
more of the conditions in
the precondition set).
For normal, non-triggered
execution, the object or
state linked is not required
for the process to take
place.
Object (A) to
Process (B)
State (s1) to
Process (B)
Execution will proceed if
the triggering failed (due to
failure to fulfill one or
more of the conditions in
the precondition set).
For normal, non-triggered
execution, the object or
state linked is not required
for the process to take
place.
83
Motivation, vision
Resources
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
OPCAT site: www.opcat.com - Links to publications
OPCAT academic & trial free download: Why is OPM ideal
https://www.opcat.com/downloads/trial/ “Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
84
14258
Behavioral concepts
Context
Reference
14258
15704
Summary
An enterprise is a social hybrid system, determined by
properties of humans and machines.
Humans (modeled as objects or resources) in the enterprise
have a different behavior (e.g. learning and problem solving)
from machines (e.g. acting and reacting) and sometimes need
a different kind of information.
Copyright 2008 by Richard Martin
WG1/WG42 joint session - Berlin 2008
• OPM refers differently to humans – “agents” and machines –
“instruments”
• Both are physical process enablers, but they are
distinguished by the link to the process they enable
85
PROCEDURAL LINKS I
Symbol
Name
Agent Link
OPL
Allowed Source-toDestination
connections
A handles B.
Object (A) to
Process (B)
B requires A.
Object (A) to
Process (B)
B requires s1 A.
State (s1) to
Process (B)
B occurs if A exists.
Object (A) to
Process (B)
Instrument Link
OPM makes clear distinction
Condition
Link humans and machines
between
B occurs
if A is s1.
with well-defined
semantic
differences.
State (s1) to
Process (B)
Semantics/ Effect
on the system flow/
Comments
Denotes a human
operator. Activating
the link triggers the
process B.
Wait until A is
generated and exists.
Wait until A is at state
s1.
Execute if object A
exists, and if not then
skip process B and
continue the regular
system flow.
Execute if object A is
at state s1, and if not
then skip process B
and continue the
regular system flow.
86
Ontology Modeling Example:
How can OPM modeling enhance term definition?
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
Consider ISO/TC 184/SC 5 N 994 – SC5 GLOSSARY
http://forums.nema.org/wb/upload/VN16_SC5%20Glossary%20v1.pdf
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
Let us collect main places in the document whereIEC/FDIS
the62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
term “capacity” or its derivatives are defined:
87
Definitions magnified…
capacity
capacity
planning
available
capacity
committed
capacity
unattainable
capacity
88
A partial OPM model of “Capacity” based on SC5 GLOSSARY
http://forums.nema.org/wb/upload/VN16_SC5%20Glossary%20v1.pdf
89
Capacity vs. Capacity Planning definition
The definitions of Capacity and Capacity Planning:
• ISO 15531-1/32/43: “capability of a system or
resource to perform its expected function” – this
is the object Capacity
•ISO 15531: “the process of determining the
required capacities for expected production.” –
this is the process Capacity Planning
• This becomes clear when we model Capacity
Planning:
90
An OPM model of “Capacity Planning”
based on SC5 GLOSSARY
91
Animated simulation of Capacity Planning
92
Available Capacity is the same concept
in the two models so we combine them
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
Capacity is an
object
Capacity
Planning is a
process
93
Motivation, vision
Standard Modeling Example:
Integrating structure and behavior in IEC/FDIS 62264-1(1)
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
Figure 3 from IEC/FDIS
62264-1 showing the
functional hierarchy of an
enterprise –a process
hierarchy
94
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Integrating structure and behavior in IEC/FDIS 62264-1 (2)
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
Figure 4 from IEC/FDIS
62264-1 showing the
equipment hierarchy of an
enterprise –an object
hierarchy
95
Integrating structure and behavior in IEC/FDIS 62264-1
with OPM – Top-level (level 4) – Entire Enterprise
Added
aggregating
process
Enterprise consists of at least one Site.
Enterprise Functioning consists of Business
Planning & Logistics Handling, Plant Production
Scheduling, and Operational Management.
Enterprise Functioning requires either Site or
Enterprise.
