Continuous Operational Interoperability

Nicolas Figay

► To cite this version:

Nicolas Figay. Continuous Operational Interoperability. Computer Science [cs]. Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1; LIRIS UMR 5205 CNRS/INSA de Lyon/Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1/Université Lumière Lyon 2/École Centrale de Lyon, 2021. tel-04413469v2

HAL Id: tel-04413469

https://hal.science/tel-04413469v2

Submitted on 11 Feb 2024

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
# HABILITATION A DIRIGER DES RECHERCHES
DE L'UNIVERSITÉ DE LYON

opérée au sein de

l'Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1

Ecole Doctorale N° 512

Informatique et Mathématiques

Discipline : Informatique

Soutenue publiquement/à huis clos le 12/07/2021, par :

Nicolas Figay

Continuous Operational Interoperability

Interopérabilité Opérationnelle Continue

Devant le jury composé de :

Biennier, Frédérique, Professeur des Universités, INSA de Lyon, Présidente

Ait Ameur, Yamine, Professeur des Universités, L'INP-ENSEEIHT, Toulouse, Rapporteur

Charoy, François, Professeur des Universités, Université de Lorraine, Rapporteur

Koukam, Abderrafiaa, Professeur des Universités, Université de Technologie de Belfort-Montbéliard,
Rapporteur

Drira, Khalil, Directeur de Recherche, CNRS Toulouse, Examinateur

Goncalves, Ricardo, Professeur des Université, NOVA University of Lisbon, Examinateur

Exposito, Ernesto, Professeur des Universités, Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour, Examinateur

Ghodous, Parisa, Professeur des Universités, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Examinatrice
<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
# Acknowledgement

First of all, I would like to thank the members of my jury. I address my warmest thanks to Pr Yamine Ait Ameur, Pr François Charoy and Pr Abderrafiaa Koukam for accepting to be reviewer of this brief and for their insightful and constructive comments.

I warmly thank Frédérique Biennier for having accepted to chair my jury.

I also express my gratitude Pr Parisa Ghodous, Pr Ernesto Exposito and Pr Ricardo Gonçalves for having agreed to participate in my jury.

I would like to express my thanks to Parisa Ghodous who many years ago suggested that I make a thesis. She not only supervised it, but also allowed me to co-supervise Malik Khalfallah's one, making it possible for me to pretend to have this Authorization to Drive Research. Our collaboration for publications has always been fruitful and an actual pleasure.

With great sincerity, I thank David Tchoffa I met during the SIP project, and who always encouraged me and pushed me for writing research articles, in particular after the closure of the research department of Airbus. I also thank Ernesto Exposito, who made the collaboration between LAAS and EADS a success during the IMAGINE project.

I don't forget those who trusted me and relied on me for my expertise, giving me opportunities for further personal development, exciting and challenging projects, fruitful collaborations and better visibility: Jean-Yves Delaunay, Jean Brangé, Frédéric Féru, Yves Baudier, Jean-Yves Mondon, Amaury Soubeyran, Frédéric Darré, Pierre Duchier, Sophie Herail, Thomas Vosgien, Lyes Kermad, El Mouloudi Dafaoui, Kevin Letutour, Véronique Dubillot, Pierre Faure ...

Obviously, I will not forget to recall here the great pleasure experienced in working alongside the students, applicants or PhD, and for the continuous feedback they gave me about their career evolution and successes: Malik Khalfalah, Emna Moones, Jonas Martin, Sebastien Guermonprez, Ludovic Duchemin, Sophie Gatoux, Raphaël Lang, Flora Robin ... I wish them all the best for the future.

To all other members of the research, standardization or industrial project teams I participated in, as well as the other members of the organizations that I come into contact with daily, here is the sign of my gratitude and my friendship.

I also would like to give huge thanks to the passionate and brilliant people who have been producing incredible open standards or open source free software relying on open standards over the years. I learnt so much from them, and they have always been a source of inspiration. I'm thinking in particular of Phil Beauvoir & Jean-Baptiste Sarrodie (Archi for Open Group's ArchiMate), Sasa Bojanic (Shark and JaWe - workflow editor and engine based on Wfmc standards), Brian Chan (Liberay Horizontal portal),

I just can't forget to mention some important influencers (at least for me) such as Guy Doumeingts (Gray Methodology author, and a major contributor to Enterprise Application Interoperability through IDEAS and, Interop), Hervé Panetto (Holons for systems synchronisation and interoperability), Tim Berner Lee (Semantic Web), Jean-Jacques Urban-Gallindo (PSA PLM), Laurent Gouzenes (KM3), Christophe Longépé (Controlled Urbanisation of Information Systems), Gerben Wierda (Mastering ArchiMate), Ed Barkmeyer (NIST expert), Joel de Rosnay ("Le macroscope"), Isaak Asimov (Robots and Foundation cycles), Frank Herbert (Dune) and so many others.

Finally, a special thought will go to Françoise, Romain and Charlotte to whom I dedicate this memoir as well as to all my family.
# Contents

<table><tr><td>Acknowledgement</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Résumé du mémoire d'HDR « Interopérabilité Opérationnelle Continue »</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Introduction</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 1 - Activity Report</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>1.1 - Curriculum Vitae</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>1.2 - Professional and Research activities</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>1.3 - Teaching activities derived from research activity</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>1.4 - Research activities</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>1.5 - Research projects</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>1.6 - Scientific influence</td><td>47</td></tr><tr><td>1.7 - Supervision</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>1.8 - List of publications</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 2 - Introduction to Interoperability</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>2.1 - The Business Context</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>2.2 - Definitions of Interoperability</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>2.3 - Resolution of Interoperability Approaches</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>2.4 - Limitations</td><td>77</td></tr><tr><td>2.5 - Conclusion</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 3 - Federation of Frameworks</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>3.1 - Proposed Federated Interoperability Framework Motivation</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>3.2 - Federation of Interoperability Frameworks Principles</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>3.3 - Federation of Interoperability Frameworks on long term</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>3.4 - Analysis and conclusion</td><td>99</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 4 - Semantic Preservation</td><td>102</td></tr><tr><td>4.1 - The problem</td><td>102</td></tr><tr><td>4.2 - The proposed innovative approach</td><td>103</td></tr><tr><td>4.3 - Demonstrations, results and Limitations</td><td>109</td></tr><tr><td>4.4 - Hyper-models mixing Modular Composite Models and Semantic Graphs</td><td>111</td></tr><tr><td>4.5 - Conclusion</td><td>113</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 6 - Dynamic Networking</td><td>114</td></tr><tr><td>6.1 - The problem</td><td>114</td></tr><tr><td>6.2 - The proposed innovative approach</td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td>6.3 - Analysis and Conclusion</td><td>119</td></tr><tr><td>7 - The PLM Interoperability Testbed</td><td>123</td></tr><tr><td>7.1 - The problem</td><td>123</td></tr><tr><td>7.2 - The proposed innovative approach</td><td>124</td></tr><tr><td>7.3 - Analysis and conclusion</td><td>130</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 8 - Conclusion and perspectives</td><td>132</td></tr><tr><td>Bibliography</td><td>134</td></tr><tr><td>References of considered standards</td><td>135</td></tr><tr><td>PLM Standardization related organizations</td><td>140</td></tr></table>
Résumé du mémoire d'HDR « Interopérabilité Opérationnelle Continue »

J'effectue depuis de nombreuses années (depuis 1997) des activités relatives à l'interopérabilité des applications techniques d'entreprise en lien avec la mise en œuvre des standards d'échange, de partage et de pérennité des données décrivant le produit et les processus associés. Ces activités se sont faites en étroite collaboration avec le monde académique, le monde industriel et le monde de la normalisation. Cela m'a permis de développer un profil d'expert reconnu internationalement (Expert Airbus, Expert International à l'ISO), y compris dans le monde de la recherche avec la réalisation d'une thèse sur le sujet défendu en 2009 à l'Université C.B. Lyon 1 sous la direction de Pr. Parisa Ghodous.

Depuis, j'ai encadré des travaux de thèses, toujours avec l'étroite collaboration entre mon
entreprise et mes partenaires académiques. J'ai également contribué à l'état de l'art au travers
de diverses publications scientifiques sur la thématique liée à mon expertise. Obtenir
l'habilitation à encadrer la recherche s'inscrit tant dans mon projet de recherche que dans mon
projet professionnel au sein d'Airbus.

En termes de recherche, l'ambition est de continuer à faire progresser l'état de l'art tout en transmettant le savoir acquis durant ces 20 dernières années à de jeunes chercheurs.

Au sein d'Airbus, l'objectif est de faire évoluer le cadre d'interopérabilité développé pour répondre, en s'appuyant sur l'état de l'art et les meilleurs pratiques industrielles, aux défis liés à la digitalisation que les membres de l'industrie aéronautique, spatiale et défense doit relever pour rester compétitifs.

Mon principal thème de recherche est l'établissement de l'interopérabilité opérationnelle continue, et ce à un coût acceptable, requise pour le Product Life cycle Management<fnref n="1" />.

Mes travaux de recherche ont visé à définir une approche innovante pour soutenir, préparer et
construire une interopérabilité opérationnelle continue entre les applications, et ce à un coût
acceptable, dans un environnement commercial et technique en constante évolution. Les
applications sont distribuées au sein des entreprises et à l'extérieur des entreprises, c'est-à-dire
au sein des chaînes d'approvisionnement d'écosystèmes numériques d'entreprises collaborant
autour de produits donnés incluant des filières multiples. L'interopérabilité souhaitée doit se
construire tant au niveau de l'organisation des entreprises et de leurs processus, qui s'appuient
sur ces applications, que sur les technologies permettant de réaliser ces applications et de les
connecter. Les données sont distribuées entre divers systèmes interconnectés et en
reconfiguration permanente. Enfin, la sémantique des données doit être préservée en dépit des
multiples transformations qu'elles subissent pour pouvoir être manipulées et traitées par des
produits logiciels extrêmement hétérogènes et en constante évolution.

<footnote n="1">¹ « Une approche stratégique qui applique un ensemble cohérent de solutions pour soutenir la création, la gestion, la diffusion et l'utilisation collaboratives des informations de définition de produit dans toute l'entreprise étendue, et s'étendant du concept de produit à la fin de vie - intégrant les personnes, les processus, les systèmes métier et les informations. » (CIMDATA glossary)</footnote>
Adresser cette thématique de recherche m'a amené à :

* Soutenir une thèse de doctorat et obtenir le titre de docteur en informatique

* Co-encadrer 4 doctorants et 5 masters

* Publier 9 articles dans des revues internationales, 18 chapitres d'ouvrage et 25 communications dans des conférences du premier plan.

* Monter et réaliser de nombreuses études de recherche au sein du réseau de recherche et technologies du Groupe, environ 60 sur 20 ans

* Lancer, piloter ou contribuer à 15 projets de recherche européens ou français

* Evaluer et caractériser une centaine de technologies et standards censés permettre de construire l'interopérabilité, ainsi que des modèles et des cadres d'operability

* Publier 67 articles de vulgarisation sur LinkedIn depuis 2016, qui ont cumulé 200 000 vues et permis la constitution d'un réseau d'environ 10 000 suiveurs.

* Etre invités à plus de 30 conférences nationales et internationales pour présenter mes travaux

* Etre reconnu comme expert international dans les organismes de standardisation depuis 1997

* Etre reconnu comme expert au sein d'Airbus depuis 2004

* Etre invité à présenter les résultats de mes travaux à une trentaine de conférences

* Dispenser environ 2500 heures de cours depuis 2002 à des étudiants de master niveau M2

D'après l'état de l'art et de la pratique, l'operability est une thématique de recherche importante (mentionnée par 2157 projets européens) qui s'applique à de très nombreux domaines. La définition de l'operability dépend du domaine et des systèmes considérés donc il est nécessaire de clairement définir l'operability visée dans le contexte du PLM et de préciser le système d'intérêt.

En outre, les besoins d'operability ont donné lieu au développement de nombreux modèles, plateformes et standards avec les cadres associés. Néanmoins ces derniers, considérés séparément, ne répondent pas de manière exhaustive aux besoins relatifs à la préparation et à la construction d'une operability continue à un coût acceptable pour le PLM, notamment du fait de nombreux problèmes identifiés qui ont pu être collectés et évalués sur le long terme au travers de retours d'expérience de projet tant opérationnels que de standardisation et de recherche sur le sujet.

Pouvoir adresser l'ensemble de ces problèmes de manière consistante a guidé la définition de activités de recherche que j'ai pilotées, et de définir les problématiques pour lesquelles il a été possible de proposer des approches innovantes contribuant à l'état de l'art.

Mes quatre principales contributions à l'état de l'art sont :

1. La fédération des cadres et solutions d'operability. Il s'agit d'une approche innovante pour utiliser conjointement les cadres et les solutions d'operability existantes, qu'il s'agisse de modèles de référence, de plateformes, de solutions ou de standards. Ces cadres et solutions ont chacun leur propre cycle de vie, et sont développées mais surtout gouvernées de manière indépendante et par des acteurs différents. Ceci impose d'adopter une approche permettant de fédérer ces cadres pour sélectionner des ensembles consistants de standards et de solutions les implémentant, couvrant de manière globale l'ensemble des besoins, afin de pouvoir préparer, en lien avec la gouvernance, et construire, en lien avec l'architecture du système considéré, l'operability opérationnelle. Les
solutions retenues sont en particulier celles identifiées par la communauté de recherche sur l'interopérabilité des applications d'entreprises : la modélisation d'entreprise, l'ingénierie par les modèles, les plateformes d'exécution de modèles orientées services et les ontologies. L'évolution continue des environnements métiers et des technologies de l'information et de la communication implique de gérer en configuration l'ensemble des solutions à utiliser et de s'appuyer sur une architecture modulaire, composite et reconfigurable du système à considérer. Du fait des contraintes PLM, notamment liées à la rétention des informations sur des périodes excédant la durée de vie des pratiques métiers et des solutions utilisées qui deviennent obsolètes très rapidement, l'approche doit de plus permettre la rénovation et l'extension continue et à un rythme soutenu des systèmes considérés. Ici encore, l'interopérabilité doit être maintenue à coût acceptable tout en adressant les risques associés à ces évolutions. Cette approche a été développée et utilisée de manière continue, en s'appuyant sur une plateforme collaborative expérimentale, la cPlatform, qui a connu des itérations successives selon un processus défini par cette même approche. Ceci a permis d'évaluer, de valider et de démontrer l'approche, ce qui a donné lieu à la publication de plusieurs articles scientifiques, au développement de nombreux démonstrateurs et à l'implication tant de thésards que d'étudiants M2 en apprentissage.

2. La préservation sémantique. Il s'agit d'une approche permettant de préserver la sémantique des données lorsque l'on met en œuvre tant les processus PLM s'appuyant sur les normes d'interopérabilité PLM que les processus d'ingénierie par les modèles des composants applicatifs d'une plateforme PLM collaborative. Elle est motivée par le constat que toute transformation de données visant à changer de langage amène forcément une perte de données, du fait de l'absence d'une équivalence 1 à 1 de toutes les constructions des langages utilisés. L'approche proposée s'appuie sur le concept de l'hypermodèle, qui est un ensemble de représentations d'une même chose avec des langages et pour des usages différents. Ce concept a été étendu pour supporter l'interopérabilité PLM au travers de l'approche de fédération des cadres et standards d'interopérabilité, et afin de pouvoir générer automatiquement des composants des plateformes de collaboration à partir des standards. Une première proposition, issue de ma thèse, a adressé les multiples représentations de graphes sémantiques, sans prendre en compte les représentations modulaires avec des langages de descriptions composites. Les limitations des graphes sémantiques ont été identifiées pour l'échange de telles représentations. Ceci a donné lieu à une seconde proposition innovante pour modéliser des représentations s'appuyant sur la sémantique d'un langage métier au-dessus des langages de modélisation supportant la modularisation et les modèles composites. Cette approche devrait permettre de coupler l'usage des technologies du Web sémantique permettant de publier des ontologies sur le Web avec l'usage des modèles produits par l'ingénierie système par les modèles. Ces travaux ont donné lieu à plusieurs publications scientifiques, au développement de plusieurs démonstrateurs et à de multiples cas d'usage permettant de valider l'approche.

3. La modélisation de la mise en réseau dynamique des entreprises collaborant pour les produits manufacturés. Il s'agit d'une approche répondant aux limitations des standards de modélisation d'entreprise pour adresser la problématique visant à préparer et à construire l'interopérabilité opérationnelle et continue pour le PLM. En effet, ces langages sont en général assez limités en ce qui concerne la représentation d'un produit dans un contexte PLM. Une telle modélisation est nécessaire et pertinente pour planifier, qualifier et surveiller les capacités des membres d'un réseau dynamique industriel à collaborer en utilisant les standards PLM avec des participants, personnes ou applications, qualifiés. Une approche innovante a été proposée pour supporter ces besoins au sein d'un écosystème numérique mature en termes d'interopérabilité, utilisant des hubs PLM collaboratifs. Pour
les processus collaboratifs mis à disposition pour exécution au travers du hub, les capacités requises par chaque type de participants considéré dans ces processus, ou rôle, sont décrites. Chaque partenaire souhaitant jouer un rôle dans tel ou tel processus développe ses capacités pour pouvoir jouer ce rôle. Il devient ainsi un participant potentiel qualifié, et il publie cette information au sein du hub. Une collaboration ne peut être mise en œuvre selon un processus collaboratif basé sur l'usage des normes PLM que lorsque que l'on peut trouver des participants pour jouer chaque rôle défini par le processus. Le modèle de processus de collaboration devient ainsi un contrat de collaboration, et le hub de collaboration un médiateur. L'approche a donné lieu à une expérimentation au-dessus de la cPlatform. Pour cela, trois composants de la cPlatform ont été étendus par l'implémentation des fonctionnalités requises pour mettre en œuvre cette approche. Elle a donné lieu à plusieurs articles de recherche. La capacité à coupler les processus des partenaires au travers du processus de collaboration a donné lieu à une thèse que j'ai co-encadrée, sur l'interopérabilité des processus.

4. **Banc d'essai pour l'interopérabilité PLM.** L'approche innovante proposée vise à répondre à des limitations identifiées concernant la capacité des membres d'un écosystème numérique collaborant au travers d'un hub PLM à évaluer les standards PLM à mettre en œuvre d'une part, et à spécifier et tester les implémentations de ces standards par les produits logiciels réalisant leurs applications d'autre part. Une approche innovante a été proposée qui consiste à faire de la plateforme collaborative un banc de test d'interopérabilité. Dans la phase d'évaluation des normes et d'expérimentation, la plateforme peut être générée automatiquement par une usine logicielle, s'appuyant sur une librairie de composants qui s'enrichit au fur et à mesure. Cette évaluation donne lieu à la création de jeux de données de tests, et de procédures de test qui pourront être rejoué dans la phase de test. Dans la phase de test des solutions applicatives des partenaires implémentant ces normes, la plateforme permet de rejouer les scénarios de test et réaliser tant des tests unitaires par application, que d'intégration pour toutes les applications à impliquer dans une collaboration. Enfin, dans une logique d'intégration continue, la plateforme peut être utilisée pour surveiller le déroulement des collaborations et identifier des dysfonctionnements demandant des actions correctives. L'approche proposée a donné lieu à des publications scientifiques, et a pu être appliquée sur une dizaine de cas concrets, démontrant sa pertinence, tant pour l'évaluation de normes et de leurs implémentations avec plusieurs types de technologie que pour l'évaluation de la mise en œuvre d'une norme dans un contexte industriel. Enfin, elle a donné lieu à une collaboration pour la réalisation d'une thèse avec la mise en œuvre des normes d'intégration entre l'entreprise et l'usine.

Toutes ces contributions à l'état de l'art adressent la même problématique: adresser conjointement l'ensemble des freins identifiés qui empêchent d'obtenir l'interopérabilité opérationnelle continue requise pour le PLM. Néanmoins tous les freins ne sont pas adressés, et tant les pratiques que les technologies émergentes amènent de nouveaux problèmes nécessitant de faire progresser l'état de l'art et la transformation numérique. Trois perspectives à court terme concernent l'interopérabilité PLM en relation avec le Cloud, l'Intelligence Artificielle (IA) et les produits connectés autonomes.

