# Evaluation of a Commercial Model Lifecycle Management (MLM) Tool to Support Models for Manufacturing (MfM) Methodology

Rebeca Arista, Fernando Mas, Domingo Morales-Palma, Dominique Ernadote, Manuel Oliva, Carpoforo Vallellano

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Rebeca Arista, Fernando Mas, Domingo Morales-Palma, Dominique Ernadote, Manuel Oliva, et al. Evaluation of a Commercial Model Lifecycle Management (MLM) Tool to Support Models for Manufacturing (MfM) Methodology. 19th IFIP International Conference on Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), Jul 2022, Grenoble, France. pp.673-682, 10.1007/978-3-031-25182-5_65. hal-05420942

HAL Id: hal-05420942

https://inria.hal.science/hal-05420942v1

Submitted on 17 Dec 2025

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.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

ifip

International Federation for Information Processing

This document is the original author manuscript of a paper submitted to an IFIP
conference proceedings or other IFIP publication by Springer Nature. As such, there
may be some differences in the official published version of the paper. Such
differences, if any, are usually due to reformatting during preparation for publication or
minor corrections made by the author(s) during final proofreading of the publication
manuscript.
# Evaluation of a Commercial Model Lifecycle Management (MLM) Tool to Support Models for Manufacturing (MfM) Methodology

Rebeca Arista<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />(✉) , Fernando Mas<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="3" /> , Domingo Morales-Palma<fnref n="1" /> ,
Dominique Ernadote<fnref n="4" /> , Manuel Oliva<fnref n="5" /> , and Carpoforo Vallellano<fnref n="1" />

**Abstract.** Model-Based System Engineering (MBSE) supports the conceptualization of systems, proposes independence between knowledge conceptualization and tools, and fosters reusability and interoperability. There are several research works oriented to define ontologies in the manufacturing domain, but only a few consider their use in an Ontology-based Engineering (OBE) perspective, or consider a framework to manage the whole lifecycle of the models in supporting software tools.

Models for Manufacturing (MfM) is an OBE methodology which helps to define and manage ontologies to capture not only explicit domain knowledge, but also implicit and tacit knowledge from domain experts, which are crucial for design and decision support tools. The ontology models lifecycle is managed through a Model Lifecycle Management (MLM) system where the tool agnostic MfM metamodels are implemented.

This paper shows the implementation of one of the MfM metamodels, the Scope metamodel, in a commercial software tool which covers one of the MLM main functions, the editing function, and demonstrates the ontology scope model definition with an example. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the MfM methodology can be applied to a largely used standard language implemented in COTS (Commercial Off-the-Shelf) tools.

**Keywords:** Models for Manufacturing (MfM) · Model Lifecycle Management

(MLM) · 3-Layer Model (3LM) · Ontologies · Manufacturing modelling

# 1 Introduction

In order to secure a short time-to-market, products and manufacturing systems need to be designed collaboratively in a shorter time, often reusing existing product designs

<footnote n="1">¹ Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain</footnote>

<footnote>rebeca.arista@airbus.com</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Airbus SAS, Blagnac, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ M&M Group, Cadiz, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Airbus D&S, Elancourt, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Airbus, Sevilla, Spain</footnote>
and industrial resources. Ontology-Based Engineering (OBE) emerges as a new approach from earlier Knowledge-based Engineering techniques thanks to the technological advancements in computer science. This allows to enhance multidisciplinary design, realistic simulations and trade space exploration of complex systems.

Models for Manufacturing (MfM) is a recent OBE methodology [1] for defining and replicating data, functions and behaviors of complex manufacturing systems using computer-aided graphical modelling authoring tools. It is derived from the concept of MBSE methodology, using models and their associated behavioral abstraction for enabling a more robust engineering definition [2].

Different tools, languages and formalisms can be used to design and develop ontologies [3]. MfM methodology fosters the design of ontologies not only to capture explicit domain knowledge, but also implicit and tacit knowledge from domain experts. This crucial part of the conceptualization process needs to be well addressed, in order to enable intelligent design support tools development in its full potential, and use them in complex system design processes.