96
Integrating structure and behavior in IEC/FDIS 62264-1
with OPM – Second level (level 3) – Area
Processes need to communicate
with each other: Added interface
object
Motivation, vision
Added
generalizing
object
Widget example
Added
aggregating
process
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
97
Motivation, vision
Widget example
The OPL Paragraph:
Ensuring Area
is not empty
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
Added OPL
sentence
Added OPL
sentence
98
Integrating structure and behavior in IEC/FDIS 62264-1
with OPM – Second level (level 3) – Area
Added
process
generalizationspecialization
link
99
Motivation, vision
Widget example
The OPL Paragraph:
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
Added OPL
sentence
100
Motivation, vision
Summary - Main OPM strengths (1)
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
 Accessibility, compactness, quick learning curve
 INCOSE-recognized as one of the six modelbased systems engineering methodologies
 Generic design founded on systems theory, no
particular software orientation
 Formality (mathematically defined by graph
grammar for OPD and BNF for OPL)
 Structure-behavior integration in a single
diagram type
 Bimodality – graphics-text equivalence
catering to human cognition
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
101
Motivation, vision
Summary - Main OPM strengths (2)
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
 Executability, animated simulation, verifiability
 Exceptions modeling – time, resources (did not
have time to show)
Views generation ability (did not have time to
show)
 XML based (did not have time to show)
 Automatically generates Web documentation,
XML, JAVA code (did not have time to show)
 Strong commercially-available tool support for
client-server-based enterprise-wide collaboration,
policy setting, versioning, templates…
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
102
Motivation, vision
Discussion
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
 I have presented a proposal to adopt OPM as the
modeling language for the various enterpriserelated standards ISO is developing and evolving.
 I hope I have shown that OPM perfectly meets
all the requirements set forth and needed for a
modeling language for this purpose.
 Main favorable points of OPM that make it
especially suited for this urgent modeling need
have been presented.
 Would love to hear your opinion.
“Crash course” in OPM
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
103
Motivation, vision
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Discussion?
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
Questions?
Contact: Dov Dori [email protected]
104
Some Background
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Richard Martin [[email protected]]
Dec 30 12:05 2008
Dov Dori
SC5 Plenary demonstration
DoriSuggestion.doc
Dov,
Below you will find the very brief notes that I took during the discussion of your GERAM Generalised Enterprise-Reference
Architecture and Methodologies model work. I did not capture the exchange as we worked to map your figures to our own
understanding of GERAM. Attached is a further discussion concerning a possible SC5 Plenary presentation. I look forward to
continuing our discussion.
Cheers,
Richard
Friday, Nov. 14, 2008 Afternoon session - Dov Dori OPM presentation and discussion
R.M. - This is a brief submission from Dov Dori, which is an attempt to capture the introductory portions of GERAM into an OPM
based model. We can think of this as an alternative to the UML-based model we have been discussing. It is another representational
notation that is now used by several universities and industrial users. The presentation is in the form of a document with a couple of
OPM graphic figures and a textual rendition of those figures. He has also included a dictionary for the elements identified. I believe
all of this is generated by a tool set that supports OPM use.
O.N. - While I do not understand the entire notation, it appears that he has not interpreted the standard as I would expect.
P.B. - We have already talked about the need to revise GERAM to clarify the content and improve its usability. It is interesting to see
how someone who has not been involved models the GERAM content.
R.M. - I have been discussing with him the possibility of a presentation to SC5 that includes using the simulation capabilities that
are build into OPM, I believe using a product called OPCAT.
Motivation, vision
ENTITIES
Symbol
Name:
Definition
OPL
Semantics/ Effect
on the system
flow/ Comments
Widget example
ISO 62264-1 Example
Why is OPM ideal
“Crash course” in OPM
Things
Object A:
A thing that exists
A is physical [and
environmental].
A is informatical
and systemic by
default.
Process B:
A thing that
transforms
(generates,
consumes, or
changes the state
of an) object.
B is physical [and
environmental].
B is informatical
and systemic by
default.
State:
A situation of an
object.
A is s1.
A can be s1 or s2. Always within an
A can be s1, s2, or object.
s3.
Ontology Modeling Example
IEC/FDIS 62264-1 Example
Summary, discussion
108