1. **PLM collaboratif au-dessus de cloud distribués et hétérogènes:** les tendances actuelles concernant le Cloud entrainent l'utilisation de plus en plus fréquente de containers orchestrés pour des solutions élastiques à bases de micro services. Cela amène une nouvelle complexité, tant en termes de technologies que de gouvernance. Quels sont les standards requis, existants ou à développer, à fédérer avec ceux déjà identifiés pour maintenir
l'interopérabilité PLM dans les écosystèmes numériques? Un aspect particulier est lié à l'impact de la virtualisation sur la capacité à préparer et à construire l'interopérabilité.

2. PLM **collaboratif et technologies de l'IA**: les tendances actuelles concernant l'intelligence artificielle, qu'il s'agisse de bases de connaissances avec moteurs de règles ou d'apprentissage en profondeur, posent la question de la publication ou de la mise à disposition des données décrivant les produits et les processus associés vers ce type de solutions. Comment préserver la sémantique et le contexte d'interprétation des données en question pour les intégrer dans une chaîne de collaboration maitrisée? Un aspect particulier est lié à la capacité de produire des représentations multiples de règles métier échangeables entre les plateformes technologiques, de telles sortes que les informations produites par les systèmes d'IA soient consistantes avec les données sources en provenance des plateformes PLM.

3. **Banc d'essai PLM étendu pour des produits connectés autonomes avec jumeaux numériques**: les tendances actuelles concernant les « makers», en lien avec l'extension de l'open source au matériel et aux processus de fabrication additifs, créent une situation nouvelle sans précédent : des produits complets s'appuyant sur des technologies innovantes sont mis à disposition sur étagère, avec les modèles de conception et les processus de fabrication permettant de les construire rapidement avec des coûts très bas, comme prototypes parfaits des nouveaux produits devant communiquer ou interagir avec leurs environnements. Tout en étant représentatifs de la nouvelle complexité à appréhender pour ces types de produits, ils ne sont pas soumis aux contraintes rencontrées pour les autres produits industriels concernant l'accès aux données, qui sont en général confidentielles ou difficiles d'accès. Ils sont par conséquent des composants de choix pour constituer de nouveaux types de banc d'essai pour l'interopérabilité PLM à établir pour des produits connectés autonomes et des jumeaux numériques. Les modèles de conceptions des produits peuvent être réutilisés pour dériver des jumeaux numériques de ces produits, pour leur surveillance, leur paramétrage ou leur contrôle à distance dans les divers contextes reflétés par une plateforme collaborative PLM bâtie selon les principes de l'approche fédérative.

Ces sujets sont propres à faire surgir de nouveaux problèmes d'interopérabilité dont la résolution se fera dans le cadre de l'approche globale définie avec la Fédération des cadre et solutions d'interopérabilité, permettant d'intégrer les activités de recherche dans des cycles d'innovation raccourcis et adaptés au nouveau contexte résultant de l'évolution des technologies de l'information et de la communication.

Le manuscrit est structuré en sept chapitres.

* Le premier chapitre décrit mes activités liées à la recherche et à l'enseignement.

* Le second chapitre introduit le sujet de l'interopérabilité PLM basé sur les standards PLM.

* Le troisième chapitre décrit ma contribution relative à la Fédération des cadres d'interopérabilité.

* Le quatrième chapitre décrit ma contribution relative à la Préservation Sémantique.

* Le cinquième chapitre décrit ma contribution relative à la mise en réseau dynamique.

* Le sixième chapitre décrit ma contribution relative au banc de test pour l'interopérabilité.

* Le septième chapitre conclut et présente les perspectives de nouvelles contributions à la thématique de l'interopérabilité opérationnelle continue pour le PLM.
# Introduction

For many years (since 1997) I have been carrying out activities relating to the interoperability of business technical applications in connection with the implementation of standards for the exchange, sharing and sustainability of data describing the product and the associated processes. These activities were carried out in close collaboration with the academic world, the industrial world and the world of standardization. This allowed me to develop an internationally recognized expert profile (Airbus Expert, International Expert at ISO), including in the world of research with the completion of a thesis on the subject defended in 2009 at the CB Lyon 1 University under the supervision of Pr. Parisa Ghodous. Since then, I have supervised thesis work, always with the close collaboration between my company and my academic partners. I have also contributed to the state of the art through various scientific publications on the theme related to my expertise. Obtaining authorization to supervise research is part of both my research project and my professional project within Airbus. In terms of research, the ambition is to continue to advance the state of the art while passing on the knowledge acquired over the past 20 years to young researchers. Within Airbus, the objective is to develop the interoperability framework developed to respond, based on the state of the art and best industrial practices, to the challenges linked to digitization that the members of the Aeronautics, Space and Defense industry must step up to remain competitive.

My main research topic is establishing the continuous operational interoperability, at an acceptable cost, required for Product Life Cycle Management (PLM).

My research has aimed to define an innovative approach to support, prepare and build continuous operational interoperability between applications, at an acceptable price in a constantly evolving commercial and technical environment. The applications are distributed within companies and outside companies that is to say within the supply chains of digital ecosystems of companies collaborating around given products including multiple sectors. The desired interoperability must be built both at the level of the organization of companies and their processes, which are based on these applications, and on the technologies enabling these applications to be produced and connected. The data is distributed among various interconnected systems and in permanent reconfiguration. Finally, the semantics of data must be preserved despite the multiple transformations they undergo in order to be able to be manipulated and processed by extremely heterogeneous and constantly evolving software products

Addressing this theme has been performed through various research projects and led me to defend a doctoral thesis, to supervise PhD and students' work, to teach and to publish. It led to be recognized within the industrial, standardization and academic world.

According to the state of the art and the practice, interoperability is an important research topic (mentioned by 2157 European projects) which applies to very many fields. The definition of interoperability depends on the domain and the systems considered, so it is necessary to clearly define the intended interoperability in the context of PLM and to specify the system of interest.

In addition, interoperability needs have given rise to the development of many models, platforms and standards with associated frameworks. However, the latter, considered
separately, do not exhaustively meet the needs relating to the preparation and construction of
continuous interoperability at an acceptable cost for the PLM, in particular due to the many
problems identified that could be collected and evaluated over the long term through feedback
from the project, both operational and standardization and research on the subject.

Being able to address all of these problems in a consistent manner guided the definition of my
research activities, and to define the problems for which I was able to propose innovative
approaches contributing to the state of the art.

My four main contributions to the state of the art are:

1. **The federation of interoperability frameworks and solutions.** It is an innovative approach to jointly use existing interoperability frameworks and solutions, whether they are reference models, platforms, solutions or standards. These frameworks and solutions each have their own life cycle, and are developed but above all governed independently and by different actors. This requires adopting an approach making it possible to federate these frameworks in order to select consistent sets of standards and solutions implementing them, covering all the needs in a global manner, in order to be able to prepare, in connection with governance, and build, in link with the architecture of the considered system, operational interoperability. The solutions selected are in particular those identified by the research community on the interoperability of business applications: enterprise modelling, model based engineering, service-oriented model execution platforms and ontologies. The continuous evolution of business environments and information and communication technologies involves managing all the solutions to be used in configuration and relying on a modular, composite and reconfigurable architecture of the system to be considered. It is due to PLM constraints particularly related to the retention of information over periods exceeding the lifespan of the business practices and the used solution components - which become obsolete very quickly. The approach must also allow continuous renovation, upgrade and extension of the considered collaborative systems, with a sustained pace. Here again, interoperability must be maintained at an acceptable cost while addressing the risks associated with these changes. This approach has been developed and used on an ongoing basis, relying on an experimental collaborative platform that has undergone successive iterations according to a process defined by this same approach. This made it possible to evaluate, validate and demonstrate the approach, which resulted in the publication of several scientific articles, the development of numerous demonstrators and the involvement of both PhD students and M2 students in apprenticeship.

2. **Semantic preservation.** This is an approach to preserve the semantics of data when implementing both PLM processes based on PLM interoperability standards and Model Based Engineering processes of the applicative components of a collaborative PLM platform (Software Factory). It is motivated by the observation that any data transformation aiming to change language inevitably leads to a loss of data, due to the absence of a 1 to 1 equivalence of all the constructions of the used languages. The proposed approach is based on the concept of the hypermodel, which is a set of representations of the same thing with different languages and for different uses. This concept has been extended to support PLM interoperability through the federation approach of interoperability frameworks and standards. In this approach, automated generation of the components of collaboration platforms from the elected standards is to be supported. A first proposal, resulting from my thesis, addressed the multiple representations of semantic graphs, without taking into account the modular representations with composite description languages. The limitations of semantic graphs
have been identified for the exchange of such representations. This gave rise to a second
innovative proposal to model representations based on the semantics of a business
language on top of modelling languages supporting modularization and composite models.
This approach should make it possible to couple the use of knowledge base relying on
ontology, semantic web and linked data technologies, with the use of models produced by
Model Based System Engineering. This work has given rise to several scientific
publications, the development of several demonstrators and multiple use cases to validate
the approach.

3. **Modeling of the dynamic networking of companies collaborating for manufactured products.** This is an approach that meets the limitations of standardized enterprise modelling languages to address the issue of preparing and building operational and continuous interoperability for PLM. Indeed, these languages are generally quite limited when it comes to the representation of a product in a PLM context. Such modelling is necessary and relevant to plan, qualify and monitor the capabilities of members of a dynamic industrial network to collaborate using PLM standards with qualified participants, people or applications. An innovative approach has been proposed to support these needs within a mature digital ecosystem in terms of interoperability, using collaborative PLM hubs. For the collaborative processes made available for execution through a hub, the capacities required by each type of participant considered in these processes, i.e. role, are described. Each partner wishing to play a role in a particular process develops the capacities to be able to play this role. He thus becomes a qualified potential participant, and he publishes this information within the hub. Collaboration can only be implemented in a collaborative process based on the use of PLM standards when participants can be found to play each role defined by the process. The collaboration process model thus becomes a collaboration contract, and the collaboration hub a mediator. The approach gave rise to an experiment above the cPlatform. For this, three components of the cPlatform have been extended by implementing the functionalities required to implement this approach. It has given rise to several research articles. The ability to couple partner processes through the collaboration process gave rise to a thesis that I co-supervised, on the interoperability of processes.

4. **PLM interoperability test bench.** The proposed innovative approach aims to respond to the identified limitations concerning the ability of members of a digital ecosystem collaborating through a PLM hub to assess the PLM standards to be implemented on the one hand, and to specify and test the implementations of these standards by software products carrying out their applications on the other hand. An innovative approach has been proposed which consists of making the collaborative platform an interoperability test bed. In the standards assessment and experimentation phase, the platform can be generated automatically by a software factory, relying on a library of components that is enriched over time. This evaluation gives rise to the creation of test data sets, and test procedures that can be replayed in the test phase. In the test phase of the application solutions of partners implementing these standards, the platform makes it possible to replay the test scenarios and perform both unit tests per application, and integration for all the applications to be involved in collaboration. Finally, in logic of continuous integration, the platform can be used to monitor the progress of collaborations and identify dysfunctions requiring corrective actions, including improvement or extensions of the standards. The proposed approach has given rise to scientific publications, and has been applied to around ten concrete cases, demonstrating its relevance, both for the evaluation of standards and their implementations with several types of technology and for the evaluation of the implementation of a standard in an industrial context. Finally, it gave
rise to collaboration for the completion of a thesis for the implementation of integration
standards between the company and the factory.

All of these state-of-the-art contributions address the same issue: jointly addressing all of the identified brakes that prevent obtaining the continuous operational interoperability required for PLM. However, all the brakes are not addressed, and both practices and emerging technologies bring new problems that require advancing the state of the art and supporting digital transformation. Three short-term perspectives concern PLM interoperability in relation to the Cloud, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and autonomous connected products.

These subjects are likely to give rise to new interoperability problems, the resolution of which
will be done relying on the global approach defined with the Federation of interoperability
frameworks and solutions, making it possible to integrate research activities into shortened
cycles for innovation, for a better adaptation to the new context resulting from the evolution
of information and communication technologies.

The manuscript is structured into seven chapters.

* The first chapter describes my activities related to research and teaching.

* The second chapter introduces the subject of PLM interoperability based on PLM standards.

* The third chapter describes my contribution relating to the Federation of Interoperability Frameworks.

* The fourth chapter describes my contribution relating to Semantic Preservation.

* The fifth chapter describes my contribution to dynamic networking.

* The sixth chapter describes my contribution relating to the test bench for interoperability.

* The seventh chapter concludes and presents the perspectives of new contributions to the theme of continuous operational interoperability for PLM.
# Chapter 1 - Activity Report

## 1.1 - Curriculum Vitae

**First Name:** Nicolas

**Family Name:** Figay

**Birth date and place:** 17/09/1965 at Paris

**Nationality:** French

### Actual Professional situation

**Title:** Researcher - Interoperability for PLM Expert, System-Architect

**Employer:** AIRBUS

**Since:** 1st of September 1991

### Diploma

2009: PHD in Computer Science (Doctorat en informatique) entitled « Technical Enterprise application interoperability» at University Claude Bernard - Lyon I, 27/11/2009.

* Jury members: Dr Shaw Feng, Pr. Ricardo Jardim-Goncalvez, Pr. Yvon Gardan, Dr Jean-Yves Mondon (Industry expert)

* Supervisor: Pr. Parisa GHODOUS

* Reporters: Pr. Aris M. Ouksel, Pr. Yamine Aït-Ameur.

* Defence the 27-11-2009 at University Lyon 1, within the frame of "École Doctorale d'Informatique et Mathématiques (Lyon)" , in partnership with LIRIS laboratory (Laboratoire d'Informatique en Image et Systèmes d'information - Lyon, Rhône)

1991: E.I.S.T.I. Engineer diploma (Ecole Internationale Sciences du Traitement de l'Information – CERGY- France), specialization « mathematics for decision”

### Previous Professional situations

Since 2019: System Architect at Airbus Defence & Space within Engineering Department

**Missions:**

* Leading the System Engineering Governance Group which defines the requirements for Enterprise Architecture Framework Definition & Airbus Company architecture modelling.

* Supporting Programs as System Architect, disseminating and applying Model Based System Engineering practices, contributing to PLM strategic standardization as an expert.

2018-2019: Advanced Engineering Domain Architect at Airbus Defence & Space within the Information System Department

**Mission:** Production of Architecture Dossiers for Engineering Domain solutions in alignment with Enterprise Information System governance, Digitalization strategy and Operations.

**Results and realization:** Successful deployment and shared Return on experience for cross-enterprise collaborative cloud on Azure
**1997-2018: Research Engineer at Airbus Group Innovations** within the department dedicated to system engineering and PLM data engineering

**Mission:** supporting Airbus Group and his industrial programs

* for Process & Product data exchange, sharing and long term archiving needs

* By making the link between research community and industry

**Drivers:** Manufacturing 4.0, Concurrent Engineering aiming at reducing the time to market, efficient and secured eBusiness collaboration within the extended enterprise, Model Driven Engineering with multi-disciplinary simulation, certification and traceability constraints for Airbus Group's products, Software obsolescence

**Results and realizations:**

1. Contribution to Airbus Group PLM harmonization since 2004

* Airbus Group representative/French international expert for ISO 10303 (STEP)

* Participation as expert to PLM strategic standardization groups since 2004

* Contribution to several standards development, implementation and usage projects for PLM (e.g. AP242 : « Managed model based 3D engineering » and AP239 : « Product Life Cycle Support »)

* Orientation of research via contribution to several research roadmap, being Airbus Internal or related to international or national research framework programs

2. European/national research projects and research studies for Airbus Group divisions (Civil Aircraft, Helicopters, Defence and space: proposal writing, management, technical and scientific coordination/contribution)

**Some figures:** 13 research projects since 1997, more than 29 scientific publications since 2004)

**1991-1997 Project manager and software solution development at Aerospatiale**, Centre des Technologies de l'information, Suresnes

**Mission:** analysis, design and realization of applications within various domains

Some realizations:

* Analytic accounting of Aerospatiale

* Statistical Analysis of deformation of melded items of an aircraft

* Applications for headquarter applications related to human HR, Training & Payment

## 1.2 - Professional and Research activities

My research activities concern resolving Interoperability of Technical Enterprise applications based on Open Standards. I present below these activities in chronological order.

### 1.2.1 - Before 1997

I was initially an Engineer in the area of Sciences of Data Processing, with specialization in Mathematics for Decision. I spent 6 years as a Project Manager in the Information and Communication Technologies department at Aerospatiale. It gave me the opportunity to perform all the activities related to application development: capture and analysis of users' needs, design, development, deployment, support and evolution/migration - and to use and master a wide set of technologies and methods.
### 1.2.2 - From 1997 to 2018

From 1997, as researcher at Airbus Group Innovations, I carried out various research activities related to the usage of open standards as interoperability enablers for Product Data Exchange, Sharing & Long Term Archiving, Concurrent Engineering within the Supply Chain, Cross Life Cycle Interoperability for Product Life Cycle Management, or Virtual Manufacturing within a Dynamic Manufacturing Network. It took advantage of emerging information technologies supporting engineering practices.

In this department, I had also to carry out activities for contributing properly to the innovation process within the Airbus Group, relying on different Instruments (Europe or France funded research projects, internal studies, Research & Technology Groups) and resources, including research projects partners' ones but also interns, CIFRE master thesis I had to supervise and internal teams.

These activities consisted in:

1. Internal research studies for the Business Units of the Airbus Group within the frame of Research Technology Group related to Interoperability and PLM - for short term topics and support for dissemination and exploitation of the results

2. Contribution to responses to call for proposal, and participation to several research projects, as project leader or as participant, to many European or National research projects - for longer term research

3. Establishment of relations and coordination of these research activities with:

1. Standardisation activities as International Standardisation expert through AFNOR CP IDMI - Ingénierie des Données et des Modèles pour l'Industrie - and ISO SC4 TC184: Industrial Data

2. Internal strategic initiatives related to eBusiness and to PLM harmonization within the Group as Airbus Expert

4. Continuous survey concerning the state of the art and the state of the practice in my domain, being emerging technologies, practices or standards, and including various domains contributing to the establishment of continuous operational interoperability preparation and building.

5. Networking in the academic, standardization and industrial worlds, with establishment of long term collaboration contributing to achieve the long term vision of sustainable interoperability

6. Dissemination of the results of the research projects through communication, expertise and teaching activities inside and outside Airbus, in collaboration with some schools and universities.

7. Participation to Standardization Strategic Groups related to Product Lifecycle Management within Airbus and its Digital Business Ecosystem

8. Participation for establishment of the practices for PLM standards Implementor forums (through the Standard Interoperability PLM project)

9. Participation to the modernization of the considered standard architectural framework

10. Participation to and support of some standardization projects (e.g. ISO 10303 Application Protocol 242 - Managed model based 3D engineering)

If I gained Airbus internal recognition for the Standards Based PLM Interoperability through an Expert nomination in 2006, I also managed the recognition in the academic area by preparing a PHD thesis related to « Interoperability of Technical Enterprise Applications » which was successfully defended in 2009, in front of an International Jury. It allowed me to
contribute both to the state of the art (scientific contribution) and to the state of the practice
with actual impacts on standardization or within my company.

### 1.2.3 - From 2018 to 2021

Due to the closure of the Research Centre, announced in 2016 and to the reorganization of
research in the Group, I found other positions within the Group, first as an Enterprise
Architect supporting Engineering Activities and then as a System Architect for systems to be
delivered to the client.

I however continued to play my expert role: I contributed to model based practices by pointing out the need to consider model exchange and sharing. This was a different way to disseminate, to apply and to evaluate the results of my research activities, within an operational environment.

In addition, playing this role has allowed me to consider the impacts on interoperability of
new trends such as agile practices at scale or DevSecOps (Integration of development and
operations in a secured environment) approaches.

During this period, my continuous survey of the State of the Art and of the State of the
Practice didn't stop, and encompassed new trends for anticipating new needs to be covered
and new research challenges in terms of interoperability: distributed heterogeneous clouds,
graph technologies, agile at scale relying on model based approaches, Internet of Everything
with their applications to virtual manufacturing, digital twins, digital threats or autonomous &
connected cyber-physical systems.

I also maintained my connection with the academic world by contributing to the writing of
research articles:

* P00: «Alignment of the Product Lifecycle Management Federated Interoperability Framework with Internet of Things and Virtual Manufacturing» was recently submitted and accepted at “Computers in Industry” (P00). It was derived from an ICIST 2017 conference paper.

* P40: «Semantic Interoperability: Why and How to deal with Instantiable and Constrained Relations with OWL DL» is another article in preparation for the Journal of Web Semantics.

However, being not anymore within a research department but within an operational
department, the time dedicated to research is currently reduced compared to my previous
position at the Research Centre for producing research articles.

