Minutes ETC meeting, July 3rd and 4th, 2008

Date:Thursday and Friday,July 3rd and 4th, 2008

Time:09:00 - 17:00 and 9:00 - 16:00

Place:Zurich

Participants: Christian Odgaard, DK, Energinet.dk

Christoff Ruffing, CH, swissgrid

Kees Sparreboom, NL, TenneT

Alexander Pisters, DE, RWE

Ove Nesvik, NO, EdiSys (Secretary)

Attachment:

1Approval of agenda

Approved with the following additions and changes:

  • Addition of XML schemas for EMD, under item5
  • Addition of ebIX on Wikipedia, under item 14.1
  • Addition of Code discussion related to new German needs, under item 14.2
  • Addition of XML schemas for EMD, under item 14.3
  • Item 7, Release/version management (Christoph) was postponed until next meeting

2Minutes from previous meetings

The minutes were approved.

3Project plan for making common test procedures for the ebIX processes

The item was postponed to next meeting.

4Modelling

4.1Report from TMG meeting in Berlin

Modelling from scratch:

Kees presented ebIX ideas related to “modelling from scratch”. Some discussion topics:

  • Kees presented the issues with help of the 2 presentations (se attachments above).
  • In general TMG sees the advantages of creating a pure UML model and leave all other requirements to be satisfied in separate transformations
  • On the issue of including CC’s in models:
  • CC’s may be used as “controlled vocabulary” rather than building blocks for the model;
  • In XML there is an issue regarding the order of the BBIE’s anyway. CCTS does not prescribe any order of attributes (BBIE’s) in a class (ABIE). In UML this is self evident, but in XML it is an issue, because different order means different schema version in XML.
  • Christian Huemer saw a problem in our model for a process, especially when used for collaboration with nested business transactions. He might be right for this nesting, so we will look into this. Result may be: keep the model for business transactions as it is, but use the Activity Diagram version with local and global swim lanes for collaborations.
  • TMG agrees that the present CEFACT procedure, where all CC’s have to be approved by CEFACT, will be uncontrollable in the end and might lead to chaos.

TMG does not agree that UMM is picture oriented. On the contrary, this is what they wanted to avoid.

  • Among others the presentation had some activity diagram examples, which included both a control flow and an information flow. However according to Christian the control flow should be skipped if it correlates to the information flow. In UMM the control flow is replaced with the <InitFlow> and <ReFlow> in the Business Collaboration Protocol.
  • The ebIX, EFET and ETSO role model was presented:
  • The Roles will fit into the UMM Business Partner View
  • The placement of the Domains is more uncertain, i.e. should the Domains be put in the Business Partner View or in the Business Entity View?
  • Christian proposed putting the Role model diagram under the Business Partner View and include the Domains from the Business Entity View in this diagram.
  • Kees also showed a class diagram where the roles from the actual processes were specialised as the roles from the role model, i.e. roles from the role model inherited all the attributes from the roles associated with the processes.

Questions/comments to UMM2 from previous ETC meeting:

a)ebIX is missing a description of a “package diagram” or similar to show the structure of business areas and process areas. This seems to be a part of the UMM2 structure example published among others on the UMM development site (but without being detailed).

Answer: The package diagram in the structure is only there because of a bug in EA. However, if we need this diagram for other purposes (e.g. as an overview in a Word document) we are free to create such a diagram. The model itself does not need it. Christian suggests drawing the structure as “packages within packages”.

b)Where in the structure should the enumeration Transaction Pattern be defined (figure 27 and 35)?

Answer: This should be a part of the UMM profile for MagicDraw. It is already part of the UMM-profile (see documentation). If it is missing in the MagicDraw profile for UMM, this is a mistake.

c)Why is it only one BusinessTransactionPartition in Figure 29 (line 780) and none in figure 31 (line 785). According to “5.3.2.4 Constraints (normative)”, line 740: “A BusinessTransaction MUST have exactly two partitions.”

Answer: It shall always betwo. This is a typing error.

d)It seems that the actual graph shown in figure 35 (line 939-940) Business Collaboration View is the graph from the Business Transaction View.Answer: This is a copying error.

e)Is the Business entity the same as an Object in object oriented modelling?

Answer: Yes.

f)Proposal for changes to stereotypes:

  • bCollV instead of bCollaborationV
  • bReqV instead of bRequirementsV
  • bChorV instead of bChoreographyV
  • bInfV instead of bInformationV
  • bLib instead of bLibrary

Answer:The reason for the abbreviations is making themas short as possible in order to keep the diagrams readable. On the other hand TMG does not want modellers to talk with business in a “slang” of abbreviations nobody else than themselves can understand. That is the reason for not completely use abbreviations. No changes will be done.

g)ebIX would like to see (probably as an extension to the UMM Foundation module) a complete conceptual data model for the whole Business collaboration model somewhere within UMM.

Answer: See Business entity view in UMM2.

Comments to UPCC from previous ETC meeting:

h)We would prefer if the CC, CDT and PRM libraries were moved out of the Information view, since these are libraries that not should be touched by the normal modeller. Probably these libraries should be UML profiles maintained and published by UN/CEFACT.

