Object Management Group Meeting (Reston, Va., March 2014)

Report by Claude Baudoin (cébé IT & Knowledge Management) April 20, 2014 This report contains notes from sessions the author personally attended during the OMG Technical Meeting in Reston on March 24-28: the meeting of the Business Modeling and Integration Domain Task Force, the Business Architecture SIG, the Analysis and Design Task Force, the plenary lunch presentations, and the closing plenary report sessions. A comprehensive list of all the committees, task forces and working groups of the OMG can be found at www.omg.org/homepages/. A list of all the work in progress, with links to the corresponding materials (RFPs, etc.) is at http://www.omg.org/schedule/.

Contents

1. Business Modeling and Integration Domain Task Force (BMI DTF) ...... 2 2. Business Architecture Innovation Summit ...... 7 3. Analysis & Design Task Force (ADTF) ...... 14 4. Plenary Lunch Presentations ...... 18 5. Plenary Report Sessions ...... 18 6. Next Meetings ...... 25

Report Meeting Reston OMG

1. Business Modeling and Integration Domain Task Force (BMI DTF) Claude Baudoin (cébé IT & Knowledge Management), Donald Chapin (Business Semantics Ltd), and Fred Cummins (Agile Enterprise Design) co-chaired the meeting. Claude reviewed the agenda. The meeting started with a series of presentations and discussions about SBVR (sections 1.1—1.4).

1.1. “Whither SBVR: Insights for SBVR 2.0 from Tool Development” by Ed Barkmeyer Ed Barkmeyer said that the Semantic of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR) is now seven years old. It has some good and some bad features. The goal was to enable the interchange between tools, but this goal has been “lost in the shuffle.” SBVR is not used in the Decision Modeling Notation (DMN) or in other recent specifications that should have used it. One of the problems, according to Ed, is that the standard is written as a tutorial to use business vocabularies, not as a standard. Another issue is that almost everyone who uses SBVR is actually using SBVR Structured English (SBVR-SE), which was just supposed to be an example, described in an Appendix, and is not a normative specification. Ed pointed out some inconsistencies in the definition of properties and relationships. SBVR uses statements like “owner has car” and “car has owner” which are not equivalent: the first statement says that there is a relationship between two entities, and the second one says that a car has the property of having an owner – but the specification confuses two meaning of “to have.”

Ed made many impassioned statements, and Don Chapin disagreed with several of them. Ed criticized the Revision Task Force for “rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.” He then proceeded to propose what changes need to be made:

• Better semantic formulations, specifically in OCL • Improve the conformance criteria for tools that produce and consume exchange files • Remove certain “ontological commitments,” including SBVR’s handling of a time model • Mappings between SKOS (the W3C’s Simple Knowledge Organization System) and SBVR, and an RDF representation form in order to compete directly in the SKOS market • A metamodel for Structured English.

Ed presented a sample metamodel, which he has implemented in a tool. The presentation is available at www.omg.org/members/cgi-bin/doc?bmi/14-03-01.pdf.

1.2. “SBVR: What It Is, What Its Future Should Be” by Donald Chapin Don Chapin, who chairs the SBVR RTF, presented his view of the specification. He said that SBVR “has a metamodel, but is not itself a metamodel.” SBVR addresses the existence of communities that share the meanings of certain concepts, the existence of subgroups that employ different preferred terms, and the use of specialized vocabularies, such as legal terminology. Report Meeting Reston OMG

Donald described the process of “deconstructing” a regulation to extract the business vocabulary and rules. He showed and example from US anti-money laundering regulations, which were analyzed by GITC, a policy group within University College Cork. The first step is to formalize the compliance rules from the source regulation; the second step is to recognize the verb concepts in the formalized source. There was some discussion of when compound verb phrases need to be split into multiple verb concepts. Noun concepts fill roles in verb concepts. There was discussion about the distinction between concepts and “things in the real world.” There is a semantic triangle in SBVR to describe the relationship between concepts, terms, and things. A term like “US dollar” is the name of a concept (the US currency), but it is also used to designate the actual things (amounts of money, or dollar bills), which are not in SBVR but live in the real world of the business. Don described the changes being made to create version 1.3:

• Complete the interpretation in formal logic, consistent with ISO Common Logic (ISO/IEC 24707) • Resequence the text to improve readability In addition, SBVR needs to be promoted to business people, especially people who deal with regulations. Don’s presentation is at www.omg.org/members/cgi-bin/doc?bmi/14-03-02.pdf.

1.3. “SBVR as a Meta-Meta-Model – Should SBVR be a Language for the Specification of Modeling Language?” by Fred Cummins Fred Cummins raised the question of whether SBVR could sufficiently align with the Meta Object Facility (MOF) to express all MOF concepts. Fred presented a potential mapping, which Donald and Ed said was incorrect; however, Fred said that the point was not the correctness of the mapping, but the idea that there could be a mapping. MOF is a form of business language, so it could in theory be expressed using SBVR. Fred’s slides are available at http://www.omg.org/members/cgi-bin/doc?bmi/14-03-03.pdf. Fred’s perspective comes from experience with “reflective languages” – languages that can describe themselves, and can operate on themselves. He sees a potential RFP for a “core reflective metamodel.” Donald and Ed agreed that what Fred proposes is essentially the same thing as the Semantic Information Modeling for Federation (SIMF), for which there is an RFP that has not progressed quickly. There was also an Architecture Ecosystem Foundation RFP in 2010, which competed with UML/MOF, did not generate sufficient market interest, and was not approved. Ed also pointed out that a complicating factor is that the SIMF RFP is handled in a Platform Task Force, while BMI is a Domain Task Force. In order to have a voice in both efforts, an organization would have to be a Contributing Member, which costs more.

