Jim Nell, WG 1 Convenor, called the meeting to order at 10.45 on Wednesday, 25 June 1997. In attendance were:

François Vernadat University of Metz, France (26 June only)

David Chen LAP/GRAI, France

Ted Williams Purdue University, USA Document editor

Jim Nell WG 1 Convenor

Richard Weston Loughborough University, UK

Peter Bernus Griffith University, Australia

David Shorter IT Focus, UK

Jean-Jacques Michel CETIM, France

Kurt Kosanke CIMOSA Association, Germany (25 and 26 June only)

Greg Winchester WG 1 Secretary

The minutes of the Frankfurt WG 1 meeting were accepted as written.

The following documents were distributed and given "N numbers" as follows:

In addition, the following documents were created during the course of the meeting:

Draft revised scope for the Requirements Standard - ATTACHMENT A;

Draft §4.3 for the Requirements Standard - ATTACHMENT B;

Draft §4.4, 4.5, 4.6 for Requirements Standards - ATTACHMENT C;

Draft on Human Issues as possible replacement of §4.3.1 of the Requirements Standards - ATTACHMENT D;

Revision to draft §4.1 and 4.2 - distributed as N394 rev.

Additional text for §4.3.5 of ATTACHMENT B - ATTACHMENT E

Essay by David Shorter on systems (or holistic) thinking - ATTACHMENT F

Peter Bernus, as IFAC-IFIP TF Chairman, stated that this meeting would be used by the TF to solely work on the Requirements Standard; there would be no agenda items strictly pertaining to the TF.

a) IFAC/IFIP Task Force

It was reported that there were misunderstandings earlier in the year within the TF about what WG 1 would standardize. Thus, WG 1 clarified its objective as standardizing the requirements of GERAM; the GERAM itself will be shown as an example of a complete reference architecture in an informative annex in the standard. It was agreed that a written description of the GERAM itself does not need to be completed before the standard can be written.

Kurt Kosanke reported that the two NIST and two Brussels workshops held so far have identifiied areas for research and standardization. The next ICEIMT conference is scheduled for October in Torin, Italy. The agenda is still under development for this conference and a call for papers will be issued to a limited number of experts.

David Shorter reported that WG 1 is still dormant, but that funding may come from the UK to revive WG 1. An announcement regarding this will be made next month.

Greg Winchester reported that there were no particular issues raised at the April 1997 SC5 Plenary meeting in Frankfurt as a result of the WG 1 report to SC 5. However, Jim Nell was requested, by resolution, to form an SC5 Strategy Planning Group (SPG) to elevate the standards planning discussions of WG 1 to encompass the whole range of interests within SC 5.

Greg Winchester also reported on the TC184 Advisory Group meeting held in early June 1997 in San Diego. The AG requested that WG 1 consider the work of the CALS High Level Steering Group and SC4/WG10. Jean-Jacques Michel, as Convenor of SC 4/WG 8, reported on the progress of CD 15531, MANufacturing DATa Exchange, which was distributed as N385. Jim Nell also reported that at its San Diego meeting, SC4 passed a resolution forming a project on "shared enterprise data."

e) SC5 Strategy Planning Group (11 June 1997 meeting in San Diego)

Greg Winchester reported that the initial meeting of the newly formed SC 5 SPG had WG 1 participation from David Shorter and Jean-Jacques Michel, both of whom will shortly review a first draft of an SC 5 strategic plan. The plan is intended to be finalized later in 1997 for review and approval at the Spring 1998 SC 5 Plenary meeting. The SPG identified a number of potential new work areas that are architecture/modeling-oriented, but the SPG will not address how this work will be assigned within SC5. The SPG also modified SC5 scope to add notions of enterprise agility and extension, and system interworking.

Kurt Kosanke presented a revised version of the proposed EI standardization matrix which shows the areas GERAM must address. It was agreed that the GERAM annex being developed should have a mapping to this matrix.

The latest version of the GERAM, now to be included in the Requirements Standard as Annex A (informative), was presented by Kurt Kosanke who first focused on the all the figures. In reviewing the figure for the GERAM framework, the question was raised as to whether the GERAM will be strictly written for the discrete parts manufacturing enterprise. While it was acknowledged that TC 184 has "discrete parts manufacturing" in its scope, the nature of manufacturing and the extent of many TC 184 standards has led to a de facto involvement of the process industries. Given this, it was agreed that some of the titles of the GERAM framework components should be changed so that they are more readily understandable by the process industries.

It was noted that all the figures showing lifecycle stages should have a dotted line added to the design stage showing the delineation of the preliminary design stage from the final design stage.

The concept of views was discussed, where it was agreed that the function/decision view should be renamed function view to avoid conflict with the GRAI architecture. It was then noted that there must be more of an emphasis placed in the requirements (normative) part of the standard on why views are necessary (where management of complexity needs to be mentioned). It was agreed that the normative part will mandate the four views (model content, purpose, implementation, physical manifestation) adding that other views are optional.

For N386, it was felt that no disposition could be given since the comments referred to a version of the GERAM earlier than N397.

For N387, the described AIT Reference Model was felt to be a only a partial model and, thus, has no bearing on the GERAM. Nevertheless, it was felt that a more detailed review of the AIT concepts is needed. ACTION ITEM: Kurt Kosanke, representing AIT interests on WG 1, to review N387 for possible incorporation in N392.

