# Presentation: 700307

## OAG/NIST B2B Testbed Overview

- Nenad Ivezic, Serm Kulvatunyou, Buhwan Jeong, Simon Frechette, Al Jones
- Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
- National Institute of Standards and Technology, USA

- Meeting with ETeB Delegation
- November 24, 2003

**Notes:**
Thank you for coming to this presentation on the OAG/NIST B2B Interoperability Testbed.
My name is Nenad Ivezic and I work for the NIST - the DOC technology laboratory.
The purpose of this presentation is to inform how NIST (together with OAG and other stakeholders) is devising a unique resource to support automotive interorperability.

## An Industry Business Case: Inventory Visibility and Interoperability

**Cost Avoidance if AIAG Recommendations are Implemented**

- Based on Work Group estimates

**Notes:**
One of the more recent economic studies was done at AIAG within the Inventory Visibility and Interoperability project.  

This analysis identified a number of categories in cost avoidance and savings if interoperability of inventory visibility tools was addressed.

As you can see the yearly cost avoidance due to subscription costs, administration of multiple visibility tools, and integration with legacy systems ranges in $0.5B range.

The potential savings in inventory reductions and premium freight costs amounts to $300M per year.

## Multiple and competing standards

**Message Syntax**
- XML DTD, XML Schema, XDR, SOX

**Message Format**
- OAG, BizTalk, SOAP, OASIS, RosettaNet

**Security**
- Digital Certs,
- XML Sigs

** ****Naming**
- URI

**Business Information Model**
- OAG, RosettaNet, cXML, CBL, ebXML, HL7, XML/EDI

**Business Process**
- UML, BPML, ebXML

**Business Rules**
- BPML, RuleML

**Horizontal Content**
- OAG, RosettaNet, cXML, CBL, OMG, eCo, boleroXML,
- eBIS-XML, STEPml, HL7, PDX, ebXML, XML/EDI

**Vertical Content**
- RosettaNet, OMG

**Trading Partner Profile**

**Multiple and competing standards**

**Notes:**
If we take an even closer look at the many levels of interoperability stack, it is easily seen why interoperability is hard to achieve:
- at many and all levels of the interoperability stack, there are many overlapping and competing standards
- these standards may be open or may be proprietary/product specific
- the organizations that work on the standard development may or may not be in sync with others and the users

If two different companies (or more within a supply chain) want to talk to each other, they have to agree on TPPs that cut across many layers of interoperability stack.
The impedence is great and is easily achieved at any layer if any industry doesn’t take an active role in driving the standards to convergence.

However, to make an informed decision which way to go, one also has to have a technically solid understanding of what standards are capable of doing.

Moreover, one should be able to assess that in a realistic situation, together with the fact whether the vendors are ready to support, how supportive the technologies are of the industry needs.

## Overall NIST Testbed

**Standards**
**Universe**

**OEMs**

**SMEs**

**Software **
**Vendors**

**Government**

**Consortia**

- Customers

**Government**
**Laboratories**

**Universities**

- Partners

**Consortia**

**Software**
**Vendors**

**Tools and Methods**

**OEMs**

- Standardization

**Commercial Interoperability Testbed**

- Assistance
- to Industry

**R&D **
**Interoperability Testbed**

- Fundamental
- Research

**Overall NIST Testbed**

**Notes:**
This is where the NIST testbed projects are trying to help - 
- identify state of the standards and technology
- drive the further development of the products
- assess the capability of the products, technology and standards

The overall structure of the NIST testbed activities is driven by the three requirements:
- help industry to address interoperability issues
- help standardization communities with technical assistance
- further the technology capabilities through R&D

The particular activity - OAG NIST B2B Interoperability testbed focuses  primarily on support to industry and this is the focus of this presentation.

## OAG/NIST Testbed Participants

**OAG/NIST Testbed Participants**

- Vendors
- BC Emergis
- Fujitsu
- QAD
- SAP
- Sterling Commerce
- Sun
- Sybase
- Accordare
- Drake Certivo
- Digital Evolution
- iWay
- Yellow Dragon
- Procede
- Industry Consortia
- AIAG
- STAR/XML

- Standards Organizations
- OAG
- ebXML IIC TC (OASIS)
- UN/CEFACT
- Users
- Covisint
- GM
- Ford
- Nissan
- Toyota
- Lockheed Martin
- Government
- USAF
- NIST

**Notes:**
Our current and past participants included all categories of stakeholders
- vendors (small and large)
- industry consortia
- standards organizations
- users
- government

## Testbed Interoperability Stack

**HTTP**

**SOAP**

**ebXML MS**

**CPP/A**

**BPSS**

**BODs**

**Testbed Node**

**Middleware 1**

**Middleware 2**

** **

**BPSI**

**Reflector & Monitor**

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

**Notes:**
A somewhat more detailed view of what type of integration scenarios can be addressed with the OAG/NIST testbed:
- at the level of the messaging - http, soap, ebms
- at the level of business processes - cpp/a and bpss
- at the business document content - XML and BOD support

However, only the HTTP-based integration and XML content  is necessary to be able to take advantage of the testbed monitor.