MfM methodology proposes a 3-Layers Model (3LM) architecture, which is described in detail in Sect. 2.1. It consists of a Data layer, an Ontology layer, and a Service layer, where the Ontology layer is the core, and where knowledge is captured and managed through four model types: Scope model, Data model, Behavior model and Semantic model. The authors have published several research papers for modelling manufacturing systems in the aerospace industry using MfM methodology [4–6], including functional and data models deployed using data structures available in commercial PLM systems [7]. Nevertheless, MBSE implementation challenges in lifecycle management systems still need to be covered [8].

The lifecycle of the ontology models created using MfM methodology are proposed to be managed through a Model Lifecycle Management (MLM) system, implementing the MfM metamodels defined for each type of model independently of any commercial software tool and modelling language [9]. Further details of MfM metamodels can be seen in Sect. 2.2.

The five basic functions of an MLM system, based on a PLM system, are [10, 11]: editing or visualizing, vaulting, workflow management, configuration management and interfacing to other systems. This paper demonstrates the Scope metamodel implementation in UML standard and in Dassault Systems commercial software MagicDraw, to evaluate it regarding MLM editing functionality. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the MfM methodology can be applied to a largely used standard language implemented in COTS (Commercial Off-the-Shelf) tools.

The Scope model of the Industrial System Design (ISD) ontology, which was created to support the industrial system reconfiguration in concept phase [12], will be reused as an example to demonstrate the MLM toolset implementation in MagicDraw. A similar implementation can be done for the rest of the metamodels supporting the MfM methodology, and will be part of the future work. The next sections are structured as follows: Sect. 2 provides an overview of MfM methodology and the details of the Scope metamodel; Sect. 3 describes the Scope metamodel implementation in UML standard
and MagicDraw tool; Sect. 4 shows the ISD scope model as example model in Magic-Draw; and Sect. 5 discusses the commercial software solution used as MLM and outlines further work to be done.

# 2 Review of Models for Manufacturing (MfM) Methodology

## 2.1 3-Layers Model (3LM) as Framework

Models for Manufacturing methodology described in [1] is based in a 3-Layers Model framework as shown in Fig. 1. The 3LM guarantees the independence between the three layers, holding Service Layer, Data Layer and Ontology Layer isolated from each other.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. 3-Layers Model (3LM) framework.</figcaption></figure>

Each layer collects the same type of items. The Data layer collects all the information in terms of databases and interfaces: legacy databases related to legacy software, commercial software databases, clouds, data lakes and many others. The Ontology layer holds the Company knowledge in the form of scope, data behavior and semantic models, and will be described in detail in Sect. 2.2. The Service layer holds the software services, legacy or commercial, like authoring tools, simulation tools, visualizers, data analytics services, dashboards, and space design exploration tools.

The ontologies in the Ontology layer are created using four model types: Scope model, Data model, Behavior model and Semantics model. The first step is to create the Scope model, which defines the limits where the ontology is valid and contains all main objects of the Data model and system behavior.

The next step is to create the Data model, which defines the information managed in the selected scope. The Behavior model comes after, defining the system behavior for simulation. Finally, a Semantic model is created to support the Data model instantiation with real data coming from different databases, different languages or formats.

## 2.2 MfM Metamodels

The MfM methodology follows a set of golden rules:

* MfM methodology is agnostic against tools, and does not define any preferred tool.
* MfM methodology encourages tools with easy to write models and very easy to read, understand, share, and discuss by skilled engineers on the topic.

* MfM methodology encourages a mechanism to manage the model's lifecycle, configuration and effectivity using PLM tools to fulfil this requirement.

To fulfil these rules, all the concepts of the ontology layer models have been formalized in metamodels using the Meta-Object Facility (MOF) standard from the Object Management Group [9]. The Scope Metamodel, Data Meta-model, Behavior Metamodel and Semantic Metamodel have been defined in a first version, as well as the relationships between them [13]. The metamodels do not include information related to the diagrams visualization (positions of elements, size, etc.).