1.4. Roadmap Discussion on SBVR Following the presentations of these often conflicting viewpoints on SBVR, a discussion was undertaken to establish a mutually agreeable roadmap. The discussion, captured on flip charts, is transcribed in the table below. Report Meeting Reston OMG

Agreement • Don has canvassed tool vendors, and they support SBVR in their databases. Areas • There is a consensus that they would support a controlled natural language (syntax, not metamodel) – so this is an opportunity for an RFP. • They would support having an RDF interchange format – hence an opportunity for an RFP or RFC. • Many of the line items about SBVR shortcomings (Ed’s presentation) are agreed by the RTF and can be addressed by it. • A mapping to ISO Common Logic could replace the one that Terry did, based on work that’s 25 years old. o There is a question whether Clause 10 needs to be redone completely or not – this led to a “battle of the experts” about common logic. Semantic • Different positions: Model of SBVR o Don Chapin: we’re going to work on it in the RTF o Fred Cummins: this is beyond the scope of the RTF, we should have an RFP o Ed Barkmeyer (NIST), Fabien Neuhaus (University of Magdeburg): we need modal logic o Jishnu Mukerji (HP): who cares about it? (answer: GITC, for one)

• Elie Abi-Lahoud (UCC): Develop mappings between a subset of the vocabulary and structure rules on the one hand, and first-order logic on the other o Agreement that this can be done by splitting the table in Clause 10 into two

• Clarification of the exchange for and SBVR XMI metamodel o After discussion, it seemed to be an issue of clarity rather than substance; hence it needs to be captured as an issue for the RTF. Process • Should all this be done by the RTF (Don’s position) or via an RFP (Fred’s position)? Question o Jishnu: RTFs should be limited to bug fixes; RFPs should be used to make substantial changes. o Progress in the RTF requires consensus by the submitters of the original specification, while submissions to an RFP can be competitive and allow the entire task force to interact with those submitters. o Jishnu: you need to capture everything as issues, then do triage, and then see what should be fixed by the RTF and what can’t. “Removing • This was one of the critiques from Ed ontological • Can it be done without conflicting with the fact that SBVR is based on ISO 1087? commitments” • The main issues seem to be about terms that both name a concept (which is a type or a subtype) and designate a thing (an instance).

1.5. “Process and Information Integration in Oil & Gas” by Claude Baudoin and Dave Feineman Claude Baudoin (cébé) introduced this segment by saying that he and Dave Feineman (BP) have been involved since November 2013 in an ad=hoc working group, which also includes Richard Soley for OMG, the leaders of standards organizations specific to the Oil & Gas business (such as Energistics, PPDM, and PIDX), other Oil & Gas companies (Chevron, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes, Halliburton) and various IT vendors (including IBM and No Magic). The group discusses the application of modeling standards to Report Meeting Reston OMG

improve process and information integration in the industry, with a goal to improve performance and safety. This effort has its origin in earlier discussions, held during Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) conferences in 2012 and 2013, in which attendees expressed a concern that the “hoarding” of information by oil companies, usually because of confidentiality concerns, is preventing integration in areas where it would benefit everyone. After this context setting, Dave Feineman gave an “Overview of Business Modeling in Upstream Oil & Gas.” He argued that there should be an enterprise process methodology and repository, usable by management and staff to run the business. The combined presentation by Claude and Dave is available at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?bmi/2014-03-04.

1.6. Roadmap Discussion on Risk Management At the BMI DTF’s previous meeting, we devoted almost an entire day to hearing various perspectives on the modeling of risk management, which is one of the topics listed on the group’s tentative roadmap. The following actions emerged as the most favored: 1. A Request for Information (RFI) to compare the various models mentioned last time, leading to a comparison white paper. The issue with this action is that it is not entirely clear who cares about it. 2. An RFI on whether a standard underlying the exchange of risk models would be welcome, and who would work on it? The business case for such an exchange standard could be collecting consistent risk management plans from various divisions or plants of a single organization, or delivering risk management information from different companies to a regulator. Jishnu Mukerji said that there should be three things to model: the description of the risk, the assessment of its probability and impact, and the mitigation. 3. Claude suggested that we could first “socialize” the question of whether there is an interest in the compilation and consistent reporting of risk. Other attendees agreed.

1.7. UML Profile for ArchiMate RFC James D. Baker (Sparx Systems) talked about an effort that will lead to an RFC for a UML profile for ArchiMate, to be jointly submitted by Sparx and Modeliosoft (which used to be Softeam, or is an avatar of it) at the Boston meeting in June 2014. J.D. presented the core concepts of ArchiMate, an Open Group visual modeling language for enterprise architecture. More information about this presentation appears in Section 3.11, which relates the identical presentation given by J.D. to the Analysis & Design Task Force. The presentation is available at www.omg.org/members/cgi-bin/doc?bmi/14-03-05.pdf. There was a discussion about whether the RFC process presents a risk of a contentious discussion, which could kill it and make it harder to revive it through another process. Fred Cummins was concerned that the RFC process leaves the Task Force with less ability to influence the contents between the meeting where the RFC is presented and the meeting at which it is voted on. Report Meeting Reston OMG

1.8. LEADing Practice Prof. Mark von Rosing, Chairman of the Global University Alliance, which includes 300 institutions, is the founder of the LEADing Practice Community (3100 organizations), which is governed by the Dutch Railways, KLM, Air France, and the Government of Canada. Membership and materials are free. The community develops enterprise standards and industry standards in the form of “reference content,” derived from EU- funded research started in 1999 on the best practices in existence across many industries, without getting into the religious wars between multiple methods, or into notations. Prof. von Rosing’s presentation is at www.omg.org/members/cgi-bin/doc?bmi/14-03-06.pdf. A fundamental finding is that there are two worlds, enterprise modeling and enterprise architecture, but they have a lot more in common than the researchers originally thought. This boils down to six common aspects: Value, Service, Process, Application, Data, and Technology. The definition of “service” is consistent with TOGAF and the OMG’s definition of process. Once the US Government (specifically the SPAWARS effort) joined the community in 2009, Enterprise Engineering was added as a third domain. This implied the addition of object engineering, object modeling, and object architecture aspects. In 2012, enterprise management and information management were also added. This led to the current 6 LEADing Practice enterprise standards, which include 90 pieces of reference content, and a set of “LEAD Objects.” Prof. von Rosing showed an example of the decomposition of a company’s strategic business objectives into critical success factors, KPIs, process performance indicators, and service performance indicators. He then showed the mappings between LEAD objects and the maps, matrices and templates where these objects appear. The model is extremely rich, and the participants in Reston agreed that this might provide a nice approach to define the Risk Management concepts that have been discussed during previous roadmap discussions. The LEADing Practice requires that organizations be members in order to access its information. Members need to be certified so that they are knowledgeable enough about the organization’s deliverables that they are not going to slow down the process through insufficient knowledge. There was discussion of the ways in which LEADing Practice and OMG could collaborate. LEADing Practice could become a member of OMG, but this involves fees. Having a liaison relationship would make more sense in this respect. We also concluded that since this part of the BMI DTF meeting was poorly attended due to schedule conflicts, we need to schedule a webcast between meetings. This webcast probably ought to be co-hosted by the BA SIG and/or by the Business Architecture Guild. (Update: this is planned for April 22 at 10:00 Eastern US time).