We provide monitoring and testing tools at each of these levels to help diagnose, monitor, test integration 

## A Focus on Checking Semantics

**A Focus on Checking Semantics**

## OAG/NIST Testbed Case Studies

**OAG/NIST Testbed Case Studies**

- STAR ebXML BPSS Pilot Test
- Auto-Tech 2003 Demo
- USAF Schema Design Quality Checking
- Automotive Inventory Visibility and Interoperability

**Notes:**
The three case studies that I’d like to discuss point at the type of major support the testbed can provide to the automotive and other industries:
- identifying b2b standards and products capabilities 
	such as is the case for the Autotech 2003 Demo 
- help steer plans for b2b standards and products
	such is the case in the inventory visibility and interoperability 	project
- assess interoperability of b2b standards and products
	such as was the case in the STAR XML project

## Assessing B2B interoperability:STAR XML

**Assessing B2B interoperability:****STAR XML**

**Focus:** Secure, automated interchange of auto retail business data over a TCP/IP-based infrastructure using industry consensus protocols

**Notes:**
The consortium has determined a series of business processes and protocols that need to be supported in order for dealers and oems to exchange information in cost-effective way 

## STAR/XML BPSS Test Architecture

**STAR/XML BPSS Test Architecture**

- Choreography Specification

## NIST Business Process Monitor

## Auto Tech 2003 Demo

**Covisint**

**JCI Plant**
**Ontario, CA**
**Covisint**

**Nissan**

**Internet**

**SanDiego Nissan**
**Procede Software**

**Border Crossing**
**Logistics Provider**
**BCE Emergis**

**Testing-Monitoring**
**Infrastructure**
**Accordare**

**B2BTest-Bed and**
**Business Process**
**Monitor **
**NIST**

**7**

**8**

**GM Dealer **
**Sybase**

**Supplier - T1**
**Sterling Commerce**

**GM**
**Sun**

**Metaldyne - T1**
**Digital Evolution**

**6**

**Development****Tools**
**SmartDraw**

**Auto Tech 2003 Demo**

**4**

**5**

**Supplier - T2**
**iWay**

**Notes:**
Our participants in the demonstration play these roles of dealers, oems, suppliers, and logistics providers.
There are two sub-scenarios:  
- the top, Logistics scenario - is initiated by a dealer sending a purchase order to an OEM (Nissan), who, in turn, communicates to its suppliers using Covisint hub, finally providing connectivity with logistics providers.
- the bottom, SCM scenario, also is initiated by a dealer message to an OEM which than is treated in two different manners to send Price and Product availability to its suppliers 
In both scenarios, the communication is choreographed and tracked using the testbed tools including monitoring and testing capabilities.

## USAF Schema Quality Check Motivation

**App Integrator - A**

**App Developer - B**

**App Developer - C**

**Central Apps **
**Integration Mgmt**

**Schemas - A**

**Schemas - C**

**Schemas - B**

**App 1**

**App 2**

**App 3**

**App 4**

**App 5**

**App 6**

**Schemas - C**

**Schemas - A**

**Schemas - B**

**Accepted Schemas**

**AF Portal**

**Accepted **
**Schemas**

** ****AF Logistic Integration**
** ****At least 78 systems in the Supply and Maintenance functional pillar only -> 1500 p2p**
** ****AF logistics has 15 functional pillars**
** ****Very hard to manage interoperability **
** ****Need centrally managed BODs portal**

**develop**

**develop**

**develop**

**submit**

**submit**

**submit**

**Analyze**

## A Current Project:  Inventory Visibility and Interoperability

**Customers allow suppliers visibility to key data to make operational decisions and support customer build.**
**Facilitate/simplify the use of inventory visibility tools through interoperability, allowing companies to subscribe to a single tool of their choice**

- Source: CGEY, January,2003

**Notes:**
The Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) is a North American automotive consortium that started the Inventory Visibility and Interoperability (IV&I) project to foster development of data exchange standards and B2B infrastructure enabling interoperable inventory visibility (IV) tools.  Currently, the automotive customer companies require suppliers to monitor customer inventory status and provide parts using IV tools that use proprietary data standards.  Consequently, a supplier must use multiple IV tools to communicate with multiple customers.  Once the IV data exchange standards are in place, the suppliers will use only one tool of their choosing to communicate with multiple IV tools on the customer side and, in this way, significantly cut the costs of training for, management, and operation of, the IV tools.

## International Collaboration

**International Collaboration**

- NBIT

- KorBIT

**European Projects**

## Korean B2B Interoperability Testbed Consortium

- Scenario/BOD & Validation

- Functionality & Validation

- Validation algorithm development
- Collaboration with NIST

- Testbed develpment issues

- Scenario & BOD issues

- KTNET

- InnoDigital

- Codic

- POSDATA

- POSTECH

- KATS

- KIEC

- Steel Industry

- Automotive Industry

- KAMA

- Interoperability demonstration and validation

- Operating Testbed

- Infrastructure preparation

- KorBIT

- Academy

- Government

- S/W Vendor

- End user

- Beta testing

- Development

- Research

- Organizing &
- Supporting

## Ultimate Goal

- KorBIT

- Test Requirements &
- Test Suites

- North America
- Test Labs

- Asia
- Test Labs

- Help Establish
- and
- Accredits

- Uses

- North America
- Vendor

- Asia
- Vendor

- Help Establish

- Runs
- Tests

- Runs
- Tests

- Accreditation Lab

- Accredits

- A Standards
- Organization

- Recognize

- Recognize

- A Standard

- Drives

- Uses

- Agree on and/or
- collaboratively develop

## Potential European Collaborations

- Framework 6 Projects:  Athena, Interop
- DG Enterprise Testbed Projects
- ETeB Project

## A Proposed International R&D Collaboration

**Tools and Methods**

**NIST Commercial Interop Testbed**

**NIST R&D **
**Interoperability Projects**

**Tools and Methods**

**European Testbed(s)**

**EC Framework 6**
**Projects (e.g., Athena)**

**Tools and Methods**

**KorBIT**

**KorBIT Research**
**Testbed**

**Challenge Problems**
**for Advanced Interoperability Technologies in eBusiness**

**A Proposed International R&D Collaboration**

## Conclusion

- Value proposition
- Minimize cost of demonstrating/testing interoperable B2B solutions
- Maximize collaboration and cost sharing
- International collaboration supports global interoperability