Slide 1

Standards Harmonization Through Standards Harmonization Through Semantics Unification Semantics Unification

Joe ZhouXtensible Solutions

Fran ClarkArpeggio Technology, LLC

Progress Software

Denver, CO November 18th, 2009

Slide 2

TopicsTopics

• Introduction – Presenters and company background

• Problem/Opportunity Statement – The evolution of Smart Grid will require a scalable strategy

and approach for standards development and adoption.

• Smart Grid Requires Smart Data – Common Semantic Model for Smart Grid (CSM-SG) will get

you there.

• Lessons Learned from Other Industries• Summary

Slide 3

Problem / OpportunityProblem / Opportunity

• Smart Grid initiatives present an unprecedented opportunity for the energy industry to serve its customers with a new generation of efficient and reliable products and services.

• Smart Grid implementations will require: – Capture intelligent integration of detailed data from a large

and heterogeneous group of sources– Informed cooperation amongst all the actors (providers,

distributors, customers, product manufacturers, 3rd part vendors, etc.)

– Ability to evolve rapidly as the technology, marketplace, etc. also changes.

– Standards-based “lingua franca “ to facilitate data exchange

Slide 4

Current Standards Current Standards

• Current Standards State to Support Smart Grid– NIST has identified a large number of existing standards needed for

Smart Grid (31 for initial list and 46 for future considerations). – Many of these standards are or contain data related specifications,

and large overlaps exist between them. – Majority of the existing standards require further enhancement to

support Smart Grid needs.– Existing standards address different levels of the interoperability and

cover different domains with large overlaps, which presents a huge challenge for harmonization and evolution: • Differing levels of maturity • Overlapping areas of focus• Different level of physical implementation (application vs. device)

Slide 5

New Approach NeededNew Approach Needed

• Standards must be harmonized in a way that – Leverages a shared semantics – Provides mechanisms to rapidly evolve (new versions of

standards, new standards altogether)

• Implementation of standards for data integration need to

– Reflect the specific needs and innovations of the implementing organizations

– Retain traceable lineage to official published versions of the standards

Slide 6

The Need for a Common Semantic The Need for a Common Semantic Model for Smart GridModel for Smart Grid

Source: Microsoft Smart Energy Reference Architecture

A Common Semantic Model for Smart Grid will emerge to unify the information definitions at the intersection of all Smart Grid domains.

Slide 7

Common Semantic Model for Smart Grid Common Semantic Model for Smart Grid (CSM-SG)(CSM-SG)

• Semantic Model presents a singular, non-redundant view of all the business concepts and relationships between those concepts

• Semantic Model is used to:• Map to concepts in existing concepts in existing

standards – Rationalize and Harmonize• Generate new standards to “fill in gaps”• Provide a stable core to support the generation of new

standards and new versions of existing standards• By organizations to create individuated Enterprise

Semantic Model (ESM)

Slide 8

Semantic Model-Driven ApproachSemantic Model-Driven Approach

Semantic Modeling

SemanticMapping

Large Scale Enterprise Integration

Focus is on Semantics

Meta-data

Enterprise Model

Data Services

Data Services

Exchange Model

Slide 9

Model-Driven Approach Model-Driven Approach End-to-EndEnd-to-End

Separation of Semantic/Logical Model from Physical Models needed to support integration

Physical Models to represent:– Published wire-format standards– Legacy, Vendor APIs – Organization specific interfaces based on ESM– Multiple versions of each

Exchange Model– Modeling constructs to represent mapping

between each Physical Model and the “hub” Semantic Model (CSM/SG or ESM)

– Unambiguous documentation of mapping rules

Process, tools and methodology to generate artifacts based on the Semantic Model

– WSDL / XSD– DDL for RDB– etc.

Data Services to implement integration

– Enforce / leverage Semantic Model

– “Makes it real” • models that are used for

implementations are much more likely to stay current and useful

• directly leverages investment in modeling

– Standards Bodies• Validation / certification

services– Implementing organizations

• Validation• Transformation• Semantic Mediation

Slide 10

Model-Driven Process – End To EndModel-Driven Process – End To End

Requirements Design Development Maintain

UM

LM

odels

• Process Models• Integration

Requirements• Semantics

• Canonical Models• Service Models

• Canonical Messages• Service Definitions

• Source UML model–Behavioral–Structural

ExchangeM

odel

• Interface Comparison

• Gap Analysis

• Canonical Data Services

• Non-canonical Models

• Data Service Runtime• Data Service Unit

Testing

• Source model for executable components

Dev.Env

• Communication, Collaboration

• Documentation• Architecture• Infrastructure

• Additional run-time components, transport, applications, etc.