Report Meeting Reston OMG

2. Business Architecture Innovation Summit William Ulrich (TSG Inc., chair of the BA SIG), organized a very well attended Summit for the third time in as many years. There were about 200 people in attendance at the opening of the meeting, with people standing in the back of the room. Richard Soley, Chairman of the OMG, welcomed the attendees and turned the podium over to Bill Ulrich for his opening address. Several of the speakers were the same as in previous BA Summits, which of course does not mean that they presented exactly the same thing as last year. All presentations made at this Summit are available to the general public. The agenda also included three panels, which are not documented below.

2.1. “Business Architecture State-of-the-Practice Update” – Opening Address by Bill Ulrich (TSG Inc.) The Business Architecture Guild recently ran a very simple survey of its 1100+ members, collecting 282 responses. 34% of the respondents are in startup mode about their BA initiative, 23% are putting in place the governance model, 28% have the foundations in place (including capability maps and value chain analysis), and only 15% have fully deployed BA or consider it a mature practice. Out of the various activities that fall under BA, capability mapping is the most common (35% of respondents) and value mapping the least common (less than 4%). And there are still more organizations in which IT is in charge of business architecture than other forms of organization. Responding to an audience question, Bill provided some demographics about the BA Guild: one-third of the members are from the U.S., followed by Canada and the UK, and then Northern Europe. There is almost no representation from Southern Europe or other continents yet. Bill said that it was not clear why, but in fact it seems likely that there is a language issue: all the countries with major BA Guild presence use English exclusively, or almost exclusively, in business. There will be a “Business Architecture Innovation Workshop” at the next OMG meeting in Austin, Texas, on September 16-17, 2014 Bill’s presentation is at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-12.pdf.

2.2. “Business Architecture and Major Portfolio Initiatives” by Raj Dolas (United States Patent and Trademark Office) USPTO is engaged in creating a “Trademark Next Generation” (TMNG) system. A key part of the approach was to create a comprehensive capability map of the trademark part of the organization. The map is primarily focused on capabilities that are customer-facing, but there are also support capabilities and “strategic direction-setting” capabilities. This was done by a committee of business architects that was formed for this purpose, and which took a little under a year to draw the map, which in some cases goes down to 5 or 6 levels of decomposition. A lesson learned is that it is not always easy to draw the line between a business capability, a business process, and a business function. Report Meeting Reston OMG

The speaker showed 15 examples of value streams – which, in fact, also raise the question of confusion with business processes. These value streams are used for release planning – internal users are asked what the priority areas are to improve the automation of the trademark process. The development process is agile, with one release per quarter. In answer to a question, Mr. Dolas said that USPTO uses modeling software from Troux. The presentation is at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-18.pdf.

2.3. “Aligning Design with Business Architecture: creating the elusive 360 model of the business” by Michael Clark (independent consultant) Michael Clark, who presented at previous BA Summits when he was working for JPMorgan Chase and other organizations, contrasted the traditional, inward-looking way in which business and enterprise architecture are done (focused on ROI, stakeholder value, integration, requirements) and the way in which customer centricity, enabled by social media, requires that we now focus differently. While a long-term view if still necessary, change is so rapid that we need “short-term adaptable planning” (which sounds like another, longer phrase for “agility”). The speaker spent some time describing the expectations of the customer in the current world, which are different than they used to be because of the vast amount of information available through the Internet. As a result, he advocates “building the business around the experience” and incorporating concepts from product design into the architecture. Mr. Clark’s presentation is at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-13.pdf

2.4. “Context is Everything: Making Context and Culture Work for You” by Jeff Scott (Accelare Inc.) A Forrester survey from Q2 2012 found that “cultural and political constraints” are seen as the biggest obstacle to the success of Business Architecture. The speaker distinguished five interacting contexts:

• External (over which the enterprise has no control) • Management (corporate culture, accessibility, openness, leadership style) • Structural (organization structure, hiring and compensation practices, budgeting) • Cultural (how people see the ability to take risk, to be truthful, to be innovative) • Personal (beliefs, how people invest themselves in their job, resistance to change, …) In each of the contexts other than the external one, Mr. Scott identified 6 “contextual elements” to be examined, for a total of 24. For each of these elements, the current posture of the organization can be assessed on a scale that goes from one extreme to another (for example, competitive vs. collaborative styles of working together, which is an element of the cultural context), and compared to the desired state. The gaps that have the most impact on the current performance of the organization can then be prioritized, and action plans can be formed. The slides are at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-05.pdf. Report Meeting Reston OMG

2.5. “Optimizing Business Architecture: Going from 0 to 60 in 12” by Carol Manson (San Diego Gas & Electric Co.) The utility industry is evolving and seeing new challenges because of the development of smart meters, the smart grid, and new Web-based services to users. SDG&E launched a pilot BA effort in July 2012 in one of its groups, using Accelare as a consultant for an 8-week effort. This resulted in a “foundational platform” that is composed of capability models, value mapping, and heat mapping. Ms. Manson showed a map of about 80 capabilities, three levels deep, which classifies these capabilities along two axes: their financial value and their customer value. Most of the “low heat” capabilities are in the lower left corner – relatively low financial impact and low customer value. It was a surprise to the team that there were a number of “old utility” capabilities that were seen as very valuable, but in fact they no longer had the most value as a result of the business model changes. The exercise was so quickly successful that it was possible to integrate the results in the plans for 2013. By the end of 2013, a yearly process had been completed, leading to the allocation of financial and human resources for 2014 in the Customer Service area. A key takeaway was that with the will to do it and early successes, it was possible to build a business architecture from the ground up, create a roadmap, establish good governance, and obtain a commitment to resources from senior management. Ms. Manson’s slides are at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-06.pdf.

2.6. “Business Architecture: Turning Change into a Strategic Opportunity” – Lunch Presentation by Philippe Vandeginste (MEGA) The speaker said that business transformation projects involve profound changes to IT, and recommended a series of steps to handle these projects:

• Align business and IT • Plan the transformation (prioritizing the changes) • Assess the digital skills that exist in-house • Implement, knowing that there will be unexpected detours The presentation is at www.omg.org/members/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-19.pdf.

2.7. “Capability Based Approach to Enabling Strategic Initiatives” by Diane Lebeau and Diana Krohn (United Airlines) United Airlines has a group of six business architects, reporting to an organization called “IT Business Management.” A key issue is to overcome challenges for strategic initiatives, which have to do with misalignment between those initiatives and the actual business strategy, or the “silo” effect and unidentified overlaps or dependencies that result from uncoordinated initiatives developed in separate divisions. Report Meeting Reston OMG

Strategies are mapped to capabilities, and the impact on capabilities (at levels 2 and 3) is identified. For solution delivery, there is a “framework wall chart” showing a rather large number of deliverables for each project (the speaker showed examples). The business architects maintain visibility of all the dependencies on their Web site. See the slides at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-11.pdf.