I consequently found another way for promoting and disseminating the results of my past and
current research activities, but also for establishing closer links between research,
standardisation and industry, by relying respectively on a social enterprise network and on
research networks, respectively LinkedIn and ResearchGate/GoogleScholar. It is completed
by a knowledge portal I put in place and used since my thesis for promoting the results of
Interoperability Research Projects I contributed to and the PLM standardisation activities
from development to governance I was involved in.

Since March 2016, many LinkedIn articles have been published (67 articles in June 2021)
aiming at the vulgarization of my research results, with a continuously growing number of
followers (9 790 in June 2021). The articles are promoting, informing, explaining and
popularizing the PLM Interoperability topic, and the underlying enabling technologies and
practices relying on their combined usage. It includes cloud technologies, agile at scale, ontology, enterprise modelling, distributed software interoperability framework or model based engineering relying on consistent sets of relevant open standards. About 200 000 views were reached in June 2021, with a distribution indicating the most popular topics. Interoperability for PLM and standards appear as confidential topics, despite their importance when dealing with Digital Continuity, Secured Collaboration, Model Based System Engineering or Virtual Manufacturing. Cross references are provided with standardization and research activities outputs, in order to reinforce links between what has been produced through the industrial, standardization or academic activities.

In 2021, my expert position should be reinforced with more activities consisting in driving research. It is what motivates me to apply for Ability to Conduct Research.

## 1.3 - Teaching activities derived from research activity

Teaching activities were mainly undertaken within the context of Airbus Innovation Works, as a way for contributing to the dissemination of the research results but also for:

1) Finding students which can apply for internship inside my company

2) Preparing continuously up to date material for internal dissemination derived from the training preparation, i.e. various reports such as state of the art, state of the practice, awareness reports, etc. It was done in collaboration with Engineer schools with apprentices, or with university partners.

3) Involving students in the development of demonstrators or of proof of concept, assessing some identified interoperability enablers and various Standardized Enterprise Information System building blocks.

The concerned identified enablers were enterprise architecture/modelling for controlled urbanism, ontology, model driven approach and service oriented platforms. The concerned solution building blocks were enterprise workflow systems, enterprise portal, enterprise service bus and related technologies (middleware, Enterprise Java, etc.). The subjects I teach have been aligned with the evolution of my research topics and of the industrial trends I had to deal with, making the training activities contributing to the research activities, and the reverse.

The following table provides the number of training hours and practical experimentation given on these topics.

* Addressed Academic degree: M2 for master 2, M1 for Master 1

**schools and universities:

* **ITIN** (Institut De Formation En Informatique), Rue du Pas Saint Christophe 95800 Cergy which became ITESCIA

* **ITESCIA**, l'école de l'i-management (https://www.itescia.fr/)

* **Institut Informatique Avancée (IIA)** Laval (https://www.cciformation53.fr/)

* **University Lyon 1** (https://www.univ-lyon1.fr/), Computer science department

* **Ecole des Ponts Paritech** (https://www.ecoledesponts.fr/)

* **CBAM** College of Business Administration for Managers 226Bis Dien Bien Phu St., Dist. 3, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
When relevant and available, I also added in the table the concerned cursus defined by the schools:

*** Cursus (Optional): **ISI** for Information System engineering, **GLA/GM** for Software Architects, **ILM/GIC** for knowledge management.

Usually the training was made for the second year of master (M2) level, but some years, introduction of the topics (e.g. UML) were made during the first year (M1).

Precise (D)escriptions of sessions came progressively and are indicated when existing, in addition to the training (S)upport. Link to description of work to be performed during directed (P)ractices are indicated when available.

<table><thead><tr><th>Name</th><th>School</th><th>Designation</th><th>Training</th><th>Practical</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="6">Year 2002-2003</td></tr><tr><td>XML</td><td>M2</td><td>ITIN XML Technologies- Usage and comparison to other similar and complementary technologies S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Year 2003 2004</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td rowspan="6">M2</td><td>Interoperability S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Product Data Management</td><td>Product Data Management S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>XML</td><td>XML Technologies- Usage and comparison to other similar and complementary technologies S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>EJB</td><td>Enterprise Java Beans S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Workflow</td><td>Workflow et Wfmc S S P</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>CORBA</td><td>CORBA D S</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Year 2004-2005</td></tr><tr><td>XML</td><td rowspan="10">M2</td><td>ITIN ISI XML Technologies- Usage and comparison to other similar and complementary technologies S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>PDM</td><td>GDT et Windchill S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>HMI</td><td>ITIN GIC Cours IHM-MDA S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>HMI</td><td>ITIN GLA Cours IHM-MDA S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>OMG MDA EJB</td><td rowspan="4">ITIN ISI CORBA-EJB-MDA S S S</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Workflow</td><td>Workflow et Wfmc S P</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td>Interoperability of Enterprise Applications applied to Industrial Sharing S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>CORBA</td><td>CORBA D S</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>PLM</td><td>CBAM Product Lifecycle Management</td><td>40</td><td>0</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td>CBAM Interoperability</td><td>40</td><td>0</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Year 2005-2006</td></tr><tr><td>CORBA</td><td rowspan="5">M2</td><td>ITIN ISI CORBA D S P P</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>OMG MDA EJB</td><td>OMG MDA EJB S S</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Workflow</td><td>Workflow et Wfmc S</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Ontology</td><td>Ontology S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Ontology</td><td>ITIN GM Ontology S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>Ontology</td><td></td><td></td><td>Ontology S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>IHM MDA</td><td></td><td>ITIN GIC</td><td>IHM MDA S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Semantic Cartography</td><td></td><td></td><td>La cartographie sémantique: Introduction, approche et outils actuels S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Year 2006-2007</td><td>60</td><td>44</td><td>104</td></tr><tr><td>OMG MDA EJB</td><td></td><td></td><td>OMG MDA EJB S</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>CORBA</td><td>M2</td><td>ITIN ISI</td><td>CORBA S</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>PDM</td><td></td><td></td><td>GDT et Windchill S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Workflow</td><td></td><td></td><td>Workflow et Wfmc S, P</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>PDM</td><td>M2</td><td>ITIN ILM</td><td>GDT et Windchill S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>IHM MDA</td><td>M2</td><td>ITIN GLA</td><td>IHM MDA D S</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>IHM</td><td>M2</td><td>ITIN GM</td><td>IHM S</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Year 2007-2008</td><td>132</td><td>52</td><td>184</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td></td><td></td><td>Interoperability S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Ontology</td><td></td><td>ITIN ISI</td><td>Ontology D S</td><td>12</td><td>4</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>PDM</td><td></td><td></td><td>GDT et Windchill S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>IHM MDA</td><td></td><td>ITIN GLA</td><td>IHM MDA D S</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Ontology</td><td></td><td></td><td>Ontology D S</td><td>12</td><td>4</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Semantic Cartography</td><td></td><td>ITIN ILM</td><td>La cartographie sémantique: Introduction, approche et outils actuels S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Ontology</td><td>M2</td><td></td><td>Ontology D S</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Open Source</td><td></td><td></td><td>Open Source and interoperability D S</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Open Source</td><td></td><td></td><td>Open Source and interoperability D S</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>EAI</td><td></td><td></td><td>Interoperability/EAI D S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>PDM</td><td></td><td></td><td>GDT et Windchill S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>IHM MDA</td><td></td><td>IIA</td><td>IHM MDA D S</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td></td><td></td><td>Interoperability S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Ontology</td><td></td><td></td><td>Ontology D S</td><td>12</td><td>4</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td></td><td>Ponts</td><td>Enterprise Application Interoperability D S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Year 2008-2009</td><td>132</td><td>16</td><td>148</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td></td><td>Ponts</td><td>Enterprise Application Interoperability D S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td></td><td>ITIN ISI</td><td>Enterprise Application Interoperability</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Ontology</td><td></td><td></td><td>Ontology</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>MDA</td><td>M2</td><td>ITIN GLA</td><td>MDA D S</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Ontology</td><td></td><td></td><td>Ontology</td><td>16</td><td>0</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>MDA</td><td></td><td></td><td>MDA D S</td><td>16</td><td>0</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>MDA IHM</td><td></td><td>IIA</td><td>MDA IHM D S</td><td>16</td><td>0</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Ontology</td><td></td><td></td><td>Ontology</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>UML</td><td>M1</td><td>ITIN MSI</td><td>UML</td><td>16</td><td>0</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td>M2</td><td>ITIN MSI</td><td>Interoperability</td><td>20</td><td>0</td><td>20</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td>Lyon 1</td><td>Interoperability of Technical Enterprise Applications S - Including OpenDevFactory related training material S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Year 2009-2010</td><td>140</td><td>140</td><td>280</td></tr><tr><td>Workflow</td><td rowspan="6">M2</td><td rowspan="2">IIA</td><td>IIA Laval 2009-2010 D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Ontology</td><td>IIA Laval 2009-2010 D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Workflow</td><td rowspan="4">ITIN</td><td>ITIN 2009-2010 D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td>Interopérabilité D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Middleware</td><td>ITIN 2009-2010 D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Ontology</td><td>2 times Ontology D D S</td><td>40</td><td>40</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Year 2010-2011</td><td>188</td><td>180</td><td>368</td></tr><tr><td>Workflow</td><td rowspan="8">M2</td><td rowspan="3">IIA</td><td>Workflow tutorial D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>HMI & MDA</td><td>HMI & MDA D</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Ontology</td><td>Ontology S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Controlled Urbanism</td><td rowspan="5">ITESCIA</td><td>Control Urbanism D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>HMI & MDA</td><td>HMI & MDA D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Modeling</td><td>Modeling D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td>Interoperability D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Middleware</td><td>Middleware D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Ontology</td><td>Ontology D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td>Lyon 1</td><td>Interoperability S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Year 2011-2012</td><td>60</td><td>60</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>HMI & MDA</td><td rowspan="3">M2</td><td rowspan="3">ITESCIA</td><td>HMI & MDA D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Distributed Architecture</td><td>Distributed Architecture D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Ontology</td><td>Ontology D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Year 2012-2013</td><td>124</td><td>124</td><td>248</td></tr><tr><td>Controlled Urbanism</td><td rowspan="6">M2</td><td rowspan="3">IIA</td><td>Urbanisation D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced UML</td><td>UML avancé D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Workflow</td><td>Workflow D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Controlled Urbanism</td><td rowspan="4">ITESCIA</td><td>Urbanisation D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>HMI & MDA</td><td>IHM & MDA D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td>Interopérabilité D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td>Lyon 1</td><td>Interoperability S</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Year 2013-2014</td><td>144</td><td>144</td><td>288</td></tr><tr><td>Workflow</td><td rowspan="3">M2</td><td rowspan="3">IIA</td><td>Workflow D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Controlled Urbanism</td><td>Urbanisation D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>HMI & MDA</td><td>IHM & MDA D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 1: Training activities</caption><tbody><tr><td>Modeling</td><td></td><td></td><td>Modélisation D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Controlled Urbanism</td><td>M2</td><td></td><td>Urbanisation D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced UML</td><td>M2</td><td>ITESCIA</td><td>UML Avancé D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>UML</td><td>M1</td><td></td><td>UML D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td>M2</td><td>Lyon 1</td><td>Interopérabilité S</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Year 2014-2015</td><td>144</td><td>144</td><td>288</td></tr><tr><td>Controlled Urbanism</td><td>M2</td><td>IIA</td><td>Controlled urbanisation and big data D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Workflow</td><td></td><td></td><td>Workflow D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Workflow</td><td></td><td></td><td>Workflow D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Controlled Urbanism</td><td>M2</td><td>ITESCIA</td><td>Controlled urbanisation and big data D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>HMI & MDA</td><td></td><td></td><td>IHM & MDA D S</td><td>40</td><td>40</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>Modeling</td><td>M1</td><td></td><td>Modélisation D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td>M2</td><td>Lyon 1</td><td>Interopérabilité S</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Year 2015-2016</td><td>84</td><td>84</td><td>168</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced UML</td><td></td><td>IIA</td><td>UML Avancé D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Workflow</td><td></td><td>ITESCIA</td><td>Workflow D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Controlled Urbanism</td><td>M2</td><td>ITESCIA</td><td>Controlled Urbanism D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced UML</td><td></td><td>ITESCIA</td><td>UML Avancé D S</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td></td><td>Lyon 1</td><td>Interopérabilité S</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Year 2016-2017</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td>M2</td><td>Lyon 1</td><td>Interopérabilité S</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Year 2017-2018</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td>M2</td><td>Lyon 1</td><td>Interopérabilité S</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Year 2018-2019</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td>M2</td><td>Lyon 1</td><td>Interopérabilité S</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Year 2019-2020</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td>M2</td><td>Lyon 1</td><td>Interopérabilité S</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">2020-2021</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Interoperability</td><td>M2</td><td>Lyon 1</td><td>Interopérabilité S</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">All years</td><td>1424</td><td>1076</td><td>2500</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Tutorials

In addition, some training with associated training supports (documents or videos) were delivered within the frame of research projects:

* ATHENA: Contribution to Curriculum of the Interoperability Training Service by producing the Training for the Aerospace Industry training and associated support-2006
* IMAGINE: Contribution to produced training, reflected at the following address: http://www.eads-iw.net/web/imagine/training. It was done through the production of the "IMAGINE Platform in the Aerospace and Defence domain training" with associated support on the pointed web page, but also derived videos on Youtube.

* IMAGINE: Producing The IMAGINE in Aeronautics training with associated support (TMT1)

* SIP: several trainings have been produced for training the members of the projects and the people involved in Standards Implementor forum or Standards usage in enterprises.

A dedicated web site, part of the collaborative platform I've been maintaining since my thesis, contains the training (D)escriptions and the training (S)upports referenced in the previous table at http://www.eads-iw.net/web/training

My public contribution to the research projects I participated to are also available through dedicated public web sites hosted on the same platform:

* http://www.eads-iw.net/web/imagine

* http://www.eads-iw.net/web/crescendo

* http://www.eads-iw.net/web/standards-interoperability-plm which gives in particular access to the following subway map for PLM interoperability. Each station allows access to a web site or a video.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Subway Map for PLM Interoperability for navigating SIP results</figcaption></figure>

To some extent, the published content on the collaborative platform and on social platforms can be considered as a way to share knowledge, with a larger audience, but with similar objectives: to allow the people to know and to learn more about interoperability. The content constitutes support material for training. The publishing platform itself is an illustration of the usage of the promoted enabling technologies and of the application of my research results for developing interoperability of Enterprise Applications, in particular in terms of open knowledge sharing.

## Vulgarisation and knowledge transfer

Several media have been used for promoting my research activities and results, with content which can be used as material for knowledge transfer, training support and vulgarisation:
## YouTube online tutorials

* **Imagine tutorials**

* [TCT1 Using the IMAGINE Platform](#)

* Imagine Platform in the Aeronautic Domain Tutorial Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4

* **MOOC at University Lyon 1**

* [Cloud et Internet des objets à AIRBUS](#) - 16th of July 2015

* **Knowledge base with Archi or Protégé**

* [Graph Technologies Knowledge Base with Archi or with Protege](#)

* **Dynamic Manufacturing explanation and illustration**

* [Qu'est qu'un DMN?, What a DMN is, DMN modelling with factories using ArchiMate 3, Archi and Graphico](#)

* **Future at SystemX - SIP presentations**

* [Future@SystemX 20140306 SIP Presentation](#)

* [SIP@Future2016IRTSystemX](#)

* **Practical usage of Proxmox**

It highlights the role of a virtualisation solution for machines and networks (SIP related)

Proxmox 4.2 - creation of a bridge using PVE, Proxmox V4.2 - appliance update and upload, Proxmox V4.2- creation of two networks vNIC vmbr0 and vmbr1, Proxmox 4.2 - Debian KVM Install from Debian 8.5 netinst on a VMware on OSX, Proxmox 4 - Creation of LXC Container Debian 8.4, Proxmox 4.2 - Container creation and installation of Ansible, Proxmox 4.2 - Vagrant installation on LXC and snapshot mechanism, Proxmox 4.2 Installation on OSX with VMware Fusion, Proxmox 4.2 usage in the Standards Interoperability PLM Project

* **Practical usage of Lнерay**

It highlights usage of a generic Horizontal Enterprise Portal for digital collaboration and knowledge sharing relying on application and organization virtualisation (SIP related)

How to Lнерay - sharing resources between communities, Lнерay How to - store a document, Lнерay How to - Dynamic views, Lнерay How to - Querying Portal Content, How to Lнерay - portal vs eroom, Lнерay How to: controlled access to portal resources, Lнерay How to - Add application on a page, Lнерay How To - Publish content across multiple communities, Lнерay How to- Publish content on several pages, Lнерay how to - Publish a content on a page, Comment créer un contenu Web

* **YouTube videos - ISO TC184 SC4 Industrial Day for Digital threads and Digital twins**

* [MBE Mfg Process Implementing the digital thread using the digital twins 1st Part](#)

* [MBE Mfg Process Implementing the digital thread using the digital twins 2nd Part](#)

* [MBE Mfg Process Implementing the digital thread using the digital twins 3rd Part](#)

* **YouTube videos pointed by the SIP Subway map**

Full infrastructure of the SIP Test Bed, Stratégie PLM, Standard modelling with SIP - first example with ISA95, STEP Future Architecture, Business cases integrated, Modeling a scenario: dekenz case, modéliser DMN, procedure tests, place des outils, Place des standards, PDM IF, OSLC analysis performed within the frame of SIP, ARAS AP242, SIP framework integrated
LinkedIn articles

