CIM Road Map Task Force

1
CIM Road Map Task Force

• Scott Neumann
• IEC TC57 WG19

2
CIM Usage Experience

• As you start moving from the CIM center of mass
  (i.e. the CIM Wires model), the more likely that
  gaps will be found
• This can be said from the perspectives of models,
  business processes, system integration, etc.
• There are often legacy application models,
  enterprise models and other domain models that
  need to be recognized for any integration effort
  that may supplement or overlap the CIM
• Many applications and integration efforts require
  only a subset of the CIM
• Where the CIM was designed to meet the needs of
  existing applications, issues are often
  identified in the development of next generation
  applications

3
Specific Issues Within CIM

• Many significant modeling issues exist
• Naming is insufficient, and sometimes used
  inappropriately
• Realizations of CIM Measurements in XML are
  cumbersome, when compared to OPC XML and
  MultiSpeak
• Some container classes (e.g. CurveSchedule) are
  too generic, resulting in conflicting usages
• CIM currently limited to single inheritance
• many other issues exist
• Scheme for realization of XML Schemas needs to be
  well defined, so that it is useful by the widest
  variety of tools, avoids message bloat and
  supports meaningful interoperability testing
• As the CIM evolves and expands in usage, it is
  natural for more issues to be identified

4
Need to Accept that

• The CIM is the most developed and widely accepted
  model for describing an electrical network
• The CIM is but one of a number of models that
  will typically be leveraged for enterprise
  integration
• Local extensions will typically be required for
  any enterprise integration effort
• Relations between the CIM and other models (as
  well as future CIM versions) will need to be
  maintained and managed
• The needs of electric utilities will continue to
  evolve
• The CIM and other industry standards will
  continue to evolve
• There are a diverse and evolving set of tools
  that users will want to leverage

5
Global Federation of Ontologies

• The notion of a Global Federation of Ontologies
  is an emerging concept
• Groups of ontologies that may overlap
• Global consistency is not guaranteed (and often
  viewed as over-rated)
• Consistency where needed shared terms,
  higher-level terms
• Managing the relationships between ontologies
  would form a network of ontologies
• This concept is being embraced in other domains

Source Genome World from Goble 01
6
Federation of Ontologies

• The CIM is only one of a number of ontologies
  that may need to be leveraged/recognized for
  integration efforts within a utility enterprise
• Other ontologies are defined by standards
  organizations and application vendors Open
  Applications, MIMOSA, OPC, Open GIS, MultiSpeak,
  SAP,
• The CIM itself could be viewed as a federation of
  domain ontologies (transmission, generation,
  distribution, markets, )
• It is common to use a top level ontology in
  conjunction with one or more domain ontologies,
  such as that being defined by the IEEE Standard
  Upper Ontology Working Group

7
IEEE P1600.1 SUO WG

• Standard Upper Ontology (SUO) Working Group
• The SUO WG is developing a Standard that will
  specify an upper ontology to support computer
  applications such as data interoperability,
  information search and retrieval, automated
  inferencing, and natural language processing.
• Ontology
• An ontology is similar to a dictionary or
  glossary, but with greater detail and structure
  that enables computers to process its content. An
  ontology consists of a set of concepts, axioms,
  and relationships that describe a domain of
  interest.
• Upper Ontology
• An upper ontology is limited to concepts that are
  meta, generic, abstract and philosophical, and
  therefore are general enough to address (at a
  high level) a broad range of domain areas.
  Concepts specific to given domains will not be
  included however, this standard will provide a
  structure and a set of general concepts upon
  which domain ontologies (e.g. medical, financial,
  engineering, etc.) could be constructed.

8
Suggested Upper Merged Ontology

• Developed within the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology
  (SUO) working group
• SUMO is freely available under an IEEE license
• SUMO is a modular ontology

9
CIM as a Federated Ontology
Distributed Energy Resources
Markets
Documents
Assets
Generation
Substations
Wires
Locations
Work
Measurements
10
CIM in a Federation of Ontologies
OMG
OPC
MIMOSA
MultiSpeak
CIM IEC 61970, 61968, 61850
Open GIS
OAGIS
11
CIM in a Federation of Ontologies
Proprietary Work Management Models
Proprietary EMS/DMS Models
OMG
OPC
MIMOSA
MultiSpeak
CIM
Open GIS
Proprietary ERP Models
OAGIS
Proprietary GIS Models
Proprietary CRM Models
12
CIM Evolution Proposal

• CIM evolves to a federated set of ontologies and
  related XML schemas
• CIM ontologies are intended to change
  continuously as new work is done or better ideas
  emerge in the community at large
• CIM schemas are intended to remain stable and,
  after development, will pass to the IEC TC57
  working groups for standardization
• CIM technical architecture would be
• A core ontology defining the most widely used
  concepts surrounded by interlinked domain
  ontologies.
• XML schemas and other implementation-level
  specifications in a third, outer tier.
• Linkages between ontologies consist of
  equivalences, sub-classes, sub-properties, and
  property and class restrictions. Linkages
  between the XML schemas and the ontologies
  consist of rules, definitions and/or profiles
  which are updated as the ontologies change.

13
CIM Roadmap Task Force

• Task Force established 9/23/2005 within TC57 WG19
  to address several aspects of the CIM
• The CIM as an ontology in a global federation of
  ontologies
• Lifecycle of the CIM, with a roadmap for major
  and minor releases, with initial focus on a
  roadmap for the next major CIM release
• Use of UML 2.0, XMI 2.0 and tools other than
  Rational Rose (e.g. MagicDraw, Protégé, etc.)