2.8. “Using Business Architecture to Realize your Operating Model” by Steve DuPont (Boeing) The speaker first defined the difference between a business model and an operating model, which is a subset of the parts of the business model plus an organization model. Every organization has an operating model, but it is often implicit or unmanaged. Steve described some of the issues commonly experienced with the operating model (lack of discipline, siloed strategies, etc.). He classified the operating model in a manner consisted with the work of Dr. Jeanne Ross, of MIT’s Center for Information Systems Research (CISR) in her book “Enterprise Architecture as Strategy.” Steve walked the audience through the building of a “target operating model” for a fictional company. See the presentation at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-16.pdf.

2.9. “Developing Business Architecture at the Domain Level” by Daniel Toth (Ford) Ford’s context is a strategy, the “One Ford” plan, to create an integrated enterprise out of multiple divisions. The business architecture consists of four views:

• The domain model • Value streams • Capabilities (the speaker presented a map of 10 top-level capabilities, subdivided into 35 capabilities at level 2) • Business information assets Mr. Toth then described several other models used to drive the portfolio management process, and the “business design.” See his slides at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-15.pdf.

2.10. “Are We There Yet? Taking the Business Architecture Guild Maturity Model (BAMM) for a Test Drive at Pfizer” by Janice Lewis (Pfizer) Pfizer has presented a compelling story about EA and BA at previous OMG events. This time, Ms. Lewis described Pfizer’s BA as “federated”: experts reside in various functional areas, but they are centrally unified in their approach. There were two themes in 2013:

• All aspects of BA are connected through a central capability map • Self-service: everyone can view the BA frameworks and connected information and help drive quality. Report Meeting Reston OMG

Ms. Lewis reviewed the 20 elements of the BAMM and showed the spider chart of how Pfizer fared in those areas (ranging from 3 to 5.5 on a scale of 0 to 5). This leads Pfizer to formulate an action plan to improve the lower-rated areas, and also to a set of recommendations to improve the BAMM itself. The presentation is at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-03.pdf.

2.11. “Accelerating Business Outcomes and Changing the Game” by Aimee Roberts (MassMutual Financial Group a.k.a. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co.) The main point of this very short presentation was about the benefits of creating a reusable repository of business assets. The slides are at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-01.pdf.

2.12. “Aligning Enterprise Architecture and Business Architecture” by Russ Jackson (Export Development Canada) EDC is a “crown company” that facilitates trade by providing financial facilities, insurance and connections to Canadian exporters. Discussing the “ideal state” where Enterprise Architecture “swims upstream” to sit at the table with the business, the speaker questioned the fact that “business is a subset of EA…?” In fact, according to most current models, business architecture (not “business”) is indeed part of EA. He described a situation in which transformation projects would be initiated in a chaotic manner, and when issues were encountered later on, this was often traced back to the lack of an explicit business strategy. They key method to resolve these issues was to “disentangle the value streams,” and then to decompose them into different semantic parts (business strategy, capabilities, initiatives, outcomes, benefits, etc.). The business architecture function is accountable for some of these components, while the (IT) delivery organization is specifically accountable for three: initiatives, outcomes and benefits. This led not only to clarification of the respective roles of BA and EA, but it also meant that EA did not consider BA as a threat or a constraint but as an enabler – something that filled a gap in what EA needed to do its job. One lesson learned was that EDC didn’t get the message out early enough about what business architecture is, and how it can facilitate the business/IT alignment. Mr. Jackson’s slides are at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-02.pdf.

2.13. “Business-Driven Roadmaps, Funding and Initiatives” by Vijay Bhuvanagiri (MasterCard) Dr. Bhuvanagiri contrasted a traditional process, in which projects are funded based on business needs, but architecture is only considered on a project-by-project basis after each project is funded, with a process where strategic planning (including architecture considerations) is a very important and continuous process that operates before specific projects are kicked off. Thus a “business-driven roadmap” is the output of the planning process, not the input. Report Meeting Reston OMG

The presentation is available at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-09.pdf. It contains only 4 substantial slides, but they are all graphical.

2.14. “The Evolution of Business Architecture in Wells Fargo” by Atul Bhatt (Wells Fargo) In this fairly short presentation, the speaker showed how after a number of disconnected efforts on subjects like BPM in 2006-2009, Wells Fargo launched a business architecture community in 2011, and by the end of 2012 business architecture was seen as the proper umbrella to regroup the various efforts. This is a typical “Community of Practice” effort, with the development and sharing of best practices as key goals. See the slides at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-10.pdf.

2.15. “Tying Business Architecture to Business Strategy” by Sudeep Banerjee (Association of American Medical Colleges) AAMC’s IT used to be driven by project requests without much thought about or visibility into strategic goals. A business architecture practice, reporting to the CIO, was established in 2008, but the business did not engage and redundant developments continued to be planned in separate silos. To resolve this, a new “Business Integration Alignment” (BIA) group was formed, reporting to the COO. Since then, the key work has been to develop a model of business capabilities and their relationship with strategic initiatives. There is a standard “capability discovery worksheet” with 12 related boxes. The presentation appendix shows a “toy example” of such a map. See www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-17.pdf.

2.16. “Agency Solutions” by Brian Krummen (Nationwide Insurance) At Nationwide, there is a Business Architecture team, created at the end of 2011, as well as a Business Consulting team, created in 2012. The business architects (BA) report to business units, and the business consulting leaders (BCL) report to the IT organization. This organization started executing on “quick wins,” then expanded to performing strategic planning for business functions, and then for business units. Both BAs and BCLs ensure the alignment between business planning and IT planning. The tools they use include a capability framework, capability heat maps, the business transformation planning (BTP) framework, and multi-year roadmaps. See the slides at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-14.pdf.

2.17. “Business Architecture: Strategically Aligning Resources to Drive Execution and Realize Value” by Josue R. Batista (Highmark Health Services) During the first half of his presentation, Mr. Batista went over a number of fundamental concepts of business architecture (his presentation should probably have been scheduled earlier in the Summit, as it almost amounted to a mini-tutorial on BA), ending with the alignment of BA with the Business Motivation Model (BMM). Report Meeting Reston OMG

The second half was devoted to the speaker’s proposed “conceptual solution design and visualization” activity, which he bases on the Business Architecture Guild’s BIZBOK™, specifically on its value mapping and value stream concepts. The visualization is based on very colorful but rather busy diagrams. See the presentation at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-08.pdf.