<table><thead><tr><td>N°</td><td>Year</td><td>Title</td><td>Views</td><td>Likes</td><td>Publication Date</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A01</td><td>2020</td><td>What are the high added value usages of jArchi, the scripting solution integrated with Archi?</td><td>374</td><td>20</td><td>2020-11-15</td></tr><tr><td>A02</td><td>2020</td><td>The emerging landscape of reactive: do you know what it is really about?</td><td>377</td><td>11</td><td>2020-10-28</td></tr><tr><td>A03</td><td>2019</td><td>Current trends and challenges for Complex Systems Design & Management</td><td>1390</td><td>40</td><td>2019-12-02</td></tr><tr><td>A04</td><td>2019</td><td>Does it make sense using ArchiMate with XMind?</td><td>818</td><td>23</td><td>2019-12-01</td></tr><tr><td>A05</td><td>2019</td><td>The emerging landscape for distributed knowledge, ontology semantic web, knowledge base, graph based technologies and standards</td><td>19030</td><td>322</td><td>2019-11-22</td></tr><tr><td>A06</td><td>2019</td><td>ArchiMate Interoperability: is Open Exchange Format schemas really suited for Interoperability?</td><td>758</td><td>11</td><td>2019-11-01</td></tr><tr><td>A07</td><td>2019</td><td>ArchiMate Interoperability: from models to linked data using semantic web technologies?</td><td>636</td><td>17</td><td>2019-10-20</td></tr><tr><td>A08</td><td>2019</td><td>When Enterprise Architecture and MBSE meet in an Agile Context (part 2)</td><td>1624</td><td>32</td><td>2019-09-06</td></tr><tr><td>A09</td><td>2019</td><td>Product Life cycle Management (PLM): a neutral Product Data Management (PDM) Service model to reuse by Enterprise Architects in ArchiMate?</td><td>1062</td><td>37</td><td>2019-06-18</td></tr><tr><td>A10</td><td>2019</td><td>When Enterprise Architecture and MBSE meet in an Agile Context (part 1)</td><td>3724</td><td>100</td><td>2019-04-15</td></tr><tr><td>A11</td><td>2019</td><td>ArchiMate Interoperability: potential issues illustrated with practical cases with Archi, EA, Modelio, jArchi, PlantUML</td><td>4661</td><td>56</td><td>2019-04-04</td></tr><tr><td>A12</td><td>2019</td><td>What are the different types of architects considered for Enterprise Architecture?</td><td>3564</td><td>99</td><td>2019-03-01</td></tr><tr><td>A13</td><td>2019</td><td>Dealing with continuously changing environment fly using ArchiMate?</td><td>1932</td><td>41</td><td>2019-02-19</td></tr><tr><td>A14</td><td>2019</td><td>What should we expect from Software Architects?</td><td>2234</td><td>62</td><td>2019-02-14</td></tr><tr><td>A15</td><td>2019</td><td>Back to the CIMDATA's PLM Definition: do you need PLM for the new digitalization challenges?</td><td>633</td><td>35</td><td>2019-02-09</td></tr><tr><td>A16</td><td>2018</td><td>The emerging research challenges for PLM effective digital collaboration</td><td>1463</td><td>27</td><td>2018-11-02</td></tr><tr><td>A17</td><td>2018</td><td>Agile: from Drawing to MBSE/Enterprise Models with SPEM?</td><td>11330</td><td>165</td><td>2018-09-28</td></tr><tr><td>A18</td><td>2018</td><td>What Digital Experience Platforms bring to Enterprise Navigation Systems</td><td>1353</td><td>13</td><td>2018-03-03</td></tr><tr><td>A19</td><td>2018</td><td>Dynamic Semantic Cartography: what is the li with multidimensional descriptive statistics? (English versions)</td><td>725</td><td>11</td><td>2018-01-18</td></tr><tr><td>A20</td><td>2018</td><td>Cartographie sémantique dynamique: quel lien avec les statistiques descriptives multidimensionnelles? (Version Française)</td><td>274</td><td>3</td><td>2018-01-10</td></tr><tr><td>A21</td><td>2017</td><td>All the Enterprise Models are false!</td><td>463</td><td>15</td><td>2017-12-23</td></tr><tr><td>A22</td><td>2017</td><td>Semantic Cartography with ArchiMate: a fist step for Enterprise Navigation Systems</td><td>4688</td><td>140</td><td>2017-12-15</td></tr><tr><td>A23</td><td>2017</td><td>Is it possible to take advantage of LinkedIn?</td><td>415</td><td>16</td><td>2017-11-01</td></tr><tr><td>A24</td><td>2017</td><td>ISO STEP: you can exchange descriptions of products with their geometries between heterogeneous CAD tools!</td><td>310</td><td>15</td><td>2017-09-18</td></tr><tr><td>A25</td><td>2017</td><td>How to have successful posts and articles on LinkedIn for technical topics?</td><td>383</td><td>8</td><td>2017-09-09</td></tr><tr><td>A26</td><td>2017</td><td>Linked Enterprises: about deriving a Web Ontology from the ArchiMate language?</td><td>4388</td><td>97</td><td>2017-09-09</td></tr><tr><td>A27</td><td>2017</td><td>Assessing LinkedIn articles impact: what can we learn concerning data analytics?</td><td>283</td><td>7</td><td>2017-08-07</td></tr><tr><td>A28</td><td>2017</td><td>Why the choice of ArchiMate for supporting PLM Interoperability?</td><td>1025</td><td>41</td><td>2017-08-07</td></tr><tr><td>A29</td><td>2017</td><td>What will be the future Smart Manufacturing Reference Model?</td><td>802</td><td>54</td><td>2017-07-24</td></tr><tr><td>A30</td><td>2017</td><td>Enterprise Architecture: from Drawing to Enterprise Navigation Systems with ArchiMate</td><td>4790</td><td>170</td><td>2017-07-21</td></tr><tr><td>A31</td><td>2017</td><td>Do you know what Upper Ontologies are and the value it brings?</td><td>1253</td><td>28</td><td>2017-07-10</td></tr><tr><td>A32</td><td>2017</td><td>Equivalent IDEF0 and SysML models</td><td>2499</td><td>50</td><td>2017-05-30</td></tr><tr><td>A33</td><td>2017</td><td>UML2: InstanceSpecification and InstanceSpecification Link</td><td>333</td><td>15</td><td>2017-03-27</td></tr><tr><td>A34</td><td>2017</td><td>Usage of SysML InstanceSpecificationLink and InstanceSpecification</td><td>253</td><td>18</td><td>2017-03-20</td></tr><tr><td>A35</td><td>2017</td><td>Dynamic Manufacturing Network modelling with factories using ArchiMate 3, Archi and</td><td>735</td><td>39</td><td>2017-03-03</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 2: LinkedIn articles</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>coArchi</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>A36</td><td>2017</td><td>LinkedIn ranking services and other suppressed!</td><td>272</td><td>16</td><td>2017-02-17</td></tr><tr><td>A37</td><td>2017</td><td>When deep learning meets semantic technologies</td><td>281</td><td>7</td><td>2017-02-16</td></tr><tr><td>A38</td><td>2017</td><td>I-PLM 2017 le 20 Avril prochain: quand l'industrie rencontre les collectivités locales</td><td>124</td><td>4</td><td>2017-02-11</td></tr><tr><td>A39</td><td>2017</td><td>When ArchiMate 3.0 meets Production</td><td>779</td><td>28</td><td>2017-02-10</td></tr><tr><td>A40</td><td>2017</td><td>When eGovernment meets ArchiMate: the European Interoperability Reference Architecture</td><td>488</td><td>24</td><td>2017-02-02</td></tr><tr><td>A41</td><td>2017</td><td>Federating Ontology, System Engineering - LEGO's to the rescue</td><td>1734</td><td>59</td><td>2017-02-03</td></tr><tr><td>A42</td><td>2017</td><td>PLM Interoperability: when ArchiMate meets ISA-95 manufacturing standard</td><td>2664</td><td>59</td><td>2017-01-28</td></tr><tr><td>A43</td><td>2017</td><td>What System Engineers and ontologists can learn from Frankenstein</td><td>598</td><td>20</td><td>2017-01-27</td></tr><tr><td>A44</td><td>2017</td><td>Ontology, Big Data and System Engineering: Platypuses to the rescue</td><td>1755</td><td>54</td><td>2017-01-24</td></tr><tr><td>A45</td><td>2017</td><td>Sharing about PLM Interoperability: Platypuses will care</td><td>153</td><td>8</td><td>2017-01-20</td></tr><tr><td>A46</td><td>2017</td><td>Enterprise and PLM Interoperability: how was used the ATHENA Interoperability Framework</td><td>442</td><td>12</td><td>2017-01-10</td></tr><tr><td>A47</td><td>2017</td><td>When ArchiMate meets PLM for Aircraft OEM like Airbus</td><td>1361</td><td>63</td><td>2017-01-07</td></tr><tr><td>A48</td><td>2017</td><td>PLM Interoperability STEP AP209 for Multidisciplinary Analysis and Design</td><td>194</td><td>10</td><td>2017-02-02</td></tr><tr><td>A49</td><td>2017</td><td>PLM Interoperability - STEP AP 242 - Managed Model Based 3D Engineering</td><td>437</td><td>14</td><td>2017-02-02</td></tr><tr><td>A50</td><td>2017</td><td>Do you know why PLM open standards and Research should not be disconnected?</td><td>147</td><td>15</td><td>2017-01-02</td></tr><tr><td>A51</td><td>2016</td><td>When ArchiMate meets Cloud</td><td>2154</td><td>33</td><td>2016-12-25</td></tr><tr><td>A52</td><td>2016</td><td>About 10 years ago: the Digital Business Ecosystem initiative</td><td>795</td><td>8</td><td>2016-12-13</td></tr><tr><td>A53</td><td>2016</td><td>Some advanced visualisation techniques for embracing complexity of Dynamic Networks of networks - May 2020 updated</td><td>6108</td><td>179</td><td>2016-12-10</td></tr><tr><td>A54</td><td>2016</td><td>Ontology promises and limitations for System Engineering on top of Big Linked Data</td><td>4293</td><td>151</td><td>2016-12-08</td></tr><tr><td>A55</td><td>2016</td><td>PLM Interoperability: the ASD SSC Radar chart</td><td>500</td><td>11</td><td>2016-12-07</td></tr><tr><td>A56</td><td>2016</td><td>When ArchiMate meets complex systems of systems: solving ArchiMate limitations ... without changing ArchiMate</td><td>2185</td><td>33</td><td>2016-12-04</td></tr><tr><td>A57</td><td>2016</td><td>When ArchiMate meets UML: how to conciliate Enterprise Architects and Software Applications Designers</td><td>2687</td><td>45</td><td>2016-12-02</td></tr><tr><td>A59</td><td>2016</td><td>Interoperability PLM pour la continuité numérique- vers les plateformes d'expérimentation et les bancs de test</td><td>78</td><td>0</td><td>2016-11-24</td></tr><tr><td>A60</td><td>2016</td><td>PLM Interoperability: make up your mind concerning SysML Parametric Diagrams with Papyrus</td><td>612</td><td>14</td><td>2016-11-24</td></tr><tr><td>A61</td><td>2016</td><td>Blockchains for PLM and Manufacturing context</td><td>1300</td><td>62</td><td>2016-11-12</td></tr><tr><td>A62</td><td>2016</td><td>Usage of Proxmox V4.2 in order setting up PLM Interoperability TestBed</td><td>169</td><td>0</td><td>2016-11-03</td></tr><tr><td>A63</td><td>2016</td><td>Advanced usage of ArchiMate for Dynamic Manufacturing Living Lab</td><td>1458</td><td>31</td><td>2016-11-01</td></tr><tr><td>A64</td><td>2016</td><td>Project management and ArchiMate viewpoints</td><td>1166</td><td>26</td><td>2016-10-30</td></tr><tr><td>A65</td><td>2016</td><td>The potential of ArchiMate viewpoints from usual EA modeling to PLM</td><td>2156</td><td>43</td><td>2016-10-27</td></tr><tr><td>A66</td><td>2016</td><td>Industry 4.0/Smart Manufacturing recommendations for ISO strategy</td><td>1034</td><td>74</td><td>2016-10-17</td></tr><tr><td>A67</td><td>2016</td><td>Virtual Manufacturing: Implementing the digital thread using the digital twins!</td><td>225</td><td>4</td><td>2016-10-10</td></tr><tr><td>A68</td><td>2016</td><td>Standards &amp; Interoperability PLM (Product Life cycle Management)</td><td>445</td><td>10</td><td>2016-03-23</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Total number of views</td><td></td><td>119376</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Observable reactive notebook articles/tutorials

* Timelines of LinkedIn articles

* Experimenting Functions changing cells content

* Experimenting the JavaScript InfoVis Toolkit Integrating a *cartoon*
* [Experimenting the JavaScript InfoVis Toolkit Feeding Data Automatically](#)

* [Experimenting the JavaScript InfoVis Toolkit Notebook cells as variables](#)

* [Experimenting the JavaScript InfoVis Toolkit Changing variable sizing the TM](#)

* [Experimenting the JavaScript InfoVis Toolkit Several vizs in one notebook](#)

* [Playing with PlantUML in Observable](#)

* [Working with Three.js in Observable!](#)

* [vis.js network can be used with observable](#)

* [My first experience with Observable](#)

* [Advanced visualisation techniques for embracing complexity of Dynamic Networks of Networks](#)

## Prototypes/Platforms/Demonstrators/Metamodels for proof of concepts and research demonstrators

* Windchill Platform with automated configurator for business configuration and
demonstrator switch

* ArchiImagine components

* JaWine: Extension of standard based workflow modelling for qualification of the participants within a Dynamic Manufacturing Network

* SharKine: Extension of standard based workflow engine for dynamic aided
    reallocation of activities within a Dynamic Manufacturing Network according
    to the available qualified members of a Dynamic Manufacturing Network

* ArchiMagine model publisher: generator of portal enabled enterprise model in
    ArchiMate describing a Dynamic Manufacturing Network

* cPlatform: collaborative platform associated to Federation of Interoperability
    framework for PLM

* ArchiMate Language and Models interactive viewers based on advanced interactive
visualization technologies (force constrained graphs), as component of an Enterprise
Navigation System

* STEP Mapper: prototype for deriving consistently ontology and models as input for
model driven generated platforms and standard quality checking

* Archi scripts with jArchi: set of scripts for demonstrating publication of enterprise
models within various

* «Creation of Transversal Folder Structure" script

* «PlantUML ArchiMate export » script (advanced visualization)

* «Generating ArchiMate Allowed Relations tables from jArchi » script

* Derived OWL representation from ArchiMate associated with paper in preparation
and assessment of graph related technologies

* Derived UML2 representation from ArchiMate associated with paper on flat models

* Future STEP architecture demonstration on top of Magic Draw with SysML and
OCL2

* IDEF0 to SysML demonstrator

* Platform generator from Business standards to Enterprise server relying on
AndroMDA demonstrator

* S.U.S.I.E: System of Urbanisation of enterpriSe Information systEm, a proof of
concept and training subject for generating Enterprise Modeling Platform relying on
model based approach on top of Standardized Application Server.

* Collaborative Networked collaboration and experimentation platform, based on
Liberay, with effective use since 2009:
* Hosting private and public content for standardization or research projects such as AP242, AP239, MosseC, TDP Message, ASD SSG, Crescendo, IMAGINE, SIP, ArchiMagine, ATHENA, as a living lab for digital collaboration implying multiple organizations and taking advantage of some of the components of the cPlatform

* Quality Checker: solution checking quality of exchange product models within the scope of a standard based collaboration

* TestBed Generator: model based generator of testing environment for multi enterprise collaboration

## 1.4 - Research activities

The main research theme I've been addressing is the Interoperability of Enterprise Applications when following a Product Life Cycle approach.

My research aims at defining a new approach for supporting, preparing and building an operational continuous interoperability between applications at an acceptable price within an always changing business and technical environments. The applications are distributed within the enterprise and outside the enterprise, i.e. within the supply chains of a Digital Business Ecosystem.

## 1.5 - Research projects

This section mainly describes the research projects I contributed to in terms of launching and realization, in order to contribute to the thematic I've been addressing.

European and National funded research projects have been some of the instruments I used for my research activities. It was combined with Airbus Group internal studies for the different business units of the Group, in order to efficiently support the innovation process. It allowed to identify emerging scientific challenges and research opportunities in close relationship with the state of the practices (reflected by industry open standards) and with the state of the art (related to the academic world, the Research Communities Roadmaps and the Research Technology Roadmaps inside the Airbus Group).

For each projects are provided the names (short and long), the grant agreement, the funding program, the overall budget, the addressed topic, the web site when still available, the start date, the end date, the duration, the partners, the description, my role in the project, the deliverables I contributed to with my role, the concerned standards and the outcome related to my research activity.

### 1.5.1 International Projects

These projects were launched in the frame of responses to successive calls launched by the European Commission research programs. Such projects enable the collaboration between many partners in Europe, and are quite suited for the research on interoperability. Launching, managing or participating to these projects responded to a defined strategy for contributing to my research problematic, in alignment with the quick exploitation of the results in operation and a shorten innovation process. I had the opportunity to play multiple roles, from defining the business cases to contributing to the state of the art and to the definition of the solutions. The more important projects related to my research are **RISESTEP**, **SAVE**, **IDEAS**, **ATHENA** and **IMAGINE**.
<table><tr><td><strong>RISESTEP</strong><br>Grant agreement:<br><u>20459</u></td><td>Enterprise Wide Standard Access to STEP Distributed Databases</td><td>Funded under<br>FP4 ESPRIT</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Overall budget</strong><br>€ 5 996 000</td><td><strong>Topic:</strong> Information Technology for Product & Process Data<br>Modelling<br><br><strong>Website:</strong> https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/20459</td><td><strong>Start:</strong> 1996-01-01<br><strong>End:</strong> 1998-03-31<br><strong>Duration:</strong> 26 months</td></tr></table>

**Partners:** Aerospatiale (Coordinator), BMW, Matradatavision, ProSTEP, Rover, Volvo

**My role:** Project Leader

**Description:** Issued from the AIT pilot phase and as such strongly user-driven, the RISESTEP project aimed at and succeeded in developing a middle-ware environment. It was based on the ISO STEP standard for data exchange and storage aspects, and on the OMG CORBA standard for the distribution aspects.

**My Role:** I was the project leader for the last year of the project and I led the project to its successful end.

**Outcome:** Demonstration of the feasibility of sharing digital mock up units between heterogeneous applications distributed between partners relying on the combination of the STEP and CORBA standards. Identification of the need of a higher level interface standard which led to the launch of the SAVE project.

RISESTEP made me discover a new domain, the Product Data Exchange, Sharing and Long term archiving, and underlying standard technologies such as ISO STEP and CORBA. It was the starting point of the development of my research career and of the development of my expertise in the Interoperability for Product Life Cycle Management area.

Concerned standards (referenced in table 10): [AP203], [CORBA]
<table><tr><td>SAVE<br>Grant<br>agreement: <a href="">BRPR980760</a></td><td>STEP in a Virtual Enterprise</td><td>Funded under<br>FP4<br>BRITE/EURAM 3</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Topic New methodologies for product design<br>and manufacture<br>Web site:<br><a href="https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/BRPR980760">https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/BRPR980760</a></td><td><table><tr><td>Start:</td><td>1998-09-01</td></tr><tr><td>End:</td><td>2000-12-31</td></tr><tr><td>Duration:</td><td>26M</td></tr></table></td></tr></table>

**Partners:** BAE Systems (Coordinator), Airframe Engineering, Dassault Aviation, Dassault Systèmes, EADS, PTC, ProSTEP

**My role:** EADS business scenarios and use cases definition responsible

**Description:** Objectives and content The SAVE project aims to enhance the competitiveness of European Industry through the use of standards in support of the Engineering Supply Chain. It will show how data and information can be delivered to the right place at the right time in the right format and with the right CAD-CAM tools and applications being made available at lower cost for SME members of the supply chain.

A working prototype will be delivered that will show how a supplier can gain remote access to the lead contractor CAD-CAM/Product Data Model/Enterprise Resource Planning systems to pull the latest data and information relating to a particular task he has been asked to carry out. The technical objectives of the project are: To develop a Virtual Enterprise Data Model - This will take and extend existing information modelling standards (STEP AP 203, AP214, AP232) to create a central model which represents the different contractual relationships and business protocols which govern engineering information exchange in a Virtual Enterprise.

To develop tools to support a mapping methodology which will allow members of a Virtual Enterprise to translate their own, proprietary models and ways of working into the Virtual Enterprise Data Model. To implement a Virtual Enterprise Framework based on standards (CORBA, AIT Reference Model, AIT Implementation Platform) which will enable companies at whatever level from prime contractors to 2nd tier suppliers (and beyond), to, at low cost, rapidly join, participate in, and leave a Virtual Enterprise, exchanging and sharing information and applications with high degrees of integrity. The use of Java Applications and remote access to high cost tools through Intranet/Internet technology will be a key element of reaching this goal.

Expected benefits from the project are: A 10% reduction in the number of requests for change created during the design and manufacture of complex components and assemblies by the supply chain. A 10% improvement in lead-time towards the creation of the first component or assembly. A time improvement in the selection of strategic suppliers and the implementation of a data exchange strategy. A reduction in the need for face to face meetings arising from queries over data misinterpretation. Reduction in waste material from manufacture of incorrect specifications.

A significant reduction in the average cost incurred by an SME when joining a new extended enterprise as a member of its supply chain.

**My role:** I participated in the project by providing EADS business scenarios and use cases. I also participated in the specifications and in the assessment of their realisations.

**Outcome:** I developed my knowledge related to the concerned standards and technologies. I also had the opportunity to identify an important issue: the adopted approach, which implied the efforts
of 10 partners during 3 years, only allowed having a demonstration on 14 objects. It was clearly
insufficient for preparing interoperability at an acceptable cost. The project contributed to the PDM
Enablers specifications, which I assessed later on through the implementation made available by
software provider partners involved in the project. It was not responding to the expected quality
criteria for usage in operation. Performed analysis allowed to identify why, and motivated to
address the topic of Enterprise Application Interoperability.

Concerned standards (referenced in publication tables ): [AP203] ,[AP214], [AP232], [CORBA],
[PDM Enablers]
<table><tr><td>IDEAS<br>Grant agreement IST-2001-37368</td><td>Interoperability Development for Enterprise Application and Software</td><td>Funded under FP5 IST</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Topic: Strategic roadmaps for applied research<br>Web sites: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/IST-2001-37368<br>http://interop-vlab.eu/ideas/</td><td>Start 2002-06-01<br>End: 2003-05-31<br>Duration: 11M</td></tr></table>

**Partners:** Université de Bordeaux I, AIDIMA, BAAN, CRF, Computas, EADS CCR, GRAISOFT, Gruppo Formula, IC Focus, INTRACOM, SAP, UNINOVA

**My role:** Contributor to the establishment of the vision, state of the art, requirements and taxonomy

**Description:** The objectives of IDEAS project was to create and to manage a Working Group to elaborate a strategic roadmap in the domain of enterprise application and software interoperability for the next ten years and to propose to European Commission a structure and an organisation to support the implementation of this roadmap in the sixth Framework Program (FP6). For each of the technology areas of the interoperability study: architecture, modelling and ontology, the Working Group will provide a State of the Art and User requirements. IDEAS Working Groups provided a "vision" and scenarios on how the European Industry will face the challenges of interoperability. The Technology Roadmaps for the interoperability was extracted from the gap analysis between the state of the art and the vision. Then, management tools to pilot roadmaps implementation was defined, based on the tools proposed by European Commission for FP6.