The formalization of all the ontology layer concepts became evident when a Model Lifecycle Management (MLM) was proposed to support MfM method implementation. The MLM would allow each instantiated concept to change and evolve during a project or use case development, managing the life cycle not only of the objects of the different use cases (the models), but also of the formalized concepts independently. The Scope Metamodel, object of this paper for implementation in a commercial MLM toolset, is detailed in the next subsection.

## 2.3 Scope Metamodel

The Scope model contains the definition of the main system functions and main data objects. Figure 2 shows the metamodel for the Scope model ('scope' package). The root class of the 'scope' package is "ScopeModel" which is composed of a main 'root' activity that is decomposed into sub-activities.

The "Activity" concept defines the system functions or activities performed; "Means" concept defines the resources or means needed and used for realizing an "Activity"; "DataObject" concept (from the 'data' package) contains the data objects required ('input') or produced ('output') by activities. An "Activity" class can be a "ComposedActivity" (see 'parent' and 'child' roles) or an "ElementaryActivity" (an activity without children; from the 'behavior' package). The latter is a key concept in the MfM Behavior metamodel.

An Activity may require different "Means" for its realization. Sometimes, the different Means that are used in sub-activities can be grouped in a single Means, easier to associate with the parent activity. For example, ""CAx" (Computer-aided technologies)" can be used to group ""CAD" (Computer-aided design)"", ""CAD/CAM" (Computer-aided design/manufacturing)" and ""CAPP" (Computer-aided process planning)" systems. On the other hand, a DataObject can belong to an aggregate set of objects ('parent'-'child' relationship) or have some other types of relationship with other objects (role 'related' in Fig. 2).
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Metamodel of the Scope model.</figcaption></figure>

# 3 Scope Metamodel Implementation in MagicDraw

## 3.1 Context

UML is a modelling language of general purpose defined by OMG group [14] used to specify and document the elements of systems to be used across application domains and platforms. It is widely used in industry and academia as the standard language for describing software systems.

As described in Sect. 2.2, MfM metamodels are described in MOF (MetaObject Facility), to ensure a language and tool-agnostic application of MfM methodology. MOF is a standardized description of metamodels, foundation of OMG industry-standard environment [15]. As UML language is MOF-based, we can implement MfM MOF-metamodels in UML language.

MagicDraw commercial solution implements UML standard profile, and provides means to adapt domain-specific profiles using a DSL engine, making it possible to create custom diagrams and specification elements [16]. In projects created by the modelling tools developed by Dassault Systèmes, the UML model is an implementation of the OMG UML 2.5.1 metamodel, covering the whole UML specification and also extends it by introducing some additional Elements (like Diagram) [17].

## 3.2 Implementation

The implementation proposed for the Scope Metamodel in UML 2.5.1 specification is described in Fig. 3. In UML 2.5.1 metamodel, an “Activity” is a kind of Behavior
that is specified as a graph of nodes interconnected by edges. A subset of the nodes are executable nodes that embody lower-level steps in the overall "Activity". "Object nodes" hold data that is input to and output from executable nodes, and moves across object flow edges. Control nodes specify sequencing of executable nodes via control flow edges. Activities are essentially what are commonly called "control and data flow" models. Such models of computation are inherently concurrent, as any sequencing of activity node execution is modelled explicitly by activity edges, and no ordering is mandated for any computation not explicitly sequenced [14]. This is the reason why the Scope Metamodel "Activity" is implemented in UML "Activity" Metaclass.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Mapping between Scope metamodel and UML Activity syntax.</figcaption></figure>

The “Means” concept in the Scope Metamodel defines the resources or means used for realizing an “Activity”, and can be represented by any “Type” which is a generic UML metaclass grouping the classifiers used as type for a parameter defined as input or output of an Activity. The same rationale can be applied to the “DataObjects” in the Scope Metamodel, therefore we propose the same representation. Finally, the Scope Metamodel “ScopeModel” is proposed to be implemented as a UML “Package” Metaclass, in order to contain all the scope model knowledge and information.