2.18. “Leveraging Business Architecture for Business Transformation” by Tim Hurley (Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina) The speaker said that by 2009, BCBSNC had a mature EA practice, but no BA practice. EA had the reputation of being a road-blocker (this is a frequent complaint across all kinds of organizations). By 2010, several important changes in the external context (new legislation) as well as inside the company (new executives and strategies) required urgent changes. The EA team created a “business transformation planning service” to respond to these changes. BCBS adopted an Accelare consulting methodology and used a series of workshops to develop 9 key planning deliverables, including a capability model and a tactical project portfolio, for one division. The transformation approach was a success and was widely adopted across the company. A new internal team called “Business Architecture, Planning, Design and Analysis” resulted. In 2014, the effort is being extended to improve enterprise portfolio management and investment planning. Value stream modeling is going to be introduced. The slides are available at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-04.pdf and a case study has been published by the Corporate Executive Board.

2.19. “Establishing the Business Architecture Practice” by Vijay Bhuvanagiri (MasterCard) In this second presentation, Mr. Bhuvanagiri described the recommended steps to establish BA as a practice in the enterprise. The series of steps are no surprise: set the goals, gain stakeholder buy-in, etc. The speaker listed some of the skills that a good business architect should have. There again, there was no significant surprise, but it is a good checklist. The presentation is at www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?basig/14-03-07.pdf.

Report Meeting Reston OMG

3. Analysis & Design Task Force (ADTF) The Task Force was chaired by James Odell (independent methodologist, consultant and speaker), Michael Chonoles (Change Vision) and Dr. Fatma Dandashi (MITRE).

3.1. Precise Semantics of UML Composite Structures Arnaud Cuccuru (Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique) presented the revised submission. At the previous meeting, he had reported that all substantive work required on the proposal had been done, but there had been insufficient time to iron out all the details and finalize the submission. This time, he presented the final submission, including a verifier programmed by Ed Seidewitz. Tom Rutt (Fujitsu) made a vote-to-vote motion, seconded by Cory Casanave (Model Driven Solutions). The motion carried by a roll call vote of 7-0-0. Fatma Dandashi then moved to recommend the submission for adoption, Cory Casanave seconded. The motion also carried 7-0-0.

3.2. Call for Participation in a new Government DTF RFP Cory Casanave mentioned an RFP recently issued by the Government DTF for a “UML Profile for Global Reference Architecture.” This is about service modeling, extends SOAML, and fits with NIEM. Since the technology layer (SOA) is already defined, Cory expects the effort to be relatively quick and painless – less than a year. He invited anyone interested in this effort to look at the RFP and participate.

3.3. MDA Tool Component RFP There has been no work since a 2007 proposal from Softeam, which was not adopted then, and no deliverables from the group working on this for about five years. The group is not interested in pursuing the effort. Jim Odell and Andrew Watson determined that enough people from the corresponding voting list were present to hold a vote. A motion was made to withdraw the RFP, and passed.

3.4. Metamodel Extension Facility Manfred Koethe (88 Solutions) moved to set a new revised submission date of August 18, 2014. Cory Casanave seconded the motion.

3.5. Interaction Flow Modeling Language (IFML) – FTF Status Marco Brambilla (WebRatio) said that the Finalization Task Force would present its completed specification the next day to the Architecture Board. The specification was adopted in March 2013. Out of 77 issues reported. 69 were solved (including typographical errors), 6 were closed with no change, and 3 were merged with others. Report Meeting Reston OMG

Marco reviewed the substantial changes that were made to the metamodel. Events were split between “catch” and “throw” events. Descriptions were added to guide implementers on how to map IFML to Java and HTML implementations.

3.6. Update on Semantic Information Modeling for Federation (SIMF) Cory Casanave reminded the audience that the purpose of the RFP, issued in late 2011, is to solve the information federation problem “head-on” using a modeling approach. It is not meant to replace UML or BPMN, but to add value. It doesn’t assume that there is a single underlying conceptual model applicable to everyone – but it might help some communities adopt a common model among them. SIMF adds the new concept of “context”: information is modeled a certain way in a certain context. In a different context, the same information may have a different model. The SIMF team has decided to publish some of its work to date on the group’s wiki, in order to attract more interest and participation. Interested people should contact Cory or get on the mailing list. Paul Brown (TIBCO) presented a “complementary view” to Cory’s. He started from the “Tower of Babel problem”: we have too many languages. He proposed that we need a uniform approach (metamodel) to describe every type of model. Paul explained how UML or RDF “get close” but fail to express certain things, in particular because relationships are not first-class concepts. Cory moved to reschedule the Letter of Intent deadline, reopen the voting list, and move the initial submission and revised submission dates to later in 2014. NIST objected to a white ballot. Jim Odell called the roll. The motion passed by a vote of 8-0-4 (NIST, Thematix Partners, Thales and Lockheed- Martin abstained).

3.7. Vocabulary for Terminology Work Elisa Kendall (Thematix Partners) gave an overview of existing terminology work at OMG, including CTS2 (Common Terminology Services) from the Healthcare DTF, and FIBO (Financial Instruments Business Ontology) and FIGI (Financial Instruments Global Identifiers) from the Finance DTF. Elisa gave examples of common terminology needs in financial risk management and disclosures. Elisa then reviewed the relationship between:

• SBVR: Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules • ISO 1087: Terminology Work – Vocabulary • ISO 11179: Metadata Registry • ISO 704: Terminology Work – Principles and Methods • … and other ISO standards related to ontology mapping. SBVR includes parts of ISO 1087. ISO 11179 depends on ISO 1087. What is being proposed is to create an ontology of these standards (starting with ISO 1087) that would be published jointly by ISO and OMG, with mappings to SKOS and SBVR. Tom Rutt asked how we would manage the process of issuing something jointly between two ISO subcommittees and the OMG. He said it is possible to engage individual experts from the ISO community, but it is much hard to engage the subcommittees as such. Report Meeting Reston OMG

Elisa said that the roadmap will probably lead to an RFC about ISO 1087 and an RFP for ISO 11179. Lots of people have expressed interest. A straw poll indicated that no one was opposed to the idea of using the RFC process for the first part of this work.

3.8. Designation of “Chair Emeritus” A motion was made, and passed by white ballot, to create the title of “Chair Emeritus” and bestow it on James Odell, who has led the ADTF since its creation and who may no longer be able to continue as an active co-chair. A Chair Emeritus can attend meetings, and act as a chair when present.

