1. 1 4th of October, 2006 © ATHENA Consortium 2006 B5 EADS CCR piloting Nicolas Figay, EADS Flora Robin, EADS ATHENA Intermediate Review 04-05 October 2006 Brussels, Belgium

2. 2 4th of october, 2006 © ATHENA Consortium 2006 Activities performed since last review Inception, Evaluation, Test, Bug report for execution and interconnection of various solutions of ATHENA  Semantic reconciliation pilot => A3 tools  Collaborative Process => the last versions of Maestro/Nehemiah and XPDI PLM server of reference Definition and partial running of the integrative pilot  Implementation of the Networked Collaborative Product Development Process  Set up the Networked Collaborative Product Infrastructure and service  Join the networked organization  Participate the networked organization  Leave the networked organization  Definition of NCPD infrastructure  Generic components  Architecture  Identification and evaluation of existing components to use  From ATHENA  From the outside  Identification of components to develop  Development of components Identification of important results and gaps to fulfill ATHENA vision for Aerospace pilot

3. 3 4th of october, 2006 © ATHENA Consortium 2006 Networked Collaborative Product Development Reminder of the industrial context Interoperability –Numerous stakeholders –Numerous Actors A Network of Enterprises Network Collaborative Product Development Hub –Organisation –Collaboration infrastructure Services Ontology Process Basis: ATHENA approach –Enterprise –Knowledge –ICT –Ontology

4. 4 4th of october, 2006 © ATHENA Consortium 2006 Networked Collaborative Product Development Reminder of the industrial context – organisational layer

5. 5 4th of october, 2006 © ATHENA Consortium 2006 Networked Collaborative Product Development Reminder of the industrial context – individual layer Shared NCPDS

6. 6 4th of october, 2006 © ATHENA Consortium 2006 Definition of NCPD infrastructure

7. 7 4th of october, 2006 © ATHENA Consortium 2006 Collaborative Process: Change management Design Time Demonstration [A2/A5/A4]: Maestro, Nehemiah, Jonhson, Gabriel LGPEADS

8. 8 4th of october, 2006 © ATHENA Consortium 2006 Collaborative Process: Change management Feedback Still some bugs to fix (ongoing) to be able to address runtime (target for last review) Some integration and design issues Need for CBP documented XML format or UML profile ( deriving from existing standards) What about legacy engines? Need for facilities to defined messages/services between Receiving and Sending points, and to perform mapping with relevant workflow data What about calling services other than WEB services? Easier integration between Maestro/Nehemiah/Gabriel/Johnson From Business point of view, it really responds to an important need to hide private processes and to interconnect several enactment services with distributed activities From innovative point of view, it is really something new not addressed by current tools and standards.

9. 9 4th of october, 2006 © ATHENA Consortium 2006 Model Driven Engineering of the NCPDI Business Models=> Application Model=>Execution platform STEP Mapper, AndroMDA, JBOSS, Web servers 1: STEP Mapper Express to PIM Profile for WEB Enterprise Application 2: AndroMDA Generation of code for the targeted execution platform 3: Generated Product Data repository STRUTS+WEB Server+ Application Server + Database All the CRUD operations generated 100%

10. 10 4th of october, 2006 © ATHENA Consortium 2006 Model Driven Engineering of the NCPDI Business Models=> Application Model=>Execution platform STEP Mapper, AndroMDA, JBOSS, Web servers

11. 11 4th of october, 2006 © ATHENA Consortium 2006 Model Driven Engineering of the NCPDI Feedback To be extended to integrate PIM4SOA/CBP profile – horizontal extension To integrate complementary transformations from A6  Enterprise to Application (POP* to PIM4SOA, POP* to CBP)  Application to Execution level  STEP 2XSD and STEP2UML from UNINOVA Numerous integration issues  Interchange format and profiles: versions, functional coverage, conformance and certification of tools  Generic solution architecture and identification of concrete components in order to obtain a full configured solution  Standards overlapping and lack of interoperability  Existence of a formal architecture From Business point of view, it really respond to an important need to disconnect business viewpoint from technical viewpoint, and allowing to be software solutions independent. Should be support and drive by a strong community