# 4 Example of Scope Model in MagicDraw

To illustrate an MfM ontology model in MagicDraw, we will use the Industrial System Design ontology (ISD ontology) which has been presented by the authors in previous
work to support the Industrial System Design in the concept phase [13]. In this previous work, the scope models were described using RAMUS software and IDEF0 modelling language [18] implementing MfM Scope meta-model in the scope models shown in Fig. 4.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. ISD ontology scope models from previous work, with knowledge represented in IDEF0.</figcaption></figure>

The knowledge in the scope model of the ISD ontology is now modelled in Magic-Draw with UML, following the Scope Metamodel implementation defined in Sect. 3.2. In the ISD ontology, the scope is the activity “Create Conceptual Industrial System Design” of the industrial system design process. Figure 5 shows this top level activity, which is a Composed Activity of MfM Scope Metamodel.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. Top-level Activity diagram “Create Conceptual Industrial System Design”.</figcaption></figure>

The activity receives as input the “As-Designed Product Structure”, “Existing Industrial Resources Structure”, “Company methods & procedures” and the “Industrial System Requirements”, which are DataObjects of MfM Scope Metamodel. It also receives as input the “PLM systems” and “OBE systems” supporting the activity, which are Means
in the MfM Scope Metamodel. The activity provides as output the “As-Planned Product Structure”, the “Build Process” and the “Industrial Resources Structure”, all of them DataObjects of MfM Scope Metamodel.

The white-box activity diagram of “Create Conceptual Industrial System Design” activity is shown in Fig. 6, with the following Elementary Activities of MfM Scope Metamodel: “Reuse & Modify Product Elementary Objects”, “Define, Reuse & Modify Process Elementary Objects”, “Define, Reuse & Modify Resource Elementary Objects” and “Generate Optimal Process Sequence”.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6. Activity diagram “Create Conceptual Industrial System Design”.</figcaption></figure>

The activity “Reuse & Modify Product Elementary Objects” uses the “As-Designed Product Structure” input to define the Product Elementary Objects which are the first product split including interfaces. They are received as input in the activity “Define, Reuse & Modify Process Elementary Objects” which provide the Process Elementary Objects needed to manufacture, assemble or transport each Product. A Product Change Request can be sent back if no process can be defined for a given product.

The Process Elementary Objects are received as input in the activity “Define, Reuse & Modify Resource Elementary Objects” defining the Resource Elementary Objects from the existing industrial system capability to fulfill the processes. A Process Change Request can be sent if no resource can fulfill the process.

The three sets of elementary objects are received as input in the activity “Generate Optimal Process Sequence” where different process sequences are generated and optimized considering business rules and precedence constraints. This activity provides the final outputs “As-Planned product structure”, “Build Process” and “Industrial Resources Structure”.

# 5 Discussion and Further Work

Models for Manufacturing methodology aims to be an agnostic methodology successfully applied in different industrial and non-industrial cases for ontology-based engineering. The MfM metamodels define an independent link with any modelling software covering as minimum MfM metamodels.

To support the lifecycle of the MfM models and to establish a collaborative environment, an implementation in UML 2.5.1 standard enabled by MagicDraw software
was shown covering all concepts of the Scope Metamodel. An example has been made with the ISD ontology, showing the knowledge captured in previous scope models now captured using MagicDraw. As a general conclusion MagicDraw may be used to cover MLM function of editing or visualizing to support the MfM method of the knowledge contained in a scope model. Nevertheless, the UML implementation enabled by Magic-Draw can only be effectively used to model the Scope, complementing the implementation with a specific extension that allows to effectively capture the different semantics of the DataObjects and Means.

Further work will focus on this extension though a stereotype of UML to improve the Scope metamodel implementation. This will allow the use of MagicDraw as editing software for MfM scope models in different use cases. The same exercise will be made for the rest of the metamodels supporting the MfM methodology, in order to enable a wider implementation of MfM methodology in different industrial cases.

**Acknowledgement.** The authors would like to thank Sevilla University, Airbus and M&M Group colleagues for their support and contribution during the development of this work.