3.9. Object Constraint Language 2.5 RFP Presentation Ed Willink (Eclipse Modeling Project / Willink Transformations) presented the RFP, and the answers to questions that had been raised before. Ed proposed a December 2014 submission date. Tom Rutt questioned whether that was enough time. Ed admitted that it may be an aggressive schedule, but that “it’s better to start worrying in six months than in two years if this seems difficult.” The motion was made, seconded by Fatma Dandashi, and approved by white ballot.

3.10. State of the Art Usage for QVT Ed Willink gave an overview of the past, present and future of QVT (Query-View-Transform), which started in 2002. QVT contains a number of languages:

• QVTo – the operational mapping language – has two open source implementations and a small enthusiastic user base, “not a failure, but not a roaring success either” • QVTr – the relational mapping language – has semi-open source implementations • QVTc – the core language – has no implementation yet, and is only useful as an intermediate language • QVTd – the declarative component – consists of editors, parsers and metamodels for QVTr and QVTc • QVTu – a simple unidirectional declarative transformation language (subset of QVTc) • QVTm – a minimal unidirectional declarative transformation language • QVTi – a very small unidirectional imperative transformation language The QVT 1.2 Revision Task Force has deferred several important issues, which are waiting for the issuance of OCL 2.5. Ed described issues related to traceability. Ed described the mappings between the various components of QVT.

3.11. UML Profile for ArchiMate RFC J.D. Baker (Sparx Systems) presented background information on an effort that will lead to an RFC for a UML profile, to be jointly submitted jointly by Sparx and Modeliosoft at the Boston meeting in June 2014 (he originally intended to deliver it at this meeting, but the discussions that occurred in response to JD’s announcement that he was going to propose this justified having more discussions first. Report Meeting Reston OMG

ArchiMate is an Open Group visual modeling language for enterprise architecture. JD presented the core concepts of ArchiMate. There are only a few layers, each of which has in term a small number of elements (in contrast, in particular with the very complex UPDM profile, which contains 52 elements):

• Business layer • Application layer • Technology layer There are also Implementation elements, and Motivation elements that look similar to BMM concepts. JD explained how this profile would be, in his opinion, mutually beneficial to ArchiMate and UML. He said that Bell Canada and HP are examples of companies that need to interchange architecture models between tools, but existing non-standard profiles inhibit model interchange. The required expertise about UML and metamodels exists in OMG to create this profile. The Open Group is clearly in favor – they have presented to the OMG a couple of times, and produced a white paper, “Using the ArchiMate Language with UML.” The author of the paper has written this: “Coarse-grained enterprise-level architecture models and fine-grained UML models complement each other today; a formal relationship will accelerate architecture and design processes.” Ed Barkmeyer raised the question that this is proposing adoption of something that’s already implemented; therefore, suggestions for changes will not be welcome. JD replied that there is an active process to evolve ArchiMate, and feedback from the RFC process will be submitted as suggestions for future versions. But the initial profile work will be limited to implementing the current version of ArchiMate – there is a difference between “ArchiMate issues” (referred to the Open Group, but not addressed by OMG) and “ArchiMate profile issues” (to be handled by the RFC submitters). JD clarified, in response to a question, that ArchiMate is not intimately connected to TOGAF. This presentation was repeated at the BMI DTF the next morning. Some of the discussion points during that presentation were as follows:

• ArchiMate is not defined in a precise and consistent manner. For example, the diagram in the white paper mentioned above shows 5 core elements, while the text only mentions 3 (passive structure, behavior, active structure) and the relationship of the other two components of ArchiMate, Service and Interface, is inconsistent between the text and the diagram. • Keeping future revisions of the profile in sync between OMG and the Open Group is going to be challenging. It would be easier if the profile was owned by the Open Group, but they do not have the expertise to work on a UML Profile. • Jishnu Mukerji said that ArchiMate allows you to do things like portfolio management, but once you try to go deeper and create models that can be transformed into real systems, it doesn’t meet the need as UML does. Report Meeting Reston OMG

4. Plenary Lunch Presentations During the Wednesday plenary lunch, Richard Soley announced that this is the 25th anniversary of the OMG. See http://www.omg.org/marketing/25th/. A representative from No Magic gave a sales pitch for the Cameo E2E Bridge. Richard Soley introduced the partnership with VB Profiles, a company that offers a news watch service about companies, products and technologies. Under this agreement, the service is made available for free to all OMG groups and members. Dominique Butel, from VB Profiles, presented and demonstrated the service to the audience. There are now customized news feeds on the Web pages of the Cloud Standards Customer Council, the Software Defined Networking group, the Healthcare Domain Task Force, and the “my.omg.org” custom member pages.

5. Plenary Report Sessions Friday morning, as always, was devoted to plenary sessions during which all OMG subgroups briefly reported on their work, and the Platform and Domain Technology Committees made decisions on technology adoptions. While many attendees choose to leave the OMG meetings after the work of their Task Forces and SIGs ends on Wednesday or Thursday, the plenary reports offer a comprehensive view of the scope of activity at the OMG. The points below were judged worthy of mention, but are not an exhaustive list of the work reported. This section will frequently refer to the three forms of requests issued by OMG Technical Committees:

• A Request for Proposal (RFP) is a formal call for the submission of specifications; it opens up a time window for organizations at the appropriate level of membership to submit proposals. • A Request for Comments (RFC) is a fast-track process whereby someone submits a specification that is expected to receive broad consensus. A comment period opens to allow people to voice any objections or submit changes. If there are no serious objections, the proposal is adopted. If there are, then the process reverts to a competitive RFP. • A Request for Information (RFI) is a less formal process to obtain feedback from the community, and organizations can respond regardless of OMG membership level. An RFI is often used to generate enough information about the “state of the practice” to allow the writing of an RFP.

5.1. Architecture Board Subgroup Reports Andrew Watson announced that there were five candidates for five open seats on the Architecture Board, therefore all five were deemed elected. Angelo Corsaro of PrismTech was elected to the seat vacated by Steve Cook, who has retired from Microsoft.

Architecture Cory Casanave (Model Driven Solutions) reported that the AE SIG met again, with 8 Ecosystem participants, after a long time of inactivity. The discussion was mostly about the SIMF RFP (see Section 3.6). Fabien Neuhaus discussed how to potentially use Common Logic for SIMF. Report Meeting Reston OMG

Business The SIG did not meet, but the Business Architecture Guild held a two-day Business Architecture SIG Architecture Innovation Summit (see Section 2).