Answer: Future goal.

States

The States was shortly discussed. Christian explained that the states relate to the Shared Business Entities and that the states represent the common state on the borderline of a transaction.The states should be synchronised on both sides by the exchange of the Shared Business Entity.

Relation between UMM and UN/CFACT BRS/RSM

The question; how UMM is related to BRS/RSM documents was raised and Christian meant that the BRS should correspond to the Business Requirements View and the RSM should correspond to the Business Choreography View andthe Business Information View.

4.2How to use states and business entities

See above.

4.3Status for addition of the new UMM 2.0 version as a module in the ebIX CC/UMM profile

So fare nothing has been done.

4.4Status for CCL08A ACCs in MagicDraw (Ove)

There is a discussion between the UN/CEFCAT groups ICG and TBG17 related to approval of CCL08A. The library will probably not be approved before the autumn and we will have to use CCL07B in the meantime.

Ove had updated the MagicDraw profile with the changes relevant from CCL07B.

Some conclusions:

  • The UPCC/CCLibrary /ACC should be renamed Candidate ACC and only contain new and changed ACCs.
  • ASCCs should be added completely in the ebIX CC registry.
  • Stereotypes will be added to new ACCs, BCCs and ASCCs

Homework:

Ove will update the ACC and ASCCs, and distribute the update to ETC.

4.5Updated ebIX Methodology

A proposal for what to update was reviewed and several changes were agreed.

Homework:

Ove will do the agreed updates before next ETC meeting.

4.6Structure of an ebIX model for CuS and EMD (Ove)

Ove had made a first proposal for a common UMM structure for EMD and CuS. The structure was reviewed and Ove will extend the structure with two process areas from EMD. In addition the Structure (CuS) and Measure (EMD) will be separated as different business collaboration models. It has however to be verified if a collaboration from CuS can reuse a transaction from EMD.

Homework:

Ove will update the combined UMM structure for CuS and EMD.

4.7Other modelling issues

None

5ebIX XML schemas

XML schemas for EMD

EMD has finalised version 1.0 of their modelling and have about 30 class diagrams that need to be converted into XML. There is however a cleanup work to do in the model, e.g. adding UML roles to all association, remove non-used attributes in the classes, etc. The first version of the XML schemas will probably not be based on common ebIX ABIE- and QDT- schemas, but the older QDTs that the EMD models currently are based on.

For being able to make the XML schemas within due time, Kees is looking into making JAVA scripts that can convert the MagicDraw XMI-files to XML schemas.

Other XML issues were postponed.

6Status ebIX Code Lists (publication)

The item was postponed.

7Release/version management (Christoph)

The item was postponed.

8Resolve matters arising from latest ebIX, ETSO and EFET HG meeting

Comments to the Role model

Kees presented a list with errors he had found in the ebIX, EFET and ETSO Harmonised role model. The list was reviewed and updated. Kees will as homework go through the list and add suggestions for action and distribute the list for comments to ETC, before sending it to the HG.

Two of the errors found were seen as critical;Metered data responsible should be linked to the Metering point (not local MP) and the relation should be named Process metered dataand not meter data. Kees will ask Lucy to send these as a change requests for the current model to Herwig Van den Bosch as chair of the HG.

Homework:

  • Kees will go through the error list for the role model and add suggestions for actions.
  • Lucy is asked to send a request to the HG for changing the association from the Metered data responsible and rename of the association name.

9Status ebIX code lists (publication)

The item was postponed.

10XML and EDIFACT for CuS and EMD documents

The item was postponed.

11Information

None

12Review and update of work items

12.1Work items

Meeting / Item / Status
Meeting 5, 2008
July 2-3, Zurich /
  • Project plan for making common test procedures for the ebIX processes
  • Modelling:
  • Report from TMG meeting in Berlin
  • How to use states and business entities
  • Status for addition of the new UMM 2.0 version as a module in the ebIX CC/UMM profile
  • Status for CCL08A ACCs in MagicDraw (Ove)
  • Updated ebIX Methodology
  • ebIX XML schemas
  • Status xml version of the code lists
  • Request ATG for “filter schema”
  • NDR 3.0 proposal for schema location
  • ebIX QDT schema (data types and enumerations)
  • ebIX ABIE schema
  • Release/version management (Christoph)
  • Status ebIX code lists (publication)
  • XML and EDIFACT for CuS and EMD documents
/ Postponed
Done
Partly done
Postponed
Partly done
Partly done
Postponed
Postponed
Postponed
Postponed
Meeting 6, 2008
August 26-27 /
  • ETC will make a project plan for making common test procedures for the ebIX processes and present them on the next ebIX Forum meeting. The project plan will be coordinated with the Vendor group

Meeting 7, 2008
October 1-2 /
  • Use of State diagrams in UMM models
  • Code lists:
  • Creation of error codes in the Model error report (ERC/9321)
  • Check of the consistency between CEFACT lists and ebIX subsets
  • Should we change code 231 = Grid area with the newer and more precise 239 = Metering grid area?