**My Role:** Contributor to the submission and to the writing of the Description of Work, bringing the experience and scientific issues identified from the RISESTEP and SAVE projects, plus business needs of Aerospatiale. I also participated in the project and contributed to the elaboration of the vision and to the roadmap delivered by IDEAS, which led to many European Research Projects related to Interoperability of Enterprise Applications, in particular the Network of Excellence (NoE) Interop.

The IDEAS deliverables, with my assigned role (Responsible ® and Contributors ©) are the following:

* D 1.1: State of the Art (intro)©

* D 1.1: Part A. Enterprise Modelling State of the Art©

* D 1.1: Part B. Ontology State of the Art©

* D 1.2: User requirements©

* D 2.3: Goals and challenges of the industry for the 21st century©

* D 2.4: The vision for 2010©

* D 3.4/ D 3.5/ D 3.6: Gap analysis, required activities, roadmaps©

* D 4.1: The action plan for future research activity©

* D 4.2: Project management plan for large projects and networks©

* D 5.2: The interoperability terminology and taxonomy©

* D 6.2: Report on dissemination©

* D 7.2: Management and progress report©

**Concerned standards** (referenced in table 10): [AP214], [CORBA], [MDA], [OWL], [XML], [UML]

**Outcome:** The produced roadmap was realized through several successive Framework Programs (FP6,FP7) and is at the origin of the Network of Excellence Interop which is still active in 2021
<table><tr><td>VIP-ROAM<br>Grant agreement IST-2001-37605</td><td>Virtual Product creation RoadMap</td><td>Funded under<br>EC FP5 IST</td></tr><tr><td>Overall<br>€ 300 738</td><td>Budget:<br>Topic: Strategic roadmaps for applied research<br>Web site:<br>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/IST-2001-37605</td><td>Start: 2002-07-01<br>End: 2003-06-15<br>Duration: 18M</td></tr></table>

Partners: Fraunhofer (Coordinator), CRF, EADS CCR, Siemens

My role: Contributor to the requirements, vision elaboration and to the development of the roadmap

**Description:** To succeed in the global competition European industry has to improve its product creation processes by applying information society technologies. Focussing on this aim ViP-RoaM develops a vision on Virtual Product Creation technologies and methodologies and defines a strategic roadmap for RTD activities for the next 5-10 years. This ensures a precise and synergetic use of RTD resources. The development of the roadmap is based on a comprehensive collection and integration of information gathered from industrial key players and research organisations. Business implementation paths and integrating scenarios will be derived to enable European industry to set up and follow a strategy for future product creation procedures based on innovative technologies and to be competitive in international markets. This project aims at defining a Virtual Product Creation strategy that enables European industry to improve their product creation processes and consequently to be successful in international markets. The proposers gather their strategic knowledge to emerge a vision on the progression of Virtual Product Creation technologies and methodologies for European manufacturing industry. Starting from this vision a strategic roadmap will be set up that describes necessary RTD activities for the coming 5 to 10 years along with a concerted RTD implementation path. This will be based on the contribution of identified key players in Europe, and reconciled with industrial needs by discussion with potential industrial stakeholders about essential innovations in central areas in manufacturing and IT solution providing industry.

The work performed within the project is divided into the following domains:

Requirements and vision elaboration:
Development of a roadmap

My Role: Contributor to the submission and to the writing of the Description of Work, bringing the experience and scientific issues identified from the RISESTEP and SAVE projects, plus business needs of Aerospatiale

I also participated in the project and contributed to the elaboration of the vision and to the development of the roadmap, providing the viewpoint of the aerospace industry.
<table><tr><td>ATHENA<br>Grant Agreement<br>IST 507849</td><td>Advanced Technologies for Interoperability of<br>Heterogeneous Enterprise Networks and their<br>Application</td><td>Funded under<br>EC FP6</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Overall Budget</strong><br>€ 26 207 361</td><td><strong>Topic:</strong> Networked business and governments<br><strong>Web sites:</strong> https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/507849<br>http://interop-vlab.eu/athena/</td><td><strong>Start</strong> 2004-02-01<br>End: 2007-03-31<br>Duration:38M</td></tr></table>

**Partners:** SAP (Coordinator), AIDIMA, AIAG, AVA, CAS, CRF, CNDR, DFKI, EADS France, University of Belgrade, Fraunhofer, FESI, FORMULA, IBM UK, IEAA, INTRACOM, ITREC, SIEMENS, SINTEF, SMC, Troux Technologies, TXT, Uninova, University Saint Gallen, University Bordeaux I

**My role:** Contributor to the Call response and to the definition of the Description of work, Responsible of the Dynamic Requirements Definition methodology, contributor to the Interoperability Framework, member of the technology watchdog group

**Description:** Increasing collaboration among enterprises during the entire product life cycle is a global trend; Organizations are transforming themselves into "networked organizations". To achieve this, enterprise systems and applications need to be interoperable in order to achieve seamless business interaction across organizational boundaries. Currently, enterprises face many difficulties related to lack of interoperability. Interoperability, defined as "the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged", needs to be addressed in respect of all layers of an enterprise (including ICT Systems, Knowledge, Business and Semantics). It needs to be tackled using a holistic perspective, a multi-disciplinary approach, and by bringing together the best research teams, industry expertise and ICT suppliers. ATHENA aims to be the most comprehensive and systematic European research initiative in IT to remove barriers to interoperability, to transfer and apply the research results in industrial sectors, and to foster a new- networked business culture. Building on its vision statement "By 2010, enterprises will be able to seamlessly interoperate with others", ATHENA aims to enable interoperability by providing a comprehensive Interoperability Framework. In ATHENA, Research and Development will be executed in synergy and collaboration with Community Building: research will be guided by business requirements defined by a broad range of industrial sectors and integrated into Piloting and Training. ATHENA will be a source of technical inventions for interoperability. It will also lead to prototypes, technical specifications, guidelines and best practices that form a common European repository of knowledge.

**My Role:**

Contributor to the project submission, and to the writing of the Description of Work
Scientific manager of the "Dynamic Requirement Management" B4 sub project
EADS assessment responsible for the assessment of the ATHENA solution

I was involved within the program as Aeronautic, Space and Defence sector representative, in order to formalize interoperability issues related to collaborative product development within the extended enterprise, to orient research effort to respond to industrial needs and objectives, to contribute to innovative solutions development by providing expertise related to PLM standards and Product Data Sharing, Exchange and long term retention, to assess solutions provided by partners and finally to disseminate the solutions of interest within the EADS business units through
Research Technology Groups or Business Units oriented research studies.

I produced business scenarios (PDM coupling, Product Data Sharing within the Virtual Enterprise, and Integration of Technical Information Systems), with definition of as-is situation and expected to-be situation. I led the establishment of a Dynamic Requirement Definition Process for the whole ATHENA program, which allowed defining and consolidating between different industrial partners about 100 interoperability requirements, proposing several classifications to support efficiently the ATHENA program process.

Based on expected results from the different research projects, I also proposed a to-be business scenario, called Networked Collaborative Product Development Scenario, aiming to take advantage of more important results and to provide the context of elaboration of pilots aiming to assess the proposed solutions. The four elaborated pilots were dealing with "Semantic Mediation", "Cross Organizational Business Process", "Model generated workplaces" and "Integrative scenario: establishment of a Networked Product Development Organisation and Infrastructure".

I implemented an alternative solution to the DRDS planned in D B4.4, based on Protégé, as the budget was consumed before implementing the services for mapping requirements to solutions for supporting B4.6

I assessed with the support of Flora Robin the ATHENA Solutions, in parallel with on the shelves free open solutions.

Cross Organisational Business Process for change and configuration management
Semantic Mediation on PDM metadata with from ATHENA A*, ATHOS, ARES... and from the outside EXPRESS-X and XSL-T

Inference on Ontologies in OWL - Protégé, SWOOP, Fact++, SWRL, SPARQL
OWL Semantic Graph

Model Transformation for Product Data Exchange. ATHENA solutions were not possible to assess due to integration issues, so solution from the outside used were AndroMDA, ModelInaction and Eclipse GMF

PLM Service Oriented Execution Platform with from ATHENA Johnson and Nehemiah, and from the outside Axis, Application Servers based on EJB2 and EJB3, XPDI PLM services server of reference, WEB application (STRUTS, JSF, Tomcat)

The ATHENA Interoperability Framework was also globally assessed, as well as the adopted approach, and led to the launching of my thesis in order to solve the various identified issues in RISESTEP, SAVE, IDEAS and ATHENA (cf. table 11)

I contributed to the ATHENA Interoperability Framework (AIF) and to the production of the following list of deliverables indicating my assigned role (Responsible ®, Contributors ©):

D.B4.1 Dynamic Requirement Definition Principle ® ©

D.B4.2 Global processes of reference ©

D.B4.3 Scenarios mapped with Interoperability issues ©

D.B4.4 Dynamic Requirement Definition System ©

D B4.4.1 Starting business scenarios ® ©

D.B4.4.2 Formalize and structured scenarios ©

D.B4.5.1 To-Be Scenario Analysis Process, Method and Templates ® ©

D.B4.6.1 ATHENA Mapping Approach Definition between Requirements and Interoperability Issues ©

D 4.6.2 ATHENA Mapping Approach Validation Report ©
D.B5.1.1 Term of Reference for the Technology Testing Network ©

D.B5.3.1 Users Guide to Athena Prototyping Services ©

D.B5.4/5 Test cases and Post-test evaluation ©

D.B6.2 Curriculum of the Interoperability Training Service ©

D.B6.3.1 Training and education material and activities ©

D.C2.5 User Group Watchdog Report to the Technology Council ® ©

D.C1.1 ATHENA Key Results ©

D.C1.2 Project Reports ©

D.C1.3 Interoperability Roadmap update ©

D.C1.4 Yearly detailed implementation plan ©

D.C3.1.1 Exploitation Handbook ©

D.C3.2.1 Athena Exploitation Workshop ©

D.C3.3.1 Joint and Individual Exploitation Plans ©

D.A4.1 Requirements for Interoperability Framework, product-based and process-based
Interoperability Infrastructures, Interoperability Life-cycle Services ©

D.A4.2 Specification of Interoperability Framework and Profiles, Guidelines and Best Practices ©

D.A4.6 Validation of research results – product-based and process-based interoperability infrastructures, Interoperability life-cycle Services

Related publications (referenced in publication tables 2 to 8): P30, 031, P32

**Main outcomes:**

First valuable result to point out is related to "Cross-Organisational Business Process", applied to interconnection of internal private change management workflow processes through a transversal public change management process.

Second valuable result is related to assessment of emerging technologies for the Semantic Mediation, in particular Semantic WEB technologies that seem very accurate to allow flexible sharing of heterogeneous PLM resources between the systems used by the members of a networked organization. Since ATHENA, I continuously followed-up and assessed those technologies in order to identify when the required level of maturity will be reached to support industrial processes.

Third valuable result is related to automated generation of collaborative workplaces from organisational models and business models on top of standardised Service Oriented Execution Platform, using a Model Driven approach based on OMG standards. It should allow to drastically fasten establishment of a collaboration enabled by a workspace connecting legacy eBusiness Platforms of partners (e.g. applications supporting PLM approach), with low cost. It is particularly important for short and episodic collaborations with numerous external partners or subcontractors having their own specific methods, processes and applications (addressed issue being "How to avoid digital break within the network of enterprises working on a given Product, all along the lifecycle of the product?")

The ATHENA Interoperability Framework was the starting point of the Federated Interoperability Framework, which was initiated during my thesis. The set of assessed free platform components was the starting point for the cPlatform, as no components coming from the ATHENA partners were reusable.

**Related Publications** (referenced in tables 3 to 8): P30, P31, P32, P36

**Concerned standards** (referenced in table 10): [AP214], [CORBA], [MDA], [OWL], [XML], [UML], [WSRP], {JRS 168], [JSR 186]
<table><tr><td>IMAGINE<br>Grant agreement<br>285132</td><td>Innovative End-to-end Management of Dynamic<br>Manufacturing Networks</td><td>Funded under<br>FP7-2011-NMP-<br>ICT-FoF</td></tr><tr><td>Overall budget<br>€ 11 392 598</td><td>Topic: Virtual Factories and enterprises<br>Web site: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/285132</td><td>Start: 2011-09-01<br>End 2014-12-03<br>Duration:39M</td></tr></table>

**Partners:** INTRACOM (Coordinator), SAS, Fraunhofer, Software AG, AIDIMA, Airbus Group SAS, CNRS (LAAS), NTUA, PANEPISTIMIO PATRON, SANTER REPLY SPA, CRF, UNINOVA, LOGO and University of Warwick...

**My role:** Contributor to the Call response and to the definition of the Description of work, Responsible of the Aeronautics and Space Living Lab, contribution to the end-to-end DMN Management methodology, responsible of the Aeronautic and Defence requirements

**Description:** IMAGINE is a Research & Development project, funded by the European Commission under the "Virtual Factories and Enterprises" theme of the 7th Framework Programme (FoF-ICT-2011.7.3, Grant Agreement No: 285132). The project targets the development and delivery of a novel comprehensive methodology and the respective platform for effective end-to-end management of dynamic manufacturing networks in an innovative plug and produce approach, and aims at supporting the emergence of a powerful new production model, based on community, collaboration, sef-organisation and openness rather than on hierarchy and centralized control.

**My Role:** I contributed to the Novel Approach to DMN Management by elaborating on the case studies associated with the Living Labs for Aerospace, by pointing out the Technology/Regulations. Standards used in Manufacturing for Aerospace, by participating to the definition of the Methodology for end-to-end DMN management, and by identifying the Business drivers, environment, benefits and risks for aerospace.

I contributed to the Technology Foundation and Architecture Specification, provided use Cases of the IMAGINE platform related to the virtual product (and not to the physical one like the other industrial partners), and to the definition of the Architecture of IMAGINE Platform.

With LAAS, I was in charge of the Living Lab Demonstrations for Aerospace and Defence Industry.

I then contributed to the Technical Evaluation, to the Evaluation of the end-to-end DMN management approach and to the Quantitative Impact Assessment and Business Case. Being not industry driven, the solution providers didn't consider the needs expressed by EADS, and the Living Lab was consequently relying on a new extended version of the cPlatform, enriched by DMN components I specified, in order to adapt the DMN to support virtual product development. I then developed some dedicated demonstrator components with the support of Malik Khalfallah: SharkIne and JaWine. The living lab was extended by the Autonomic Service Bus defined and developed by LAAS.

I contributed to the Stakeholders Engagement and Dissemination activities, to the online Presence (http://www.eads-iw.net/web/imagine ), to the production of dissemination material and to training activities across Europe (cf. training section). I also made the link with Standardization, promoting the IMAGINE approach and relying on a set of elected relevant standards to be considered for
through life cycle PLM interoperability including production systems.

I was responsible ® and contributed © to the following deliverables:

D1.1.1 **Compendium on virtual manufacturing management** ©

D1.2 - Methodology for end-to-end DMN management ©

D 2.1 - Use Cases of the IMAGINE Platform ©

D 4.1 - Living Lab in Aerospace and Defence domain Report ®

D.6.5 - IMAGINE Training Material ©

**Research Outcome:** Aerospace virtual lab co-developed with LAAS, and derived from the cPlatform V2, which led to the cPlatform v3 used and extended in SIP. Results of IMAGINE were an input for the SIP project.

Related publications (referenced in publication tables 2 to 8): P24, P14, P19, P29

Trainings and training supports: D6.5, plus online training supports mentioned on the training section

Related Supervision: Malik Khalfallah PhD (direct), Kamoun Aymen (indirect) and Code Diop (indirect)

**Concerned standards** (referenced in table 10): [AP242], [ISA 95], [SCOR], [SCORM], [ArchiMate]

<table><tr><td><strong>CRESCENDO</strong><br>Grant agreement<br>234344</td><td>Collaborative &amp; Robust Engineering using Simulation Capability Enabling Next Design Optimisation</td><td>Funded under<br>FP7-Transport</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Overall Budget</strong><br>M€ 55</td><td>Topic: Integrated approach to full virtuality in design and product development within the extended enterprise<br>Web site: <a href="https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/234344">https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/234344</a></td><td><strong>Start:</strong><br>01/05/2009<br><strong>End:</strong><br>30/04/2013<br>Duration: 36M</td></tr></table>

Airbus (Coordinator) + 59 organisations from 13 different countries

My role: contribution to the Model store definition and to the standards to be used

**Description:** Collaborative and Robust Engineering using Simulation Capability Enabling Next Design Optimisation" (CRESCENDO) is an EU co-founded R&T project with a 55 M€ budget, launched in May 2009. The project is led by Airbus and brings together 59 organisations from 13 different countries, including major aeronautics industry companies, service and IT solution providers, research centres and academic institutions. The ambition of the consortium is to make a step change in the way that Modeling and Simulation activities are carried out, by multi-disciplinary teams working as part of a collaborative enterprise, in order to develop new aeronautical products in a more cost and time efficient manner.

**My role:** contributor to the Work Package 5.2 "BDA Model Store Capabilities", BDA standing for Behavioural Digital Aircraft. I contributed to the identification of the relevant open standards to consider, but also to the design of a new standard for the support of distributed simulation, MOSSEC.

**Research Outcome:** Enrichment of the cPlatform by considering the secured collaboration constraints (cf. <a href="http://www.eads-iw.net/web/crescendo/welcome">http://www.eads-iw.net/web/crescendo/welcome</a>), addressing the interoperability
brake related to secured collaboration: most of the time, defined interoperability approaches are not addressing the security, considering it is out of scope. It prevents industrialization of the results.

**Concerned standards** (referenced in table 10 ): [AP233], [WSRP], [JSR 168], [JSR 286], [STEP TAS], [AP209]

<table><tr><td><strong>TOICA</strong><br>Grant Agreement<br>604981</td><td>Thermal Overall Integrated Conception of Aircraft</td><td>EC FP7</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Budget</strong>: 26.5M€</td><td>Topic: Integrated thermal analysis and design for aircraft<br>Web site: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/604981<br>https://www.toica-fp7.eu/</td><td>Start: 2013-09-01<br>End: 2016-08-31<br>Duration: 36 M</td></tr></table>

**Partners** : Airbus (Coordinator) + 31 partners, 8 countries

**My Role**: Contribution to Interoperability related work package, Liaison with SIP

**Description**: Thermal behaviour of aircraft has recently become a crucial subject due to many factors: the increasing number of complex systems required by modern, more electric, commercial aircraft, the introduction of hotter engines with higher by-pass ratios, the increased use of composite material in aircraft structures, and the confinement of highly dissipative equipment and systems in smaller areas to gain space for passengers and cargo. New advanced techniques to manage aircraft thermal behaviour at the very early stages of development are essential to take the right configuration decisions while meeting market demands. To work efficiently on emerging innovative solutions, it is essential to perform thermal management at the global aircraft level.

**Research Outcome**: contributed to the MOSSEC standard development and assessment

**Concerned standards** (referenced in table 10 ): [MOSSEC], [AP233]
## 1.5.2 - National Projects

<table><tr><td>Acronym: <u>SIP</u></td><td>Name: Standard Interoperability PLM</td><td>Type: IRT-SystemX Project</td></tr><tr><td><b>Budget</b>: 3,6 M€</td><td><b>Start</b>:2016-01-01 <b>End</b>: 2016-12-31</td><td><b>web site</b> https://www.irt-systemx.fr/projets/sip</td></tr></table>

**Industrial Partners:** Airbus Group Innovations, Boost Conseil, CIMPA, Datakit, OVH, SOFYNE, Dassault Système

**Academic partners:** CNRS, Université Lyon 1 (LIRIS), University Paris 8 (LISMMA)

**My role:** Writer of the proposal and of the Description of Work, Project Leader, Writer of all the Deliverable reports

**Objectives:** Create a methodology and a test platform to accelerate the implementation of standards and PLM interoperability, based on open-source / COTS approach allowing to prototype and validate processes interoperability at a controlled cost. Challenge: facilitate operations on the entire subcontracting chain thanks to a homogenization of model standards and management tools the life of the product cycle.