For N388, Richard Weston mentioned that many of his concerns were taken care of in version 1.3 of the GERAM (N392). Richard Weston then offered to contribute text that could be inserted in §4.3.1 of the Requirements Standard, which he subsequently drafted and distributed as ATTACHMENT D.

For N389, the three major areas of concern - human factors, project management, economic aspects - were accepted and will be incorporated in the GERAM.

For N390 and N391, it was noted that the comments have already been incorporated in GERAM version 1.3 (N 392).

d) Line-by-line review of N 392

After a presentation of N392 and discussing comments to N397, a subgroup formed to do a line-by-line review of N 392 and came up with the following proposals:

All the above proposals were accepted except for the proposal on views which created more debate. There was concern about purpose views and its conflict with PERA which was the basis of GERA. It was finally decided that the optional views will "decision" and "economic". It was agreed that these views can be subsets of existing views, but there was concern about views being overlapping. David Chen offered to contribute text for the decision and economic views that would be inserted in §4.3.5 of the Requirements Standard, which he subsequently

drafted and distributed as ATTACHMENT E.

Attendees split into smaller groups which submitted contributions on the following subclauses:

The contribution shown in ATTACHMENT C also contained the following two new subclauses, representing a change to the outline (see ATTACHMENT G):

a) Review of Contribution on §4.3 (concepts)

ATTACHMENT B was accepted with the following changes:

Unresolved or unfinished issues/questions for §4.3 were noted to be:

b) Review of §4.4 - §4.6 Contribution (methodologies, languages, defintions)

ATTACHMENT C was accepted with the following changes:

The need to define what enterprise engineering means was noted as an issue that needs to be resolved.

N394 rev. was accepted with the following changes:

d) Review of Human Issues Contribution

ATTACHMENT D from Richard Weston was accepted for inclusion in 4.3.1 with the following changes:

ACTION ITEM: Richard Weston to draft an Annex B on human issues, based on ATTACHMENT D.

e) Review of Scope Contribution

ATTACHMENT A from Peter Bernus was accepted, although the phrase "change processes" evoked much debate.

The date and location for the next WG 1 meeting was confirmed to be 27 October 1997 in Turin, Italy. Since the proposed meeting site - the Turin Convention Center - has limited computer and administrative support, it was suggested to move the meeting to the nearby UNINFO office. ACTION ITEM: WG 1 Secretary to contact Mr. Luciano Lauro regarding the availability of a meeting room at UNINFO on 27 October.

For the WG 1 meeting thereafter, the week of 9-13 February 1998 was preferred. Australia, Brazil, or USA (specifically the NIST facility in Boulder, Colorado) are the tentative choices for a meeting location.

With the attendees thanking Jean-Jacques Michel and CETIM for their outstanding support and hospitality, the meeting adjourned at 14.45 on Friday, 27 June 1997.

REPORTED BY: Greg Winchester

WG 1 Secretary

ATTACHMENTS: A - G

Outline: Requirements for Enterprise-reference Architectures

Introduction and rationale (to include beneficiaries per N364, and N393)

1 Scope

2 Normative references

3 Definitions and abbreviations

4 Requirements for enterprise-reference architectures

4.1 General concepts

4.1.1 Architectures and frameworks (general things before specifics, e.g., type 1 and 2 architectures, distinguish life cycle/life history, views, aspects; a summary of these concepts should appear in Clause 3)

4.1.2 Framework for enterprise models and its role

4.2 Purpose for enterprise reference architectures (to state those things needed to do process-oriented enterprise modeling; e.g., static and dynamic behavior)

4.2.1 Enterprise reference architecture relation to framework for enterprise modeling (figure 7 and others)

4.2.2 Components and their roles in the enterprise reference architecture framework (from N379, describing concepts in figure 7 of Peter Bernus' paper plus life history and languages)

4.2.2.1 Life Cycle

4.2.2.2 Life History

4.2.2.3 Views

4.2.2.4 Languages

4.2.2.5 Completeness

4.2.2.6 Role of Humans

4.2.3 Enterprise integration methodologies

4.3 Requirements for concepts for an enterprise reference architecture

4.3.1 Generic enterprise concept definitions

4.3.2 Human oriented concepts

4.3.3 Process oriented concepts

4.3.4 Technology oriented concepts

4.3.5 Modeling framework

4.3.6 View concepts

4.3.7 Enterprise modeling language

4.3.8 Partial enterprise models

4.3.9 Enterprise engineering tools

4.3.10 Enterprise modules

4.4 Requirements for methodologies

4.4.1 Human factor

4.4.2 Project management

4.4.3 Economic aspects

4.5 Languages

5 Compliance and conformance

Annex A (the GERAM paper being revised by Kurt Kosanke/Peter Bernus and other relevant state-of-the-art architectures - e.g., ARIS, CIMOSA, GRAI/GIM, IEM, PERA - will be placed in this annex to demonstrate the use of this standard)

A.1 State of the art with GERAM as reference (Bernus, Nemes, Kosanke GERAM paper; Kosanke DIISM paper)

A.2 Context and vision for enterprise reference architectures

A.3 Bibliography

Annex B Human Issues