Model Ed Seidewitz (Ivar Jacobson International) said that there a couple of new test Interchange SIG cases have been submitted. There continues to be a focus on UPDM test cases, but tool vendors are not making good progress in regular meeting, and will take a six-month break to clean up their implementations. Then the SIG will re-engage in September. J.D. Baker (Sparx Systems) said that there was another interoperability demonstration of BPMN interchange between 9 vendors, run in a distributed manner with some vendors attending a BPMN conference in California at the same time. The demo was successful.

ORMSC (Object & Jon Siegel (OMG) said that the ORMSC continued its work on the MDA Guide. After Reference Model a lot of work over many meeting cycles, there is now a final draft. It is based on the Subcommittee) Foundation Model done by Wim Bast when he was at CompuWare. The draft is already on the OMG Web site for everyone to review. The document will be up for AB, PTC and DTC votes in June.

Specification Jishnu Mukerji reported that the SC is catching up on its backlog. 7 or 8 documents Management have been published since the last meeting. There are 6 previously approved Subcommittee specifications in the edit queue, including one (Property and Casualty model) for which the submitters have not provided the source files. The Canonical XMI specification will be merged into the XMI 2.5 one. 6 specifications adopted at this meeting will be added to the queue. The Namespace Policy is not quite ready for adoption, and should be completed at the next meeting.

Intellectual Andrew Watson said that the IPR SC should probably be dissolved in a couple of Property Rights meeting cycles, in the absence of issues concerning intellectual property. Subcommittee All 8 of the RFPs that have been issued since the policy changed (a year ago) have been under the “non-assert” terms. This is especially interesting since it was hard to get members to agree to insert this mode about the new IPR options. Among the submissions made since that date, in response to RFPs that did not include an IP mode when they were issued, 6 selected the non-assert mode, 4 have chosen the RF-limited (royalty-free on limited terms) mode, and none have chosen RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory). Specs being revised or finalized also needed to transition to one of the new modes. Out of 32 such specifications, 31 were transitioned to RF-limited and just one (the MARTE specification) to RAND. Regarding BPMN and CMMN, everyone wanted a royalty-free mode, which implied RF-limited, but the submitters wanted RAND. The Board decided to make an exception, allowing RAND for these two specifications only. Report Meeting Reston OMG

Liaison Tom Rutt (Fujitsu) reported on the work done at ISO to adopt various OMG specs. Subcommittee It has been hard to get news from ISO about the disposition of UPDM 2.1 and SysML 1.3. The “Harvesting” fast-track process seems to actually be slower than the regular one, and ill-defined. It now appears that these two specifications may go to ballot after an ISO TC184/SC4 Board meeting in May. MOF 2.4.1 and XMI 2.4.1 are done, and waiting for publication as ISO 19508:2014 and 19509:2014. This will then serve as the basis for work on versions 2.5. ISO also wants to progress the submission of SBVR to ISO TC37, but they are waiting for a report from the SBVR 1.3 Revision Task Force (headed by Donald Chapin). There are several specifications from the Robotics Task Force, which may be handled by an ISO TC, which will possibly form a new Working Group.

5.2. Domain Technical Committee Subgroup Reports Andrew Watson verified that the quorum was met. The minutes of the December meeting were approved by white ballot. The DTC then proceeded with the presentation of subgroup reports.

Manufacturing Uwe Kaufmann (ModelAlchemy) reported that the EXPRESS Metamodel 1.1 RTF and Industrial Report passed the Architecture Board. 13 of 17 issues were solved. Systems The TF discussed ideas for an Engineering Information Management (ENGIMA) RFI. (MANTIS) Interests for the next meeting include: • Data Analytics for Smart Manufacturing (based on a NIST proposal) • Preparation for a Manufacturing Information Day • A joint meeting with the Systems Engineering DSIG • Nominations for a new co-chair, replacing Bernd Wenzel

Government Larry Johnson (TethersEnd) reported that there was much activity at this meeting, DTF including presentations about security and threat modeling. Canadian authorities are doing work on putting the encryption on the data itself, rather than on the device that contains the data. The “NIEM-UML for NIEM 3.0” RFP passed the Architecture Board and is being recommended for issuance. There was another discussion about “Standards-Based Acquisition” among people who have very different understandings of what this means. At the next meeting, among other things, there will be a review of initial submissions to the UML Profile for Global Reference Architecture (GRA-UML) RFP. John Butler and Larry Johnson will be stepping down as co-chairs, and new co-chairs will be elected at the June meeting. Report Meeting Reston OMG

Business Fred Cummins reported on this meeting. See details in Section 1 of this report. Modeling & Integration DTF

Systems Roger Burkhart (Deere & Company) reported that there were a number of Engineering presentations and discussions to coordinate with other groups, including: Domain SIG • Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration (OSLC) • A presentation by Boeing on their implementation of MBSE • Exploring the application of graph theory and graph databases for systems modeling • Modeling quantities, units, dimensions and values (QUDV) in SysML, by Nicolas Rouquette of NASA JPL • A summary of the Annual MBSE Workshop, held at the end of January in Los Angeles, by Sandy Friedenthal There is now a SysML 1.5 RTF.

Space DTF Brad Kizzort (Harris Corp.) reported that the Space DTF spent most of its time on the finalization of the XTCE Key Parameter Display RFI.

C4I Task Force Ron Townsend reported that the Task Force is still working on drafting an RFP for TACSIT (Tactical-Situational) Real Time Data Injection. The RFP may still not be ready for an issuance vote in June. The TestIF standard is completed and the Task Force is looking at what’s next. There was a delay in the submission dates for UPDM 3.0.

Finance DTF Mike Bennett (EDMC) reported on the meeting, which was shortened to accommodate a day on “Semantics – Crossing the Chasm” event. The meeting included: • An overview of FIBO • The second reading of the FIBO Business Entities RFC (with a vote to adopt) • The first formal reading of the Financial Instruments Global Identifiers (FIGI) RFC proposed by Bloomberg. At the last meeting, the issuance of the RFC was deferred in order to resolve some completeness issues, and especially to ensure that the RFC is vendor-neutral and non-proprietary. The “Crossing the Chasm” day, held jointed by Finance and Health Care, was well attended. There were good practical demonstrations of how sophisticated applications using business rules based on FIBO. At the next meeting, there should be first readings of a “FIBO Indices and Indications” RFC and of a “FIBO Financial Instruments Common Terms” RFC. Report Meeting Reston OMG

Robotics DTF Antonello Ceravola (Honda European Research Institute) reported that the Task Force reviewed the revised submissions to the Finite State Machine Component for Robotic Technology Component (FSM4TTC) RFP. It is also working on a Hardware Abstract Layer for RT (HAL4RT) RFP. The three working groups of the DTF reported on their work. There was a report on contacts with SIT concerning the Unmanned Vehicle Conference in Boston in June 2014.