### Deliverable reports

* Reference Framework: L0.1 SIP Referential Framework, L0.2 SIP Knowledge Base

* State of the Art and state of the practice: L1.1.SIP SoA and SoP synthesis, L1.2 SIP Base de connaissance

* Industrial cases: L2.1 SIP Configuration management, L2.2 SIP System Engineering, L2.3 SIP Simulation, L2.4 SIP Manufacturing, L2.5 SIP Support, L2.6 SIP DataPack AP242

* Testbed evaluation and prototyping: L3.1 SIP Test bed specifications, L3.2.1 SIP Developed components, L3.2.2 SIP Integration of components, L3.3 SIP Test data sets, L3.4 SIP test bed usage guide, L3.5:SIP Test bed evaluation REX, L3.6 SIP REX DataPack AP242

* Interoperability Solutions: L4.1. SIP REX and justification of choices made, L4.2 SIP Recommended practices and usage roadmap

* External Liaisons and Participations: L5.1 SIP Professional association, L5.2.SIP_standardization_organization, L5.3 SIP International equivalent, L5.4 SIP Solution providers, L5.5 SIP Education

* Dissemination and exploitation: L6.1.SIP Study association creation, L6.2.1.SIP specification of business cases and publication, L6.2.2.SIP White book PLM Interoperability L6.3.1 SIP Preliminary study future collaboration mode, L6.3.2 SIP proposal for SIP Platform at IRT, L6.4.1 SIP Training scenarios, L6.4.2 SIP training packages, L6.4.3 SIP Training platform integration

**Publications** (referenced in publication tables 3 to 8): P01, P02, P03, P04, P07, P08, P10, P12, P13, P14, P15, P16, P17, P18, P19, P20, P21, P22, P29, P34, P36, P38

**Articles** (referenced in table 2): A57

**Related indirect supervision:** Emna Moones

**Outcome:** the cPlatform v4, update of the FIF for unleashing testability brakes, some identified future research topics

Concerned standards (referenced in table 10): [AP242], [MOF], [MDA], [UML2], [SysML], [IDEF0], [XML], [SCHEMATRON], [XML Schema], [OWL], [ArchiMate], [OSLC], [STEP], [XMI].
<table><tr><td>SEINE</td><td>Standards pour l'Entreprise Innovante Numérique Etendue</td><td>AFNET</td></tr><tr><td>Budget: N/A</td><td>Start: 2007 End:2009</td><td>Web site https://afnet.fr/dotank/sps/seine/</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Industrial partners: AFNET, EADS, THALES, Dassault Aviation, SAFRAN</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Role: Production of EADS use case</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Description: The objective of S.E.I.N.E. is to accelerate the digitization of the Aerospatiale & Defense supply chain, and of partner industrial sectors, through the implementation of open and interoperable solutions.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">1- By accelerating the deployment of digital working methods, up to n-tier suppliers, in the field of logistics, through private supplier portals or collaborative mutualism platforms, to facilitate SMEs' access to these technologies.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">2- by making the same effort (standardization, operational platforms) in the area of PLM (Product Lifecycle Management), which covers the activities of design, industrialization and support of the product life cycle. The objective of the S.E.I.N.E. is to concretely demonstrate the operational effectiveness of innovative digital uses in companies, to accelerate their diffusion in the industrial fabric, and to promote the mastery of complex systems, which is at the heart of competitiveness and innovation.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">The major industrialists in the A&D sector (Airbus, Dassault Aviation EADS, Safran, Thales, etc.) actively participated in the project, particularly in the phases of expression of needs, specifications, pilots and acceptance, as common objective of accelerating the digitization of the Aerospace and Defense (A&D) supply chain and sectors of the same industrial ecosystem, with comparable businesses and sharing the same suppliers.</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">My Role: production of EADS use cases, Interoperability for PLM standards expert</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Outcomes:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><ul><li>Business cases and motivation for IMAGINE and SIP, with identification of interoperability brakes to be unleashed</li><li>Origin of BoostAerospace</li><li>Involvement in the EADS PLM harmonization project as Standard expert</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Concerned standards (referenced in table 10): [AP214], [AP233]</td></tr></table>
OpenDevFactory

Usine Logicielle

Pôle Systematic

Budget: N/A

Start:2006-02-21 End: 2009-01-31

Web site N/A

Industrial partners: THALES, CEA, EADS

**My role:** Responsible for the EADS business scenario "System Engineering factory for virtual enterprise and PLM", definition of a pilot for evaluation of the platform defined by the project

**Description:** The Software Factory macro-project brought together the 3 OpenDevFactory, Inflexion and Modrival projects. The Software Factory aims to create a platform for integrating software engineering tools to support the engineering of complex systems in an IDM (Model-Driven Engineering) approach. The focus is on real-time on-board systems. OpenDevFactory is an open modelling platform for model engineering. Inflexion is a flexible execution infrastructure based on components and connectors, oriented towards distribution, reconfiguration and fault tolerance. Modrival is a model-driven validation system.

The objective of the OpenDevFactory project was to develop and validate model-driven engineering (IDM - Ingénierie Dirigée par les Modèles) technology and tooling for embedded systems, with concurrent multi-point of view engineering (performance, reliability, etc.) and multi-domains (IT, electronics, mechanics, etc.), integration and migration (including management of obsolescence of IDM tools, urbanization of the technical information system and multi-formalism semantic correspondence in the domain real time), independence from execution platforms, automatic test generation, static verification of behavioural properties, hardware architecture simulation and component-based execution platforms.

**My role:** responsible for the EADS business scenario "System Engineering factory for virtual enterprise and PLM", with the definition of a pilot for evaluation of the platform defined by the project, based on Eclipse and Open Standards and the integration of the developed components to this platform. Finally, I assessed the results and delivered demonstrations

* Interconnection of Procube Designer, tool allowing to formalize methodology by mean of SPEM, and Microsoft Project, a tool allowing to deal with project management, applied to a SLM collaboration

* Generation of BPEL from Procube Designer, tool allowing to formalize methodology by mean of SPEM - it means that some workflow can be generated relying on BPEL

* AndroMDA profiles creation on Papyrus UML

* UML2 model transformation in UML2 profile

* Transformation chain XPDL XML Schema => XPDL UML 2 Model => XPDL UML2 profile

* Usage of enterprise modelling framework (COMET) on top of open source modelling environment and open standards

Responsible ® and Principal contributor © to the following deliverables:

D1.2.5: Specification of the EADS CCR demonstrator ® ©

D1.3: EADS Innovation Works Evaluation ® ©

## Outcome

* Assessment of the Eclipse platform for Model Driven Approach, with derived practices and planning formalized with OMG's SPEM and the Eclipse Project Framework from Workflow models formalized with Wfmc standardized language (XML Process Description
Language).

* Definition of components as part of the cPlatform and associated model factory.

* The performed work contributed to my thesis

* Integration of the results and of the demonstration within my training supports

**Concerned standards:** [AP214], [MDA], [OWL], [SPEM], [XPDL], [RM]

## 1.6 - Scientific influence

The scientific influence is first reflected by the contribution to the state of the art, validated through the acceptance of research papers by Journal publishers, and related to the principal original contributions I brought.

The scientific influence is also reflected by the invitation for presenting my work by different event and conference organisers.

### 1.6.1 - Membership of research related committee

* Member of the IJPLM Editorial board in 2005 cf. [IJPLM Leaflet](#)

* Member of Program Committee of IEEE ICWS 2021

* Member of the Scientific board of the ATLAS Project

### 1.6.2 - Contributor to Research Roadmaps

* VIP-ROAM

* IDEAS

* Airbus Innovation Works

### 1.6.3 - Contribution as Expert on Interoperability to International Standardization

* ISO TC184 SC4 - Manufacturing Data

* ASD Strategic Standardization

* Airbus Group Strategic Standardization Committee

* ProSTEP

### 1.6.4 - Contribution as Expert on Interoperability to National Standardization and Industrial organization or projects

* AFNOR: Association Française de NORMalisation, commission IDMI

* BNAE: Bureau de Normalisation de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace

* AIF: Alliance Industrie du Futur - Participation groupe de travaux sur RAMI 4.0

* AFNET: L'Association Française de référence du numérique dans les filières industrielles

* GIFAS: member of the PLM task Force

* AFIS: Association Française de l'Ingénierie Système

* [ATLAS](#) - Project on Digital standards and norms of Industrial Sectors

### 1.6.5 - Invitation for presenting my work

The performed research work allowed me to be invited for presenting my work at:
* Complex Systems Design & Management (CSD&M 2019) conference as a guest for promoting the event, through the LinkedIn article "Current trends and challenges for Complex Systems Design & Management", the 2nd of December 2019

* iPLM 2014 Workshop « Interoperability & PLM» - "PLM interoperability: towards Dynamic Manufacturing Network and manufacturing standards test bed"

* iPLM 2015 Workshop "Vers des plateformes pédagogiques Interopérabilité et PLM" - "L'orientation académique de la plateforme SIP"

* iPLM 2016 Workshop « Interopérabilité & PLM : Interopérabilité PLM et Ingénierie - Système : Un nouveau défi» - "Building a secured collaboration for PLM and System Engineering with standard as network protocols"

* iPLM 2017 - "Systèmes d'Information, Interopérabilité-PLM et Collectivités locales : La Réutilisation des approches numériques de l'industrie aux services des collectivités locales"

* PLM'16 https://www.plm-conference.org/docs/2016.pdf

* AFNET Standardization day 2016: "Presentation of Standard Interoperability PLM", Paris, July 2016

* AFNET Standardization day 2017: "Standards for Virtual Manufacturing and Factory of the future: Position and status of ISA 95", Paris, 19-20/04/2017

* AFNET Standardization day 2017: "STEP Architecture update : integration of the STEP standards in the state of the art Model Based IS development frameworks"

* Icosyl'2018: "Enterprise Architecture for MBSE and Virtual Manufacturing digital continuity based on open standards" - presentation I made at

* GIFAS - PLM TF Steering Committee - 2007-06-28 "OSLC Open Services For Lifecycle Collaboration"

* PI PLMx CHICAGO 2018: "PLM Infrastructure and Interoperability - Emerging Research Challenges for Effective Collaboration", 5th of November 2018, Chicago. Related LinkedIn article: "The emerging research challenges for PLM effective digital collaboration", 2nd of November 2018

* "Standards for virtual manufacturing and factory of the future position and status of ISA95", presentation I made at

* ISO SC4 TC184 65th workshop: "Linking standards for Dynamic Manufacturing Standards", 5th of September 2016

* Workshop Interoperability and PLM "Towards dynamic manufacturing network and manufacturing standards test bed", presentation made at - the 18th of February, 2016

* ISO SC4 TSC184 Workshop: "SIP presentation to Implementation Forum", the 8th of May, 2014

* ISO SC4 TC184 Industry day 2013: "Standards and Research relationships", 5th of June 2013 at Paris

* ISO SC4 TC184 Industry Day: "Which digital exchange of tomorrow for increasing global competitiveness and market share? Aeronautic, Space & Defense industrial and research approach - The new standard ISO 10303 STEP AP 242", Belfort meeting the 5th of November

* Ontology Summit 2009 Panel Session - "Toward Ontology-based Standards - A Synthesis" - Chaired by Dr Steve Ray and with as panellists Mr. Howard Mason, Professor Michael Gruninger, Mr. David Connelly, Dr Katherine Goodier, Mr. David Leal and myself, where I presented "STEP APs Formalization Suggestions" Audio archive of the session are available!
* 16th International Conference on 3D Web Technologies: "Conception assistée par ordinateur, Gestion des données, et besoins en validation 3D: 3D visualisation needs for CAD and PDM", presentation by Jean Brangé and Nicolas Figay made at, 21st of June 2011

* PDT Europe 2015 - The perfect storm for PLM - the product innovation platform - "Achieving sustainable interoperability despite Emerging Technology", 27-10-2015

# 1.7 - Supervision

## 1.7.1 - PHD thesis

### Supervision

1. Malik Khalfallah PhD, "A formal framework for Process Interoperability in Dynamic Collaboration Environments". The thesis was co-directed with Pr Parisa Shariat Ghodous and Dr Mahmoud Barhamgi. It was run through a CIFRE convention involving EADS and LIRIS, and connected to the contribution to the IMAGINE and to the SIP research projects. The collaboration led to 13 scientific publications. My supervision rate was 60%

### Contribution to the following PHD through collaboration in research projects

1. Emna Moones, for "Proposition d'une approche méthodologique d'interopérabilité multi-niveaux dans un environnement de PLM collaboratif." (Proposal of a methodological approach of multi-level interoperability in a collaborative PLM environment."), supervised by Pr. Abderrahman El Mhamedi - Paris 8. The thesis contributed to the extension of the Federated Interoperability Framework to manufacturing relying on the ISA 95 standard (Enterprise-Control System Integration) within the context of the SIP project.

2. Kamoun Aymen, for "Adaptation of access control software architectures in collaborative ubiquitous environments", supervised by Pr. Said Tazi and Pr Khalil Drira, Toulouse 1. The thesis occurred within the context of collaboration between the LAAS and EADS within the frame of the IMAGINE project, and contributed to the establishment of the infrastructure layer of the experimental platform aiming at studying PLM interoperability within a Dynamic Manufacturing Network, which I designed in collaboration with Pr Ernesto Exposito, on the basis of the FIF principles.

3. Diop Code for "An autonomic service bus for service-based distributed systems" supervised by Pr. Ernesto Exposito, Toulouse 1. The thesis occurred within the context of collaboration between the LAAS and EADS within the frame of the IMAGINE project, and contributed to the establishment of the infrastructure layer of the experimental platform aiming at studying PLM interoperability within a Dynamic Manufacturing Network, which I designed in collaboration with Pr Ernesto Exposito, on the basis of the FIF principles.
1.7.2 - Supervision of school enterprise internships

1. Supervision of **Olivier Demarez** in enterprise during his DESS IRS (**Master**) internship at Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-En-Yvelines from October 2002 to September 2003. It consisted in proposing **an applicative exchange control system for PDM Enablers**.

2. Supervision of **David Hassoun** internship for DESS (**Master**) « Logiciels Fondamentaux» at University Denis Diderot Paris VII from April to September 2003. It concerned **the study of the implementation of PDM Enablers by PTC for Windhill, after the SAVE project.**

3. Supervision in enterprise for an internship for DESS (**Master**), after a Master at ITIN with participation in a school project I drove: **Jonas Martin** (2003-2004). Jonas attended my training sessions related to controlled urbanism at ITIN before working with me. He worked on a controlled urbanism demonstration platform generated using model based generation (Système d'Urbanisation du Système d'Information d'Entreprise - **Urbanization System of Enterprise Information System**), and he drove ITIN Maser students on the evolution of the platform.

4. Supervision in enterprise for internship, preceded by a Master at ITIN with participation in a school project I drove, Ludovic **Duchemin** (2004 to 2005). Like Jonas, Ludovic attended my training sessions related to controlled urbanism before working with me. He continued the work on the controlled urbanism demonstration platform generated using model based generation (Système d'Urbanisation du Système d'Information d'Entreprise - **Urbanization System of Enterprise Information System**), and also drove ITIN M2 students on the evolution of the platform.

5. Supervision of 6 months internship **Sophie Gatoux - ArchiMagine ArchiMate publisher prototype** April 2013-September 2013 Ecole Centrale Lille for a **Master** Organisation Modelling and Management
# 1.8 - List of publications

## 1.8.1 - International peer-reviewed journals

<table><caption>Table 3 : LinkedIn articles</caption><thead><tr><td>N°</td><td>Title</td><td>Details</td><td></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>P00</td><td>Alignment of the Product Lifecycle Management Federated Interoperability Framework with Internet of Things and Virtual Manufacturing</td><td>Accepted the 10th of April 2021 David Tchoffa, Nicolas Figay, Parisa Ghodous A. El Mhamedi Hervé Panetto (2021), Alignment of the Product Lifecycle Management Federated Interoperability Framework with Internet of Things and Virtual Manufacturing, Computer in Industry</td><td>SJR Q1 Impact Factor: 3.954 (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>P01</td><td>Dynamic Manufacturing Network - from flat Semantic Graphs to Composite Models</td><td>David Tchoffa, Nicolas Figay, Parisa Ghodous, Ernesto Expósito, Kouami Seli Apedome &amp; Abderrahaman El Mhamedi (2019). « Dynamic manufacturing network - from flat semantic graphs to composite models ». International Journal of Production Research, vol. 57, n°20, pp. 6569-6578. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1570375. HAL: hal-02433065</td><td>SJR Q1 Impact Factor: 4.577 (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>P02</td><td>Towards a Formal Framework for Product Level Agreements</td><td>Malik Khalfallah, Nicolas Figay, Mahmoud Barhamgi, Parisa Ghodous: Towards a formal framework for product level agreements. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management 8(1): 31-52 doi: 10.1504/IJBPIM.2017.082759. HAL: hal-01636852 (2017)</td><td>Impact Factor: 0.45</td></tr><tr><td>P03</td><td>Digital Factory System for Dynamic Manufacturing Network supporting Networked Collaborative Product Development</td><td>D. Tchoffa, N. Figay, P. Ghodous, E. Exposito, Lyes Kermad, Thomas Vosgien, A. El Mhamedi, Digital factory system for dynamic manufacturing network supporting networked collaborative product development, Data &amp; Knowledge Engineering, Volume 105, 2016, Pages 130-154, ISSN 0169-023X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2016.02.004. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169023X16300040)</td><td>SJR Q1 Impact Factor: 1.476 i</td></tr><tr><td>P04</td><td>A cloud-based Platform to Ensure Interoperability in Aerospace Industry</td><td>M. Khalfallah, NFI Figay, C Ferreira Da Silva, P Ghodous, « A cloud-based platform to ensure interoperability in aerospace industry », Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 27 pp. 119-129, Springer US, ISSN 1572-8145. 2016.</td><td>SJR Q1 Impact Factor: 1.731</td></tr><tr><td>P05</td><td>Interoperability Framework for Dynamic Manufacturing</td><td>Nicolas Figay, Parisa Ghodous, Malik Khalfallah, Mahmoud Barhamgi. Interoperability framework for dynamic manufacturing networks. Computers in Industry, Elsevier, 2012, 8, 63, pp.749-755. (hal-01353096)</td><td>SJR Q1 Impact Factor: 1.937,</td></tr><tr><td>P06</td><td>Enabling interoperability of STEP Application Protocols at meta-data and knowledge level</td><td>Nicolas Figay, Ricardo Jardim-Gonçalves, Adolfo Steiger-Garção. Enabling interoperability of STEP Application Protocols at meta-data and knowledge level. International Journal of Technology Management, Inderscience, 2006, 4, 36, pp.402-421. (10.1504/IJTM.2006.010275). (hal-01511467)</td><td>Rang Q2</td></tr><tr><td>P07</td><td>Pragmatic PLM Process Interoperability for Aeronautic, Space and Defence DMN</td><td>Nicolas Figay, Parisa Ghodous, Samer Abdul Ghafour, Catarina Ferreira da Silva, Ernesto Expósito. Pragmatic PLM process interoperability for aeronautic, space and defence DMN. Journal of Aerospace Operations, IOS Press, 2015, Concurrent Engineering, 3 (3,4), pp.147-166. (10.3233/AOP-150050). (hal-01267419)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P08</td><td>Standards Compliant Platform for Product Design in Dynamic Environment</td><td>Malik Khalfallah, Nicolas Figay, Mahmoud Barhamgi, Parisa Ghodous. Standards Compliant Platform for Product Design in Dynamic Environments. International Journal of Services Computing, STCC, 2014, pp.44-57. (hal-01301127)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
1.8.2 - International peer-reviewed conferences and published proceedings