## References

1. Mas, F., Racero, J., Oliva, M., Morales-Palma, D.: A preliminary methodological approach to models for manufacturing (MfM). In: Chiabert, P., Bouras, A., Noël, F., Ríos, J. (eds.) PLM 2018. IAICT, vol. 540, pp. 273–283. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01614-2_25

2. Holland, O.: Model-based systems engineering. In: Loper, M.L. (ed.) Modeling and Simulation in the Systems Engineering Life Cycle. SFMA, pp. 299–306. Springer, London (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5634-5_23

3. Slimani, T.: Ontology development: a comparing study on tools, languages and formalisms. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 8(24), 1–12 (2015)

4. Morales-Palma, D., Mas, F., Racero, J., Vallellano, C.: A preliminary study of models for manufacturing (MfM) applied to incremental sheet forming. In: Chiabert, P., Bouras, A., Noël, F., Ríos, J. (eds.) PLM 2018. IAICT, vol. 540, pp. 284–293. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01614-2_26

5. Mas, F., Racero, J., Oliva, M., Morales-Palma, D.: Preliminary ontology definition for aerospace assembly lines in Airbus using models for manufacturing methodology. In: Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable and Virtual Production CARV18 (2018)

6. Arista, R., Mas, F., Oliva, M., Morales-Palma, D.: Applied ontologies for assembly system design and management within the aerospace industry. In: Proceedings of the Joint Ontology Workshops JOWO 2019, 10th International Workshop on Formal Ontologies Meet Industry 2518 (2019). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2518/paper-FOMI1.pdf

7. Gómez, A., Ríos, J., Mas, F., Vizán, A.: Method and software application to assist in the conceptual design of aircraft final assembly lines. J. Manuf. Syst. 40, 37–53 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2016.04.002

8. CIMData: Model-based systems engineering: business opportunities and overcoming implementation challenges. A CIMData Report (2014). https://www.cimdata.com/en/component/docman/doc_download/3491-model-based-systems-engineering-business-opportunities-and-overcoming-implementation-challenges
9. Morales-Palma, D., Oliva, M., Racero, J., Eguia, I., Arista, R., Mas, F.: Metamodels approach supporting models for manufacturing (MfM) methodology. In: Canciglieri Junior, O., Noël, F., Rivest, L., Bouras, A. (eds) Product Lifecycle Management. Green and Blue Technologies to Support Smart and Sustainable Organizations. PLM 2021. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol. 640, pp. 398–409. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94399-8_29

10. CIMData: Product lifecycle management: empowering the future of business. A CIM-Data Report (2002). https://www.cimdata.com/en/component/docman/doc_download/2523-product-lifecycle-management-plm-definition

11. Arista, R., Mas, F., Oliva, M., Racero, J., Morales-Palma, D.: Framework to support models for manufacturing (MfM) methodology. IFAC-PapersOnLine **52**(13), 1584–1589 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.426

12. Arista, R., Mas, F., Morales-Palma, D., Oliva, M., Vallellano, C.: A preliminary ontology-based engineering application to industrial system reconfiguration in conceptual phase. In: Proceedings of the Joint Ontology Work-shops JOWO 2021, International Workshop on Formal Ontologies meet Industry (2021). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2969/paper20-FOMI.pdf

13. MfM research group: Metamodels. https://github.com/ModelsforManufacturing/Metamodel. Accessed 29 Mar 2022

14. UML OMG standard: Object management group. https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5.1/About-UML/. Accessed 6 Feb 2022

15. Meta Object Facility: Object management group. https://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/. Accessed 6 Feb 2022

16. UML profiling: Dassault Systèmes CATIA No Magic documentation. https://docs.nomagic.com/display/MD190/UML+Profiling+and+DSL+Guide. Accessed 6 Feb 2022

17. Standard profile implementation: Dassault Systèmes CATIA No Magic documentation. https://docs.nomagic.com/display/MD190/Standard+profiles+implementation. Accessed 6 Feb 2022

18. NIST: Integration Definition for Function Modeling (IDEF0). Computer Systems Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (1993). http://www.idef.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/idef0.pdf