ATHENA Final Review Meeting 27 29 March 2007

* ATHENA Final Review Meeting 27 -29 March 2007 Madeira, Portugal Activity B 4 Nicolas Figay, EADS CCR Maria Anastasiou, INTRACOM S. A. © ATHENA Consortium 2007

* Agenda § § Project Objectives Overview Major Achievements for this period B 4 in a nutshell © ATHENA Consortium 2007 2

* Project Objectives § To continuously collect and synthesize industrial user requirements, and provide them to Action Line A through iterative input and feedback loops. § To provide ATHENA and in future EIC with: · · A Method for defining interoperability requirements, prioritizing interoperability issues to be address by ATHENA, ensuring traceability from the requirements to the generic and specific solutions A System to support the definition, storage, retrieval, sharing, validation, analysis, negotiation and traceability of the requirements and associated solutions A set of Scenarios that capture industry specific requirements and their analysis results An Approach to support requirements mapping with interoperability issues © ATHENA Consortium 2007 3

* Overview Actual Situation © ATHENA Consortium 2007 4 Final ATHENA Review

* Collection of Additional Scenarios • New scenarios were described based on the templates and methods of Activity B 4 Scenario Industrial Sector Representative Company Inventory Visibility & Interoperability Automotive AIAG Outbound Logistics Automotive CAS Carrier and Shipper Transport - © ATHENA Consortium 2007 5

* Analysis of new scenarios • Analysis of the scenarios: – Requirements on DRDS – Classification of the requirements – Commonalities and differential factors © ATHENA Consortium 2007 6

* Refinement of Mapping approach Objectives of 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 © ATHENA Consortium 2007 7

* Mapping Approach Overview Specific Requirements B 4 Specific Solutions Ax Projects Generalization Interoperability Issues B 4 A 4 Generalization Contextualized Issues and Solutions Contextualization ATHENA Generic Solution A 4 B 5 Contextualization Context Elements (from A 4) 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. © ATHENA Consortium 2007 8

* Realization of mapping approach § All interoperability issues derived by ATHENA industrial users’ scenarios were contextualized. § Protégé toolset was used: – Contextualization of business needs, generic solutions & specific solutions – Analysis capabilities: • Graphical analysis based on the Jambalaya plug-in • SPARQL queries for filtering and combining context elements. © ATHENA Consortium 2007 9

* Analysis of mapping results I § 50% of interoperability issues are addressed by 3 Generic Solutions: · · · § § “Transform Model horizontally”, “Create compatible (common) views”, “Enrich Models”. This makes the rest 50% of Business Needs scattered in the other 15 Generic solutions. 70% of interoperability issues with regard to collaboration type “virtual enterprises centrally coordinated” have a GS, 19% of issues related to collaboration type “buy-sell” have a GS. 60% of interoperability issues are addressed on the “systems and technology” area of concern, while on the “security and trust” area, 2% of business requirement are addressed. Lack of specific solution was identified (e. g. horizontal transformation of source code is required for customisation ) Integration and implementation gaps © ATHENA Consortium 2007 10

* DRDS § An interface between owl (Protégé) and the DRDS requirements database was provided § Application of the introduced processes to perform requirements management and DRDS revision § Helping the new and existing ATHENA partners to use the DRDS for elaborating requirements and analysis along the requirements definition process § Provide new interfaces (RDF for analysis with open source tools like Protégé) § Support the development and implementation of the mapping methodology between Requirements and Athena Results (Solutions) § Continuous Requirements Management © ATHENA Consortium 2007 11

* B 4 Activity In an Nutshell © ATHENA Consortium 2007 12

* ATHENA Dynamic Requirements Definition Process Market External world ATHENA Requirements Handling P 2 Select Generic Requirements B 4 P 1 Select Specific Requirements Generic Requirements P 6 Develop Generic IT Products ATHENA Requirements List of potential generic solution P 3 Elaborate ATHENA requirements Specific Requirements P 4 Search for Generic Solutions P 5 Develop Generic Solutions ATHENA Research Scenarios © ATHENA Consortium 2007 • WP. B 4. 1 • D. B 4. 1 Generic solutions ATHENA Piloting P 7 Develop Specific IT Products Test Scenarios, Demonstration 13

Scenarios mapped with Interoperability Issues * © ATHENA Consortium 2007 14

* Mapping Approach Specific Requirements B 4 Specific Solutions Ax Projects Generalization Interoperability Issues B 4 A 4 Generalization Contextualized Issues and Solutions Contextualization ATHENA Generic Solution A 4 B 5 Contextualization Context Elements (from A 4) © ATHENA Consortium 2007 15

* DRDS • A clearly defined process for managing interoperability requirements • A computer system called DRDS to support this process. • 689 interoperability requirements have been collected and are stored in the DRDS Database (January 1 st 2007). © ATHENA Consortium 2007 16