<table><thead><tr><td>N°</td><td>Title</td><td>Details</td><td></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>P09</td><td>Alignment of the PLM Federated Interoperability Framework with IoT and Virtual Manufacturing</td><td>David Tchoffa, Nicolas Figay, Danioko Fadaba, Abderrahman El Mhamedi. Alignment of the PLM federated interoperability framework with IoT and virtual manufacturing. 7th International Conference on Information Society and Technology, ICIST2017, Mar 2017, Kopaonik, Serbia. (hal-01506813)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P10</td><td>Interoperability Improvement in a Collaborative Dynamic Manufacturing Network</td><td>Emna Moones, El Dafaoui, El Abderrahman, Nicolas Figay, Ali Koudri. Interoperability Improvement in a Collaborative Dynamic Manufacturing Network. 13th IFIP International Conference on Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), Jul 2016, Columbia, SC, United States. pp.286-295, (10.1007/978-3-319-54660-5_26). (hal-01699735)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P11</td><td>An Application Domain-Based Taxonomy for IoT Sensors</td><td>Vitor Rozsa, Marta Denisczwicz, Moisés Dutra, Parisa Ghodous, Catarina Ferreira da Silva, et al. An Application Domain-Based Taxonomy for IoT Sensors. 23rd ISPE International Conference on Transdisciplinary Engineering: Crossing Boundaries, Oct 2016, Curitiba, Brazil. ff10.3233/978-1-61499-703-0-249ff. ffhal-01581127f</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P12</td><td>Generating Executable Workflows from solution plans</td><td>M. Khalfallah, N. Figay, M. Barhamgi and P. Ghodous, "Generating Executable Workflows from Solution Plans," 2015 IEEE International Conference on Web Services, New York, NY, 2015, pp. 535-542, doi: 10.1109/ICWS.2015.77.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P13</td><td>Simulation Data Management and Reuse: Toward a Verification and Validation Approach</td><td>Anaïs Ottino, Thomas Vosgien, Julien Duigou, Nicolas Figay, Pascal Lardeur, et al. Simulation Data Management and Reuse: Toward a Verification and Validation Approach. 12th IFIP International Conference on Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), Oct 2015, Doha, Qatar. pp.476-484, (10.1007/978-3-319-33111-9_43). (hal-01377473)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P14</td><td>Model Based Enterprise Modeling for testing PLM Interoperability in Dynamic Manufacturing Network</td><td>Nicolas Figay, Parisa Ghodous, Bezhad Shariat, Ernesto Expósito, David Tchoffa, et al. Model Based Enterprise Modeling for Testing PLM Interoperability in Dynamic Manufacturing Network. 6th International IFIP Working Conference on Enterprise Interoperability (IWEI). May 2015, Nîmes, France. pp.141-153, (10.1007/978-3-662-47157-9_13). (hal-01438398)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P15</td><td>PLM standards modelling for enterprise interoperability: A manufacturing case study between ERP and MES information exchange business scenario based on ISA 95 standard</td><td>Emna Moones, Thomas Vosgien, Lyes Kermad, El Dafaoui, Abderrahman El Mhamedi, et al. PLM Standards Modelling for Enterprise Interoperability: A Manufacturing Case Study for ERP and MES Systems Integration Based on ISA-95. 6th International IFIP Working Conference on Enterprise Interoperability (IWEI), May 2015, Nîmes, France. pp.157-170, ff10.1007/978-3-662-47157-9_14ff. ffhal01438399f</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P16</td><td>Patterns for Monitoring Parallel Processes</td><td>M. Khalfallah, N. Figay, M. Barhamgi and P. Ghodous, "Patterns for Monitoring Parallel Processes," 2014 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, Anchorage, AK, 2014, pp. 9-16, doi: 10.1109/SCC.2014.11.</td><td>Rang A</td></tr><tr><td>P17</td><td>Model Driven Conformance Testing for Standardized Services</td><td>M. Khalfallah, N. Figay, M. Barhamgi and P. Ghodous, "Model Driven Conformance Testing for Standardized Services," 2014 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, Anchorage, AK, 2014, pp. 400-407, doi: 10.1109/SCC.2014.60.</td><td>Rang A</td></tr><tr><td>P18</td><td>Towards an extended interoperability systemic approach for dynamic manufacturing networks: role and assessment of PLM standards</td><td>Emna Moones, Nicolas Figay, Thomas Vosgien, Lyes Kermad, François Stephane Abderrahman El Mhamedi, El Mouloudi Dafaoui, (2015) Towards an Extended Interoperability Systemic Approach for Dynamic Manufacturing Networks: Role and Assessment of PLM Standards. In: Boulanger F., Krob D., Morel G., Roussel JC. (eds) Complex Systems Design & Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11617-4_5</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>P19</td><td>An Architecture for a Centralized mediation In Dynamic Networks</td><td>Malik Khalfallah, Mahmoud Barhamgi, Nicolas Figay, Parisa Ghodous. An Architecture for a Centralized Mediation in Dynamic Manufacturing Networks. IEEE International Conference on Web Services, ICWS, 2014, Jul 2014, Anchorage, United States. pp.720-721, (10.1109/ICWS.2014.114). (hal-01477969)</td><td>Rang A</td></tr><tr><td>P20</td><td>Interoperability of Simulation Applications for Dynamic Network Enterprises Based on Cloud Computing Aeronautic Applications</td><td>Anaïs Ottino, Parisa Ghodous, Hamid Ladjal, Behzad Shariat, Nicolas Figay: Interoperability of Simulation Applications for Dynamic Network Enterprises Based on Cloud Computing - Aeronautics Application. ISPE CE 2014: 597-606</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P21</td><td>Towards Combining Declarative Specification with On-the-fly mediation</td><td>M. Khalfallah, N. Figay, M. Barhamgi, C. F. Da Silva and P. Ghodous, "Towards Combining Declarative Specification with On-the-Fly Mediation," 2013 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, Santa Clara, CA, 2013, pp. 691-698, doi: 10.1109/SCC.2013.18.</td><td>Rang A</td></tr><tr><td>P22</td><td>Controlling the Evolution of Product-based Collaboration Contracts</td><td>M. Khalfallah, N. Figay, M. Barhamgi and P. Ghodous, "Controlling the Evolution of Product-Based Collaboration Contracts," 2013 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, Santa Clara, CA, 2013, pp. 713-720, doi: 10.1109/SCC.2013.86.</td><td>Rang A</td></tr><tr><td>P23</td><td>Cross-Organizational Business Processes Modeling Using Design-by-Contract Approach</td><td>Malik Khalfallah, Nicolas Figay, Parisa Ghodous, Catarina Ferreira da Silva. Cross-organizational Business Processes Modeling Using Design-by-Contract Approach. 5th International Working Conference on Enterprise Interoperability (IWEI), Mar 2013, Enschede, Netherlands. pp.77-90, ff10.1007/978-3-642-36796-0_8ff. ffhal-01339152f</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P24</td><td>Product-Based Business Processes Interoperability</td><td>Malik Khalfallah, Mahmoud Barhamgi, Nicolas Figay, Parisa Ghodous. Product-Based Business Processes Interoperability. Symposium On Applied Computing, Mar 2013, Coimbra, Portugal. pp.1472-1473. (hal-01339153)</td><td>Rang B</td></tr><tr><td>P25</td><td>A Novel Approach to Ensure Interoperability Based on a Cloud Infrastructure</td><td>Malik Khalfallah, Mahmoud Barhamgi, Nicolas Figay, Parisa Ghodous. A Novel Approach to Ensure Interoperability Based on a Cloud Infrastructure. 19th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering - CE2012, Sep 2012, Trier, Germany. pp.1143-1154, (10.1007/978-1-4471-4426-7_96). (hal-01353010)</td><td>Rang B</td></tr><tr><td>P26</td><td>Innovative interoperability framework for enterprise applications within virtual enterprises</td><td>Nicolas Figay and Parisa Ghodous. 2009. Innovative interoperability framework for enterprise applications within virtual enterprises. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital Ecosystems (MEDES '09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 49, 325-331. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1643823.1643884</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P27</td><td>Extended Hypermodel for Interoperability within the Virtual Enterprise</td><td>N. Figay and P. Ghodous, "Extended Hypermodel for Interoperability within the Virtual Enterprise," 2009 Fifth International Conference on Signal Image Technology and Internet Based Systems, Marrakesh, 2009, pp. 393-400, doi:10.1109/SITIS.2009.68</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P28</td><td>FLOSS as Enterprise Applications Interoperability Enabler</td><td>N. Figay and P. Ghodous, "FLOSS as Enterprise Application Interoperability Enabler," 2009 Fifth International Conference on Signal Image Technology and Internet Based Systems, Marrakesh, Morocco, 2009, pp. 435-442, doi: 10.1109/SITIS.2009.74.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P29</td><td>Dynamic Manufacturing Network, PLM Hub and Business standards testbed</td><td>Figay N., Tchoffa D., Ghodous P., Exposito E., El Mhamedi A. (2014) Dynamic Manufacturing Network, PLM Hub and Business Standards Testbed. In: Mertins K., Bénaben F., Poler R., Bourrières JP. (eds) Enterprise Interoperability VI. Proceedings of the I-ESA Conferences, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04948-9_38</td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><caption>Table 4: International peer-reviewed conferences</caption><tr><td>P30</td><td>Collaborative Product Development: EADS Pilot Based on ATHENA</td><td>Figay N., Ghodous P. (2008) Collaborative Product Development: EADS Pilot Based on ATHENA. In: Mertins K., Ruggaber R., Popplewell K., Xu X. (eds) Enterprise Interoperability III. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-221-0_33</td></tr><tr><td>P31</td><td>The ATHENA Interoperability Framework</td><td>Berre A.J. et al. (2007) The ATHENA Interoperability Framework. In: Gonçalves R.J., Müller J.P., Mertins K., Zelm M. (eds) Enterprise Interoperability II. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-858-6_62</td></tr><tr><td>P32</td><td>Collaborative Product Development: EADS Pilot Based on ATHENA Results</td><td>Figay N., Ghodous P. (2008) Collaborative Product Development: EADS Pilot Based on ATHENA. In: Mertins K., Ruggaber R., Popplewell K., Xu X. (eds) Enterprise Interoperability III. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-221-0_33</td></tr></table>

<table><caption>Table 5: published proceedings French conference</caption><thead><tr><td>N°</td><td>Title</td><td>Details</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>P34</td><td>Gestion et réutilisation des données de simulation : vers une approche de vérification et validation des modèles</td><td>A.Ottino, J.Le Duigou, T.Vosgien, N.Figay, P.Lardeur, B. Eysnard CFM15 22 ème Congrès Français de Mécanique 24-28/08/2015</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 1.8.3 - National peer-reviewed journal

<table><caption>Table 6: National peer-reviewed journals</caption><thead><tr><td>N°</td><td>Title</td><td>Details</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>P33</td><td>Utilisation innovante de l'implémentation du concept « Tout-Partie » pour assurer l'interopérabilité requise pour la gestion du cycle de vie des produits (Innovative usage of "Whole-Parts" concept implementation for PLM interoperability)</td><td>Nicolas Figay, Parisa Ghodous & David Tchoffa (2017). « Utilisation innovante de l'implémentation du concept « Tout-Partie » pour assurer l'interopérabilité requise pour la gestion du cycle de vie des produits ». Génie Logiciel GL & IS, n°117, pp. 22-33. HAL: hal-01505854.</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 1.8.4 - Book Chapter

<table><caption>Table 7: Book Chapters</caption><thead><tr><td>N°</td><td>Title</td><td>Details</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>P36</td><td>Resolving Interoperability in Concurrent Engineering</td><td>Nicolas Figay, Catarina Ferreira Da Silva, Parisa Ghodous & Ricardo Jardim-Gonçalves. « Resolving Interoperability in Concurrent Engineering ». Concurrent Engineering in the 21st Century, Springer International Publishing, pp. 133-163. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-13776-6_6, 2015.</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 1.8.5 - White Paper

<table><caption>Table 8: White papers</caption><thead><tr><td>N°</td><td>Title</td><td>Details</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>P35</td><td>White Paper Blockchain: Myth or Reality</td><td>Contribution as reviewer. Editor and coordinator: Rodrigues Germany. Publication Editor: Jean Pierre Thual - Systematic Paris Region, ISBN: 978-2-9549444-4-9</td></tr></tbody></table>
# Chapter 2 - Introduction to Interoperability

## 2.1-The Business Context

Preparing and building continuous operational interoperability for digital continuity in the Manufacturing Domain has been important during the last 20 years, due to the rise of Information and Communication technologies, in particular the Internet. The Internet has been continuously changing the life of the citizens and the way of working or doing business. It is true in particular within the manufacturing industry with successive innovative transformations.

The successive transformations were related to:

* Computer Aided Design and Manufacturing with virtualization of product and progressive replacement of physical mock-ups by Digital Mock-ups and Behavioural Digital Products

* Virtualization of the organizations, with the evolution from standalone autonomous enterprises to networked enterprises constituting digital business ecosystems

* Development of digital marketplaces with eBusiness applications offering new distribution and support channels relying on applications

* Progressive adoption of Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) Approach and Model Based System Engineering

* Virtual Collaborative working environment for people working inside but also outside their enterprise facilities, being for homework or nomadic work

* Gradual abandonment of in-house software for Commercial of the Shelves with a deployment model evolving from on premises solutions to heterogeneous hybrid multi clouds solutions.

* Cyber Physical Systems connected to organizational systems through the emerging protocols developed for the Internet of Everything. It prepared the ground for Smart Environments, being for production with Virtual Manufacturing (VM), for Maintenance, Repair & Operations (MRO) or for smart exploitation or usage environments (e.g. Smart cities for Autonomous transportation systems). It creates opportunities for Digital Twins, which are digital representations of physical product instances reflecting their state during various phases of the lifecycle of the product. These representations are closely related to the digital representations used for defining the product during the design phase. In order to ensure related data (i.e. those describing the product, the product instances and the associated processes) homogeneity, consistency and simple universal access, the concept of Digital Threads has been developed, for virtual manufacturing [1] or for the global value chain [2].

* The Circular Economy, which aims at avoiding the waste of not inexhaustible resources related to human activities and leading to their rarefaction and to the destruction of the natural ecosystem. It will be done by supporting the recycling of products that will consequently have several lives, through localized services closer to users. New regulations will also probably emerge.
All along this continuous transformation, combining 1) virtualization of the product, 2) virtualization of the enterprise, 3) virtualization of the applications and 4) multi-disciplines collaboration implying distributed or nomad workers, ensuring the required **continuous operational interoperability** for the successive generations of enterprise technical applications has remained a constant problem.

In the manufacturing domain, interoperability is necessary, in order to ensure

1) Efficient global configuration management

2) Coherency of product information/data distributed between the different Product Data Management systems of the partners involved in collaboration

3) Efficient product data exchange, sharing and long term retention in order to support engineering and collaboration processes. The processes concerned by product lifecycle management strategy are exploitation, maintenance and support processes, but also change and configuration management, and finally traceability for legal aspects.

4) Seamless collaboration of actors despite the fact they belong to different organizations or communities

5) Smooth transition without any disruption on operations and with continuous evolution and upgrade of legacy systems.

Several PLM interoperability challenges are to be considered:

1. **Person to Person collaboration:** for two engineers belong to different organisation, one being the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and the other being the equipment provider, they have to collaborate despite the fact their respective enterprise have different objectives, process and applications, realized with heterogeneous and sometimes incompatible software and hardware products and technologies. Hence non interoperability may occur due to interoperability barriers at business, applicative and technology layers, as illustrated by the Figure 2.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 Challenge for collaboration between two engineers in their respective organisations</figcaption></figure>
2. **Enterprise to Enterprises collaboration:** one enterprise having to collaborate with the outside can master the internal working environment, but have to interface it with the working environment of many other enterprises or organisations, which are willing to impose their way of working to the other, being by imposing their extended enterprise processes or exchange protocols. This is illustrated by Figure 3.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: challenge related to interfacing internal specific information system with the different clients</figcaption></figure>

3. **Collaboration within a the scale of a global supply chain:** for a given product, an Original Equipment Manufacturer has to collaborate with many subcontractors, which are themselves working with many subcontractors, and so on. Product data are to be exchanged and shared seamlessly with a complex network of organisation, for the different phases of the lifecycle of the product, as illustrated in Figure 4. In some cases, more than 80% of the value chain is out of the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM).

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4: challenge for exchange configured & control product data in the whole supply chain</figcaption></figure>

* **Combined complexity of products and of their environments:** because the complexity of the products and of their environments, more and more disciplines are to be involved all along the lifecycle of the product, each having their own domain of knowledge and digital representations of the product which is specific to the concerned disciplines and used software products. It becomes even worse when
aiming at using digital twins, and when the product is part a complex system of
systems which have to communicate and interact. Many Original Equipment
Manufacturers and Organisations have to be involved being for the product of system
interest or for the supporting systems as illustrated by Figure 5 for a satellite. We have
to deal with a complex product with complex design and production environments.
Both products and support systems have to be served by a complex information
system. The digital continuity is to be ensured between the various considered
systems, i.e. the ability to exchange data between people and machines seamlessly,
for any collaboration or interaction to be enacted.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: challenge of the digital continuity for complex system of systems.</figcaption></figure>

For supporting all these challenges and despite the barriers, the interconnection of the
applications the organisations are working with must be ensured at a reasonable cost, in order
to share and exchange digital information through accurate services. The interconnected
systems should support agile task flows and the enactment of structured but flexible workflow
models within a nomadic environment.

## 2.2 - Definitions of Interoperability

Resolving such challenges have been motivating various standardization and research
initiatives along the 30 past years, relying on successive interoperability technological
frameworks and extending the types of interoperability to be considered. It is probably the
reason why providing a single and universally accepted suitable definition of interoperability
is challenging.

According to [3] sixty-four types of interoperability are mentioned in research papers as part of their survey and thirty-four definitions of interoperability were identified from 1977 to 2008 within the Department Of Defense documents. It demonstrates the richness of the interoperability field, but also the complexity of the topic. Considering the study, it appears that interoperability definitions are context and considered systems dependent. As an example, the following definition repeated under convenience and often rephrased, mentions "units" and "forces":
*Interoperability is "The ability of systems, units, or forces to provide services to and accept services from other systems, units, or forces and to use the services so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together".*

Concerning the information system field, many definitions mentioning “information exchange”, “communication”, “software” or “networks” have been also proposed:

Interoperability is:

(a) Ability of information systems to communicate with each other and exchange information.

(b) Conditions, achieved in varying levels, when information systems and/or their components can exchange information directly and satisfactorily among them.

(c) The ability to operate software and exchange information in an heterogeneous network (i.e., one large network made up of several different local area networks).

(d) Systems or programs capable of exchanging information and operating together effectively.

Considering a more recent definition in literature related to an emerging innovative technology such as cloud [4]:

*In the context of cloud computing, interoperability should be viewed as the capability of public cloud services, private cloud services, and other diverse systems within the enterprise to understand each other's application and service interfaces, configuration, forms of authentication and authorization, data formats, etc. in order to work with each other.*

As stated by [5], “We may never have any agreement on a precise definition due to differing expectations that are constantly changing. New capabilities and functions continue to offer new opportunities for interactions between systems.”

This is the reason why it is important to provide a precise definition related to the considered interacting systems and to the expectations defined by the research context, i.e. in our case the interoperability for Product Lifecycle Management (PLM).

The considered PLM definition is the one provided by [CIMDATA]. What is expected here is:

*"to put in place a strategic business approach that applies a consistent set of business solutions in support of the collaborative creation, management, dissemination, and use of product definition information across the extended enterprise, and spanning from product concept to end of life—integrating people, processes, business systems, and information."*

PLM is not a piece, or pieces, of technology. It's a business approach for managing the complete set of product and associated processes definition information— considering its creation, management through its life, dissemination and usage throughout the lifecycle of the product. For a PLM approach, processes are as important as, or more important than data, considering both “how a business works and what is being created.”

[CIMDATA] points out that PLM requires 1) Universal, secure, managed access and use of product and associated processes definition information 2) Maintaining the integrity of that product definition and related information throughout the life of the product or plant 3) Managing and maintaining business processes used to create, manage, disseminate, share, and
use the information. Indeed, while information includes all media (electronic and hardcopy), PLM is primarily about managing the digital representation of that information.

It means that interoperability is to be established between applications supporting the PLM processes, and realized by means of PLM software solutions distributed on heterogeneous Business and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) environments. Consequently, for our research context, we have to consider "Technical Enterprise applications" which are defined the following way:

> Any application supporting a business process related to product development, and used by several actors within the enterprise (by opposition to personal application). For example, product data and process management systems, all along the lifecycle of the product, are considered like technical enterprise applications, while individual tools such as office programs or Computer Aided Authoring tools are not considered as technical enterprise applications.

The previously provided interoperability definitions can be considered as relevant for technical enterprise applications interoperability given some adaptations:

(a) Ability of technical enterprise information systems to communicate with each other and exchange information.

(b) Conditions, achieved in varying levels, when technical enterprise information systems and/or their components can exchange information directly and satisfactorily among them.

(c) The ability to operate software and exchange information in heterogeneous technical, knowledge and organization networks (i.e., one large network made up of several different local area networks).

(d) Applicative enterprise technical Systems allowing several organizations and domains exchanging and sharing digital information, models and services in order to collaborate together effectively.

## 2.3 - Resolution of Interoperability Approaches

Interoperability needs have given rise to the development of many models, platforms and standards with associated underlying frameworks. However, as considered separately and sometimes as competitors, they don't exhaustively meet the needs related to the preparation and construction of continuous interoperability at an acceptable cost for the PLM. It is in particular due to the many problems identified that have been collected and evaluated over the long term through feedback from various projects on the subject, being operational, standardization or research projects.