Meeting 8, 2008
October 27-28 /
  • Finalise the ebIX course material.
  • Update of the ebIX model for acknowledgement and error handling
  • Update of the ebIX model for cancellation of business processes and business documents
  • Harmonisation of the ebIX Domain model with the ETSO/EFET/ebIX Harmonisation group
  • Homework for UN/CEFACT/TMG/UPCC
  • Review of EMD models with new UMM structure

Pending /
  • Review of ASCC in the ebIX CC registry (the current ebIX CC registry, based on CCL07B has ASCCs from CCL 06B)

12.2Can Appendix B, Work items for ETC, be removed?

The item was postponed.

13Next meeting(s) , including start and end time.

  • August, Tuesday 26th and Wednesday 27th, Stockholm, 9:00 - 17:00 and 9:00 - 16:00
  • October, Wednesday 1st and Thursday 2nd, Arnhem, 9:00 - 17:00 and 9:00 - 16:00
  • October, Monday 27th and Tuesday 28th (preceding ebIX Forum), Oslo, 9:00 - 17:00 and 9:00 - 16:00

14AOB

14.1ebIX on Wikipedia

Juraj had proposed to skip the discussed article about ebIX on Wikipedia and is volunteering to take over the update of the ebIX web page.

However, due to lack of time the item was postponed.

14.2Code discussion related to new German needs

Alexander brought up a discussion related to implementation of the Document Name Code, BGM/1001 in BGM. From August this year Germany needs a way to route MSCONS messages using UNB, UNH and/or BGM. The routing needs to distinguish between meter stands and time series.

Kees explained the EMD principles:

  • A Business Process Id (BPI) is used for routing
  • The Message type E66 will be used for time series, meter stands and volumes. The message type E65, used for meter stands, will be removed.
  • The Role is used for defining the non-responsible role(addressee)
  • The Reason for transactiongives detailed information of the process, e.g. collected data, validated data, settlement, reconciliation.
  • A status connected to the volume give extra information, such as: add, info etc.

Some additional rules to be followed:

  • There should only be one Document type (Document name) in SG0/BGM
  • There should be an additional Reason for transaction code in SG5/STS
  • For routing purposes a Business Process Id (BPI) might be added in the UNB (Application reference)

14.3UCTE subgroup accounting

Christoph will have a telephone conference with Herman (project leader for UCTE subgroup accounting), Maurizio Monti (RTE) and Mike Conroy (ETSO/TF-EDI) next week. The conference is related to the message format for exchange of UCTE accounting data. As a preparation for this conference call,some comments (ebIX position) were made to the latest minutes from subgroup Accounting.

14.4Telephone conference with Lucy

  • Lucy informed about the Dutch proposal for automation of the XML schema construction, see also item 0above.
  • Lucy and Christoph had a short discussionrelated to the ebIX position towards EMVR and the UCTE subgroup accounting, see also item 14.3 above.

Appendix AParticipants in ETC

Name / Company / Telephone / Mobile / E-mail
Alexander Pisters (vice convenor) / RWE / +49 234 515-2442 / +49 162 257 5428 /
Christian Odgaard / Energinet.dk / +45 76 22 44 63 / +45 23 33 85 55 /
FilipDrijkoningen / Infrax/ UMIX / +32 11266495 / +32 4 95586471 /
Jan Owe / SvK / +46705 396 930 /
Jon-Egil Nordvik / Statnett / +47 22 52 70 00 / +47 975 36 303 /
Kees Sparreboom / TenneT / +31 622 66 7911 /
Lucy Sarkisian (Convenor) / TenneT / +31613 643 092 /
Christoph Ruffing / swissgrid / +41 58 580 21 37 / +41 76 313 15 63 /
Ove Nesvik (Secretary) / EdiSys / +47 22 42 13 80 / +47 928 22 908 /
For information:
Adrian Fuchs / swissgrid /
Cynthia Bonne / Eandis/ UMIX /
Oscar Ludwigs / SvK /
Rudolf Baumann / swissgrid /
Observers:
Daniele Bui / EDF Distribution /
Heli Anttila / Fingrid /
Lembit Sünt / Estonian Energy /
Radoslav Haluska / VSE Kosice /
Riina Heinimäki / Finish energy /
Sylvie Mallet / EDF R&D /
Terje Nilsen / Nord Pool / +47 67 52 80 44 / +47 930 34 100 /
Tor Åge Halvorsen / Nord Pool /
Willem Strabbing / KEMA /

Appendix BWork items for ETC

Finalising UML model for the European energy market based on UMM, including functional documentation in cooperation with UN/CEFACT

Support migration of EMD, EMVR, ebIX/Eurelectric and CuS models to new UMM structure

Update ebIX Methodology:

in cooperation with EMD, EMVR and CuS

including user guide on how to use ebIX UML models

Architecture:

Final review of Code lists

ebIX Core Components

Publication of the above elements also in a readable format

Develop a naming convention for XML/UML root classes

XML and EDIFACT for CuS and EMD documents

Harmonisation of the ebIX Domain model with the ETSO/EFET/ebIX Harmonisation group

ETC - ebIX Technical CommitteePage: 1