• Repository for builds, environments, control

Slide 11

Solution Benefits

• Harmonization makes Smart Grid possible • Semantic Model allows for harmonization today (or

soon) and evolution tomorrow • Process provides governance and compliance • End to end model-driven approach

– Reduces effort required (design, implementation and maintenance)

– Speeds time to market– Optimally identifies and manages change

Slide 12

Complementary ProcessesComplementary Processes

Standards Process Enterprise Process

Industry Semantic

Model

Enterprise Semantic

Model

ExchangeModel

Data Services(Transformation,

Mediation)

Slide 13

Lessons Learned From Other Industries

• Lessons Learned From Other Industries – Finance (SWIFT/FIX)

• SWIFT and related standards – attempt to converge around ISO20022 standard

• SWIFT based integration implementation– Insurance (ACORD)

• ACORD Information Model standards mapping effort• ACORD based integration implementations

– Telecommunications (SID) • SID standards development and model dissemination• SID based integration implementations

Slide 14UNIFI_(ISO_20022)_v32

ObjectiveTo enable communication interoperability between financial institutions, their market infrastructures and their end-user communities

Major obstacleNumerous overlapping standardisation initiatives looking at XML financial messages:

MDDL, FIX, FinXML, VRXML, RIXML, XBRL, FpML, IFX, TWIST,

SWIFT, RosettaNet, OAGi, ACORD, CIDX, etc.

Lessons Learned: FinanceLessons Learned: FinanceUNIFI – ISO 20022UNIFI – ISO 20022

Proposed solutionA single standardisation approach (methodology, process, repository) to be used by all financial standards initiatives

UNIFI (ISO 20022)

ISO 20022 - UNIversal Financial Industry message scheme, the recipe:syntax neutral business modeling methodologysyntax specific design rulesindustry led development/registration process financial repository on www.iso20022.org reverse engineering approach to ease coexistence

Slide 15UNIFI_(ISO_20022)_v32

Growth adds exponential complexity and expense…

RosettaNet

OAGi

TWIST

Proprietary format

SWIFTIFX

EDIFACT Without common building blocks:• Point-to-point connection• Data is mapped directly from one application to another• Costly, unscalable and difficult to implement and maintain• Process, routing, rules logic needs to be coded to specific message types42 interfaces = n * (n-1)

Source: John Mersberg, IBM Corporation

UNIFI – ISO 20022UNIFI – ISO 20022

Slide 16UNIFI_(ISO_20022)_v32

Standardised implementation reduces cost, time to effect change and improves overall performance…

Canonical message model =• True process integration• Reduced brittleness, faster to respond to change• Shared message services – single/shared parser, message independent rules engine, etc.• Unified monitoring / audit trail

RosettaNet

TWIST

SWIFTIFX

EDIFACT

Canonical Message Model(i.e. ISO 20022)

UNIFI aims at long term convergence, while facilitating short term coexistence…

14 interfaces = n * 2

Source: John Mersberg, IBM Corporation

OAGi Proprietary format

UNIFI – ISO 20022UNIFI – ISO 20022

Slide 17UNIFI_(ISO_20022)_v32

All institutions have their own sets of data objects

ISO standardises common data objects…

Account

Order

Date

…and groups them into ‘syntax-neutral’ message models, which...

Order

DateDate

XML ISO 15022

… can be ‘transformed’ in message formats in the desired syntax

FIX

EDIFACT

UNIFI – ISO 20022UNIFI – ISO 20022

Slide 18

Summary / Next StepsSummary / Next Steps

• Smart Grid initiatives present an unprecedented opportunity that will require unprecedented interoperability.

• Interoperability is a journey not a destination, which requires:

– Harmonized Standards– Mechanism for Managing Standards Evolution – Common Semantic Model (Standards and Enterprise)– End-to-End Model-Driven Approach to Data Integration

Slide 19

Thank YouThank You

• Joe ZhouXtensible Solutions – jzhou@xtensible.net

• Fran ClarkProgress Software – fclark@progress.comArpeggio Technology, LLC – fclark@arpeggiotech.com