The approaches for resolution of interoperability are classified as interoperability models, open standards, Information and Communication Technologies Interoperability Platforms and research initiatives on interoperability.

### 2.3.1 - Interoperability Models

Regardless of the PLM, numerous models for assessing interoperability (INAS) have been produced these last thirty years.

[6] Identified 38 of them, from the analysis of an initial set of 418 papers from digital libraries published from 1996 to 2018. For the 72 more relevant ones, 12 are related to the military
domain, 37 to the industry domain, 6 from the IT domain and 9 from other domains. Defining
interoperability was done according to different layered framework models and following
evolutions of paradigms used by communities and domains using information and
communication technologies for complex systems. The main reference models - described
just after in the following and referenced in the survey- are [NC3TA], [LISI], [OIM],
[LCIM], [LCI], [ORBST] [SOSI], [AIF], [IMM], [MM-IRIS] and [ULSSIMM].

**NC3TA** - The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) developed a reference model for interoperability, within the frame of his workgroup on technical architectures, called NATO Consultation, Command and Control Technical Architecture (NC3TA).

Focusing on information exchange and addressing technical interoperability, it establishes interoperability degrees and sub-degrees for data exchange: 1) unstructured data exchange, 2) structured data exchange, 3) seamless sharing of data and 4) seamless sharing of information.

**LISI** - The Levels of Information Systems Interoperability (LISI) model was developed as one of the C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) Universal Reference Resources to define interoperability between information systems. It provides a mechanism to define the maturity of information systems and a way to proceed from one level to another.

**LISI** defines interoperability for information systems on the basis of a matrix crossing five levels (isolated, connected, distributed, integrated and universal systems) affecting four characteristics of information systems (processes, applications, infrastructures and data).

**OIM** - Acknowledging some limitations of the LISI model, [7] proposed the Organisation Interoperability Model (OIM) approach, related to organization of enterprise, in order to enhance interoperability of applications.

It is based on an interoperability model for organizations with five levels: Independent Organizations, Ad-Hoc Organizations, Collaborative Organizations, Integrated Organizations and Unified Organizations as described in Figure 6.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6: Organisation Levels Model mapped to LISI of Information</figcaption></figure>

**LCIM** - The Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model (LCIM) was proposed by NATO and adapted in (Tolk and Muguira 2003), in order to be able to address some aspects of organizational interoperability of applications, which were not addressed by previous models.

A conceptual framework with five levels was proposed. Each level characterizes how data are exchanged between applications and available interface documentation. The Enhanced LCIM model (2009) was derived from the LCIM model. It incorporates changes to address interoperability issues other than those related to data interchange, and also adds a pragmatic level, which establishes that the receiver of information not only knows what it means, but also understands how it should be used.

The considered levels are 0) system specific data 1) technical 2) syntactical 3) semantic 4) pragmatic 5) dynamic 6) conceptual

**LCI** – [7] establishes a reference model for coalition interoperability, the Layers of Coalition Interoperability (LCI) model, described by Figure 7. This model is intended to facilitate discussion on technical and organizational (political and military) support required for interoperable solutions. It is not intended to be a substitute for other models. The four lower levels of the model deal with technical interoperability. The knowledge/awareness level provides a transition between technical interoperability and organizational interoperability, which is represented by the top four levels. With the enhanced Layer of Conceptual Interoperability model and Layer of Coalition Interoperability model, it is not clearly defined if we are considering physical systems, information systems or organizational systems, but it appears clearly that organizations are playing an important role when willing to obtain the best level of interoperability.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7: The Layers of Coalition Interoperability</figcaption></figure>

**ORBST** – [9] proposed technological framework for interoperability, considering that for eBusiness and eCommunities, the need for loosely coupling technologies in conjunction with asynchronous communication and higher semantic expressivity is mandatory if willing to achieve the semantic interoperability level. Data exchange technologies are classified according to their semantic explicitness, while software engineering technologies are classified according to looseness of coupling. Definition of seven levels is provided, including data, object, component, application, system, enterprise and community.

Three types of integration are considered: syntactic, structural and semantic.

All the types of integrations are to be considered for all the levels, but they are not balanced the same way concerning the need of semantic, structural or syntactic integration. The higher the level is, the higher the semantic integration part is important, while syntactic and structural integration parts decrease. Syntactic integration concerns mainly modelling languages, structural integration concerns mainly model transformation and semantic integration requires formal logic description. In association, Figure 8 shows an ontology spectrum, positioning the different technologies in terms of looseness of coupling and semantic explicitness. For eBusiness and eCommunities, it highlights the need for loosely coupling technologies in conjunction with higher semantic expressivity and asynchronous communication. Such a model of reference is very helpful for a community having to define frameworks and standards to use. Choice should be made according to the interoperability to achieve.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8: Dimension of Interoperability and integration (Obst 2008)</figcaption></figure>

**SOSI** - The System of Systems Interoperability (SOSI) model, defined in [5], is based on the observation that interoperability in operations can't be achieved without:

* activities related to acquisition of a system (program management);

* activities creating and sustaining interoperability with focus on architecture, standards and Commercial Off-The-Shelves;

* activities related to operation, based on interactions between systems and with users, including operational support.

Figure 9 shows the three sorts of activities that must be further aligned for effective interoperability. The SOSI model defines three types of interoperability: programmatic, constructive, and operational.
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9: Systems Of Systems Interoperability model</figcaption></figure>

As other previously presented models, the SOSI model distinguishes technical aspects of interoperability and those aspects of interoperability that are required between organizations. SOSI draws a further distinction between programmatic interoperability involving organizations responsible for system development, and operational interoperability, involving the organizations and individuals using the systems.

**IMM** – [10] proposes a conceptual framework, the Interoperability Maturity Model (IMM), distinguishing different interoperability systems, interoperability types and levels of maturity. The interoperability systems are:

* Decision: several decisional systems belonging to different partners are to be identified and it should be enable to make them work together

* Information: it concerns creation of relations between the different information systems of the partners

* Physical: several physical systems have to work together.

The interoperability types are conceptual (related to syntactic and semantic aspects of the information to be interchange), organizational (related to responsibility, authorization and organization definitions) and technological (related to compatibility aspects of information and communication technologies). Maturity is then defined at the intersection of these two axes, making distinction between several maturity levels. This is illustrated by Figure 10.
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10: The Interoperability Maturity Model</figcaption></figure>

**AIF (ATHENA Interoperability Framework)** - The high level ATHENA reference Model deals with a holistic approach to address interoperability of enterprise applications, taking into account enterprise modelling, ontology, model driven engineering, service oriented execution platform and cross organizational executable collaboration processes. It is one foundation of my research work on this thesis. This model was produced by the Enterprise Application Interoperability research community within the [IDEAS] Roadmap project, and then used within [ATHENA] research project but also within the other projects of the associated research cluster. It reflects that interoperability of applications must be achieved at enterprise, knowledge and technology levels, using semantic mediation between applications and between levels. Figure 11 illustrates it, describing considered layers: business, knowledge, applications and data.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11: ATHENA Interoperability Model</figcaption></figure>

Another outcome of the ATHENA project is the Enterprise Interoperability Maturity Model (EIMM), considering the different levels of maturity of an enterprise in terms of interoperability establishment, from the lowest to higher: performed, modelled, integrated, interoperable and optimizing (Figure 11).
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Fig 11: ATHENA Interoperability Maturity Model</figcaption></figure>

**MM-IRIS:** The Maturity Model for Interoperability Potential Measurement (MM-IRIS 2013) is composed by a methodology and a reference set of parameters to measure the interoperability potential, which concerns the preparation level of an enterprise to establish an efficient collaboration with possible partners.

It first defines a set of enterprise views to be considered for interoperability: Business, Process Management, Human Resources, Knowledge, ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) and Semantic. It then considers that a project aiming at improving the maturity level of the enterprise have be run several phases, consisting in planning the project (conceptual and strategic aspects), defining and classifying the collaborations, measuring and collecting information about collaboration to consider, analysing the current status and then proposing improvements. Figure 12 provides a matrix crossing the different project phases with the different enterprise views.
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12: The Maturity Model for Interoperability Potential Measurement</figcaption></figure>

**ULSSIMM** - The Ultra Large Scale Systems Interoperability Maturity Model [11] considers systems with the following characteristics:

* It evolved gradually.

* Its component systems are operationally and managerially independent.

* Its component systems are heterogeneous, changing and inconsistent.

* Its component systems are distributed all over the world.

* People and users can have a role as elements of the system.

* Failures are unpreventable and are converted to the norm.

* Its development and evolution continuously take place while it is operating and they should not stop the overall operation of the system.

The ultra large scale systems interoperability framework is based on a proposed interoperability maturity model, combining the parameters of the other interoperability models for the particular case of ultra large scale systems. It separately gives a solution for each parameter of the proposed maturity model based on appropriate technologies.

## Conclusion concerning interoperability models

All these models are addressing particular interoperability aspects. The point is to be able to select the most relevant ones and to be able to use them together for preparing and building the expected interoperability. The analysis of these models shows that no one is addressing the needs for building PLM interoperability at scale, on a very long term period. In addition, they are very high level and very generic. It is needed to go deeper in details for the specific
domains to be considered and for actual implementation of interoperability. This is the
motivation for considering standards for interoperability.

2.3.2 - Standards for Interoperability

During the previous 30 years, in addition to the Interoperability Reference Models, standards have also been considered as key interoperability enablers, as demonstrated by the continuous investment in standardization activities by the industry, not only for Manufacturing domain and Information and Communication Technologies, but also for many other domains, as various as e.g. eHealth (e.g. [12]), Cloud (e.g. [13]), Big Data (e.g. [14]), Culture (e.g. [15]) or eGovernment (e.g. [16]). For the manufacturing domain, different industries have been jointly developing common standards suited for PLM, including in the fields of automotive, aerospace, defence, ship, building, furniture, etc.

A definition of a standard (derived from ISO/IEC Guide 2:1996, definition 3.2) is the
following:

"A standard is a document established in a consensual way and approved by a recognized organism, which provides, for common and repeated usage, rules, driving lines or characteristics, for activities or their results that provide guarantees for an optimal level of order in a given context.".

It's different from a "De facto" standard witch is defined as [17]:

"A de facto standard is a custom, convention, product, or system that has achieved a dominant position by public acceptance or market forces (such as early entrance to the market). De facto is a Latin phrase meaning "concerning the fact" or "in practice".

It is important to point out that “de lego” standards may not be used at all or can be of an
insufficient quality to be used, while “de facto” standards are always used, having already
obtained a dominant position.

Numerous enterprises have been pushing specifications of their own proprietary products or
processes to standardization in order to reinforce, to protect or to install their dominant
position on the market. In such a case, they are most of the time forcing the consensus and are
still keeping the control of the evolution of the specifications or of the processes.

It is the reason why numerous discussions are occurring concerning the definition of an
"Open standard", with some difficulties to agree due to diverging interests of the numerous
concerned stakeholders and to the different ways to interpret the terms "standard" and "open".

An open standard is publicly available and may come with access and usage rights to
associated with it. Openness can also be related to how it was designed (e.g. open process).
We can consider that the perfect combination for enterprise application interoperability within
virtual enterprise is to work with de jure standards which are at the same time de facto and
open standards, such as those provided for and used by the Internet. It allows balancing power
of the different members of an ecosystem through a win-win situation, which is an important
prerequisite for long term collaborations.

For computer dependent technologies, these different kinds of standards can be specialized
according to such or such used technology or artefacts. It may refer to systems, hardware, file
formats, protocols, programming languages, etc. When considering disciplines or
organizations, the standards can be computer independent or computer dependent, in order to
support computer aided activities. In this last case, it is most of the time targeted to produce
formal requirements which are specific proprietary solutions independent, through usage of
standardized and open formalisms.

Numerous standardization frameworks exist, which are most of the time combining these different types of standards, but usually focus on one dominant aspect: information, service, process or architecture. Numerous standardization organizations exist today, being “official” standardization bodies such as the International Standardization Organization (ISO), or simple international or national consortia.

The important standard related organizations contributing to PLM interoperability are those related to the WEB, to eBusiness, to Software and System Engineering and to the considered domains and disciplines (e.g. manufacturing). They are important because they are providing relevant models of reference which are to be used by the different stakeholders and actors involved for establishing end to end PLM collaborations within the virtual enterprise. As the considered vertical domain is manufacturing, organizations providing manufacturing standards dedicated to eBusiness are also important. In addition, some organizations are related to a more specific domain, such as Aeronautic, Space and Defence, or Supply Chain.

Other key players are solutions providers who choose or not to implement the standards with the appropriate level of compliance. Implementor forums are implying the different actors in order to qualify the adherence to standards and the effective resulting interoperability.

When considering these standards, they are addressing the different types of interoperability which are distinguished by the previously presented interoperability models: data interoperability, service invocation and composition, process, transversal collaboration, semantic, structural, syntactic, etc. Standards can also be categorized as vertical standards, i.e. be a given industry specific, or horizontal standards, i.e. shareable by any industry, as proposed by the Object Management Group [OMG].

For preparing interoperability within a given digital business ecosystem, a list of
standardization related organizations is to be established for ensuring proper liaisons with
strategic governance of the information system. As an example, Table 18 provides the list of
some of the organisations considered for PLM interoperability in the Aeronautic, Space and
Defence Industry. Some deal with horizontal manufacturing standards (i.e. not restricted to
Aeronautic, Space and Defence Industry, e.g. [SCOR] or [STEP]). Other deals with horizontal
business standards (i.e. not restricted to industry, e.g. [BPMN]) and underlying technological
standards related to usage of interconnected computers and software systems (e.g. [CORBA]).
Their PLM related role indicates why they are considered for establishment of PLM
interoperability. In addition, creation date and eventually dissolution date are indicated, as the
considered organization may have a limited duration of life, which also impact PLM
interoperability.

As willing to holistically support the eBusiness collaboration between organizations, interconnecting their internal business processes and supporting applications, all relevant kinds of standards for interoperability are to be considered and organized in order to cover the full spectrum of needs. Recapitulation of identified standards to consider with the used categorisation is reflected on Table 9.

First they are classified as enterprise architecture, business, enterprise solutions and Information & Communication Technologies (ICT) standards.
For Enterprise Architecture, sub categories are modelling language, process and framework.

For business, we are distinguishing process, service, message and data standards, which are all crossed with the different phases of the life cycle of a product, except ISO 15288 (System Engineering Process Framework) which is cross lifecycle.

The coverage of the different phases of the lifecycle of a product is also ensured for Cyber Physical Systems, Virtual Manufacturing or Digital Threads related standards (too young domain at this stage for having mature standards to assess), Supply Chain standards (suppliers can deliver equipment and services as well, e.g. for engineering) or training which is needed for any actors at any phase of the life cycle.

Enterprise solutions are related to the different families of enterprise solution software being vertical (a given domain or discipline) or horizontal (a function which can be used for any domain or discipline). The Information & Communication Technology (ICT) standards can cover process, service, message or data centric technologies, as well as Cloud technologies.

The standards classified in the Table 9 are those listed in Table 17, which gives the details of the standards, while Table 18 gives the details of standards related organizations.
<table><caption>Table 9: Considered standards distribution per domains</caption><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Enterprise Architecture</td><td>Modeling Language</td><td colspan="3">[ArchiMate], Unified Architecture Framework [UAF]</td></tr><tr><td>Process</td><td colspan="3">[TOGAF] NATO Architecture Framework [NAF]</td></tr><tr><td>Framework</td><td colspan="3">[UAF]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Business</td><td colspan="3">Product Life Cycle phase</td></tr><tr><td>Phases &gt;&gt;</td><td>Design</td><td>Production</td><td>Support</td></tr><tr><td>Process</td><td colspan="3">System Engineering Process Framework [ISO 15288]</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Engineering Change Order [ECO] and Management [ECM]</td><td colspan="2">ASD Integrated Logistic Standards [S1000D] [S2000] [S3000L][S4000P] [S5000F] [S6000T]</td></tr><tr><td>Service</td><td colspan="3">PDMEnablers PLM Services</td></tr><tr><td>Message</td><td colspan="3">[PDT.net]</td></tr><tr><td>Data</td><td>[STEP] [AP233] [AP242] [AP203] [AP214]</td><td>[ISA 95], [AP214] (Product Planning) [STEP NC]</td><td>[AP239] [PLCS] ASD [SX001G], [SX000i], [SX002D]</td></tr><tr><td>Digital Thread &amp; VM</td><td colspan="3">[QIF], [AP242], [AP238], [ISA 95], [RAMI 4.0], [PERA], [MT Connect]</td></tr><tr><td>CPS</td><td colspan="3"></td></tr><tr><td>Supply Chain</td><td colspan="3">[SCOR]</td></tr><tr><td>Training</td><td colspan="3">[SCORM], Tin Can API</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Enterprise Solution</td><td colspan="4">Enterprise Workflow System: WS-RM, XPDL, BPSIM, Wf-XML or BPMN1/BPEL or BPMN2<br>Enterprise Service Bus: XML, SOAP, WSDL, CORBA<br>Enterprise Repository: LDAP<br>Horizontal Enterprise Portal portlets: JSR168, JSR286, WSRP</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Information and Communication Technologies</td><td>Process</td><td colspan="3">Modeling languages and exchange format: BPMN2, XPDL, SPEM2, UML/SysML</td></tr><tr><td>Service</td><td colspan="3">Service description languages: CORBA IDL, WSDL, APIs, UML/SysML, OSLC</td></tr><tr><td>Message</td><td colspan="3">SOAP, UML/SysML</td></tr><tr><td>Data</td><td colspan="3">languages and syntaxes for data and schemas: XSD/XML, STEP EXPRESS/P21, OWL and RDF (Multi syntax), XMI, JSON/JSON Schema, UML/SysML</td></tr><tr><td>Cloud</td><td colspan="3">Standardized components on multiple and hybrid clouds<br>Service modelling: Open-SCA (service composition &amp; interaction), USDL/SoaML/CloudML (multi-view services), EMML (mashups)<br>Infrastructure management: OCCI, CIMI; portability: TOSCA; data management: CDMI; Infrastructure: OVF (virtual machines)</td></tr></tbody></table>
## Conclusion on standards

Standards and standardisation are a complex topic. Too many standards aiming at supporting interoperability are proposed, which are developed by various competing organisations, for different specific domains and for different purpose, as reflected by the used classification in this section. The arising question is to be able to identify relevant and consistent sets of standards to be used jointly for preparing and building the expected continuous operational interoperability. On other issue comes from the fact that standards are only specifications. Building interoperability also requires the availability of information and communication technologies on the shelves, if possible implementing these specifications and relying on languages targeted by these specifications for realization. Here come the Information and communications interoperability platforms.

### 2.3.3 - Information and Communication Technologies Interoperability Platforms

In addition, the PLM standards can be tight to various Interoperability Information and Communication technology platforms, based on sets of open standardized specifications and languages. The most impactful and successive ones the last 20 years are:

1. The STEP standard, which deals with Product Data Exchange, Sharing and Long term archiving. It provides different parts, some being technical: data syntaxes, schema description languages, visual representation of the schemas, transformation language, standardized interface for accessing to a model repository, bindings to implementation languages. It also provides a set of application protocols, which describe for a given domain and disciplines a reference neutral model supporting the expected information flows between the functions to be covered by applications supporting the domain.

2. The Common Object Request Broker Architecture, relying on the Object Management Architecture, defined by the Object Management Group. It aimed at developing a market of interoperable software products, and had been smoothly abandoned in favour of eBusiness XML interoperability standards, with Service Oriented Architecture. It led the Object Management Group to address the interoperability considering various realization technologies, by focussing on Model Driven Architecture for building interoperability.

3. The XML standards for eBusiness and Service Oriented Interoperability, Web 2.0 and then Web 3.0

4. The stack of Internet standards for Linked data and for Semantic Web

5. The Model Driven Architecture

6. The micro service emerging frameworks

In addition, most of the development platforms based on specific languages and supported by different providers have been integrating implementation of the different standardized protocols and Enterprise platform related services (e.g. Java Enterprise Edition or by SUN Microsystems then by Oracle), .Net (Microsoft), Perl, Python, etc.). Java for Enterprise (J2EE) had been the platform delivering most of the realizations of the open standards, though specifications opened to the Java Community. It changed with Oracle when it bought SUN, concerning the economic model and the global strategy. Today, the Java ecosystem is evolving with polyglot reactive platforms aiming at developing micro services applications