Healthcare DTF Robert Lario (VisumPoint) reported on interactions with the HL7 organization. The CTS2 1.2 Finalization Task Force report was presented to the Architecture Board.

Andrew Watson led the process to approve the UML Profile for NIEM Version 3.0 RFP, and the Financial Instrument Global Identifier (FIGI) RFC. Both motions passed by white ballot. Several motions were made and adopted to charter Finalization and Revision Task Forces, add members to existing ones, and to extend certain RTF deadlines. There was a debate on the proposed schedule for the FIBO Business Entities FTF. A vote was started, and will complete by e-mail, on the adoption of the FIBO Business Entities RFC.

5.3. Platform Technical Committee Subgroup Reports Andrew Watson verified that the quorum was met. The minutes of the December meeting were approved by white ballot.

Analysis and Fatma Dandashi (MITRE) reported on the ADTF. See Section 3 for details. The Design Task Force Vocabulary for Terminology Work (VTW) RFC, based on ISO 1087, will be presented at the next meeting.

Architecture Jason Smith (TSRI) reported that he was elected as co-chair of the Task Force, Driven replacing Djenana Campara. Modernization The revised RFC on Implementation Patterns Metamodel for Software Systems PTF (IPMSS) was posted, and comments are due at the June meeting. An Information Day will be held during the September meeting.

Data Distribution Gerardo Pardo-Castellote (Real Time Innovations) reported on the SIG meeting: SIG • John Their (General Dynamics) presented the evaluation team’s assessment of the submissions to the “RPC over DDS” submissions. There was extensive discussion with agreement on a final revised scope. • Angelo Corsaro (PrismTech) and Sumant Tambe (RTI) presented a progress report and the draft of the merged “TCP/IP PSM for DDS” RFC. • Gerardo Pardo led a discussion about the formation of a DDS 1.4 RTF. • Char Wales (MARS PTF Chair) presented for James Hummel (Atego) a report on the progress of the UML Profile for DDS RFC. • The DDS Security specification was recommended for adoption. Report Meeting Reston OMG

System Assurance Djenana Campara (KDM Analytics) reported that the meeting included status (SysA) Platform reports from various subgroups: Task Force • Robert Martin (MITRE) gave an update on the Structured Assurance Case Metamodel (SACM) RTF, which met for two full days, before and after the SysA meeting proper. • The Security Fabric Working Group reported on its activities. The following presentations and reports were given: • Satoru Watanabe (Toyota) on the Dependability Assurance Framework for Safety-Sensitive Consumer Devices • Rick Murphy on a Generic Architecture for Government • Mike Abramson (ASMG) about IEF and the new Reference Architecture RFP • Daniel Charlebois (Canada Defense Agency) on “Secure Access Management for Secret Operational Networks” (SAMSON) • Cory Casanave (Model Driven Solutions) on the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) • Gerald Beuchelt (Demandware) on the proposed UML profile Threat Modeling and Sharing Activities • Makoto Takeyama (Kanagawa University) on the Machine-checkable Assurance Case Language (MACL) RFP draft There was a joint discussion with MARS on how to re-engage the SysA task force on the “Assurance Case for DDS for Safety Critical Systems” RFP.

MARS Char Wales (MITRE) reported that MARS had a busy full week as usual. Some of (Middleware and the activities were held jointly with the SysA Task Force of the DDS PSIG, and Related Services) these are listed in other subgroup reports to avoid duplication. In addition: Task Force • The RIA Dynamic Components RFP submission dates were once again shifted by one meeting cycle. • The IEF Reference Architecture RFP was recommended for issuance. This will lay the groundwork for a series of subsequent RFPs. • The IDL 4.0 RFC, originally planned for issuance at this meeting, should be issued in September • The IEPPS revised submission was discussed. This work requires a sufficiently mature IEF reference architecture, therefore the sense of the Task Force was to withdraw the RFP and wait for such a time. Report Meeting Reston OMG

Ontology Elisa Kendall (Thematix Partners) reported that the submission team for the API Platform SIG for Knowledge Bases (API4KB) met. They have done good work on the wiki page, explaining where we are going. There should be a submission in June or September. The VTW work mentioned in the ADTF report (see Section 3.7) is a joint effort with Ontology. The ODM 1.2 RTF is starting, and its report may be ready for the next meeting. An OntoIOP initial submission was presented by Fabien Neuhaus. They got a running start from their ISO work. This included a demonstration from the University of Magdeburg. The submission deadline is December 2014. The mapping of the Date-Time Vocabulary (DTV) to OWL, which was done partially earlier, is now complete. Ed Barkmeyer questioned whether this would be an informational annex to the DTV specification, or should be normative, in which case it is outside of the scope of a DTV 1.1 RTF. Elisa said that it could be a two-step process, with the annex as a first step and an RFC later. Elie Abi-Lahoud (University College Cork) talked about his work on using SBVR Structured English to represent regulatory policies.

Andrew Watson led the process of issuing the following RFPs and RFC:

• Object Constraint Language 2.5 RFP • Information Exchange Framework Reference Architecture RFP • Implementation Patterns Metamodel for Software Systems RFC (first reading) … which all passed by white ballot: Andrew led the process to charter, extend, rename or add members to several Finalization Task Forces and Revision Task Forces. All motions passed by white ballot. Five technology adoptions were recommended to the PTC and endorsed by the Architecture Board. The vote was started in person and will complete via e-mail:

• DDS Security • Precise Semantics of UML Composite Structures • Interaction Flow Modeling Language 1.0 FTF Report • Essence 1.0 FTF Report • MOF QVT 1.2 RTF Report • Diagram Definition 1.1 RTF Report

Report Meeting Reston OMG

6. Next Meetings The next OMG Technical Meetings are scheduled as follows:

• Boston, Mass., June 16-20, 2014 • Austin, Tex., September 15-19, 2014 • Long Beach, Calif., December 8-12, 2014 • Reston, Va., March 23-27, 2015 • Berlin, Germany, June 15-19, 2015 • Cambridge, Mass., September 21-25, 2015 • Burlingame, Calif., Dec. 7-11, 2015 Report Meeting Reston OMG