ISO 16300-3:2017
(Main)Automation systems and integration — Interoperability of capability units for manufacturing application solutions — Part 3: Verification and validation of interoperability among capability units
Automation systems and integration — Interoperability of capability units for manufacturing application solutions — Part 3: Verification and validation of interoperability among capability units
ISO 16300‑3:2017 specifies a framework for verifying and validating the interoperability of manufacturing capability units (MCUs) having a set of capabilities that meet the functional requirements of a target manufacturing application solution. The verification and validation framework describes the use of the interoperability criteria in ISO 16300‑1 and the steps to be performed.
Systèmes d'automatisation et intégration — Interopérabilité des unités d'aptitude pour la fabrication de solutions d'application — Partie 3: Vérification et validation de l'interopérabilité au sein des unités d'aptitude
General Information
Standards Content (Sample)
INTERNATIONAL ISO
STANDARD 16300-3
First edition
2017-10
Automation systems and
integration — Interoperability of
capability units for manufacturing
application solutions —
Part 3:
Verification and validation of
interoperability among capability units
Systèmes d'automatisation et intégration — Interopérabilité des
unités d'aptitude pour la fabrication de solutions d'application —
Partie 3: Vérification et validation de l'interopérabilité au sein des
unités d'aptitude
Reference number
ISO 16300-3:2017(E)
©
ISO 2017
---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
ISO 16300-3:2017(E)
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED DOCUMENT
© ISO 2017, Published in Switzerland
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on the internet or an intranet, without prior
written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below or ISO’s member body in the country of
the requester.
ISO copyright office
Ch. de Blandonnet 8 • CP 401
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland
Tel. +41 22 749 01 11
Fax +41 22 749 09 47
copyright@iso.org
www.iso.org
ii © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved
---------------------- Page: 2 ----------------------
ISO 16300-3:2017(E)
Contents Page
Foreword .iv
Introduction .v
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions . 1
4 Symbols and abbreviated terms . 3
5 Interoperability of MSUs . 4
5.1 Interoperability background . 4
5.2 MSU interoperability verification and validation . 5
5.3 Interoperability levels . 6
6 Interoperability verification and validation goals . 7
6.1 Considered interoperability mechanisms . 7
6.2 Interoperability verification goal . 9
6.3 Interoperability validation goal . 9
7 Interoperability verification process .10
7.1 Required artefacts for verification .10
7.2 Verification through matching process .11
8 Interoperability validation process .11
8.1 Required artefacts for validation .11
8.2 Validation through matching process .12
Annex A (informative) Conceptual structure of a capability profile including extension
related template to interoperability .14
Annex B (informative) Adaptation example of ISO/IEC 25000 quality model for
interoperability validation of MSUs .16
Annex C (informative) OPM schemas related to interoperability verification and validation .21
Bibliography .24
© ISO 2017 – All rights reserved iii
---------------------- Page: 3 ----------------------
ISO 16300-3:2017(E)
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out
through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical
committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International
organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.
ISO collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of
electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are
described in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular the different approval criteria needed for the
different types of ISO documents should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the
editorial rules of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www.iso.org/directives).
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Details of
any patent rights identified during the development of the document will be in the Introduction and/or
on the ISO list of patent declarations received (see www.iso.org/patents).
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation on the voluntary nature of standards, the meaning of ISO specific terms and
expressions related to conformity assessment, as well as information about ISO's adherence to the
World Trade Organization (WTO) principles in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) see the following
URL: www.iso.org/iso/foreword.html.
This document was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 184, Automation systems and integration,
Subcommittee SC 5, Interoperability, integration, and architectures for enterprise systems and automation
applications.
A list of all parts in the ISO 16300 series can be found on the ISO website.
iv © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved
---------------------- Page: 4 ----------------------
ISO 16300-3:2017(E)
Introduction
ISO 16300 addresses requirements of users and suppliers of manufacturing software regarding the
interoperability of software in the area of industrial automation.
User interoperability requirements include:
— integrating an automation application system by combining capabilities of a set of software
components provided by various sources,
— substituting another software component in a software unit to provide an equivalent capability
required by the automation application system,
— integrating the capability of a software unit from one resource system platform to another platform,
— validating and verifying the capability of a software unit to meet the automation application system
requirements.
Supplier requirements include:
— representing the set of capabilities provided by a software component used in a software unit,
— verifying software component capability as a part of a required software unit capability,
— cataloguing a software unit in terms of its capability for interoperability in an automation application
system to support wide distribution.
ISO 16300 also addresses software interoperability services which include:
— accessing the description of a software capability to enable interoperability assessment,
— enabling the search and location of candidate software units and components, preferably
automatically, using search engines,
— representing the dependencies between software components for an automation application hosted
on a particular system platform.
Software capability is first defined in terms of the potential function. It is then expressed and
represented as facts about the software, how and what it can do. The ISO 16100 series was developed
with the aim of providing a standardized method to describe capabilities of manufacturing software
in terms of the MSU (manufacturing software unit) capability profile. In ISO 16100, the software
component is included in the MSU. ISO 16100 also provides a way to exchange an MSU’s capability as
information by means of a capability profile. Software capability profiling is the basis for providing the
above-mentioned software interoperability services. ISO 16100 is used and applied as the foundation
for ISO 16300.
To establish ISO 16300, a number of steps were necessary. The initial step shows what interoperability
services are enabled by using software capability profile. The following steps develop concrete methods
and mechanisms to provide these interoperability services. The resulting output from ISO 16300 are
several published parts.
ISO 16300-1 specifies a framework for describing an automation solution in terms of a set of capabilities
provided by a set of MSUs. The framework also defines a set of capability elements and composition rules
to represent the interoperability criteria in terms of the automation system capability requirements of
an enterprise application.
ISO 16300-2 specifies the template definition to describe the capability of software unit of an automation
solution that can be mapped to the functional requirements of target manufacturing application. It also
specifies mapping rules for composing the contents of a software unit catalogue item in terms of the
properties of the capability.
© ISO 2017 – All rights reserved v
---------------------- Page: 5 ----------------------
ISO 16300-3:2017(E)
ISO 16300-3 specifies the framework for verifying interoperability of capability unit associated with
application requirements and system solution.
ISO 16300-4 specifies the search methodology for acquiring candidate capability units which satisfies
the manufacturing application requirements from the software unit catalogues and also describes the
structure of the report as an outcome of the search, indicating the extent to which the candidates from
the software unit catalogues correspond to the manufacturing application requirements.
vi © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved
---------------------- Page: 6 ----------------------
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO 16300-3:2017(E)
Automation systems and integration — Interoperability of
capability units for manufacturing application solutions —
Part 3:
Verification and validation of interoperability among
capability units
1 Scope
This document specifies a framework for verifying and validating the interoperability of manufacturing
capability units (MCUs) having a set of capabilities that meet the functional requirements of a target
manufacturing application solution.
The verification and validation framework describes the use of the interoperability criteria in
ISO 16300-1 and the steps to be performed.
2 Normative references
The following documents are referred to in the text in such a way that some or all of their content
constitutes requirements of this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For
undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
ISO 16100-1, Industrial automation systems and integration — Manufacturing software capability profiling
for interoperability — Part 1: Framework
ISO 16100-2, Industrial automation systems and integration — Manufacturing software capability
profiling for interoperability — Part 2: Profiling methodology
ISO 16100-3, Industrial automation systems and integration — Manufacturing software capability
profiling for interoperability — Part 3: Interface services, protocols and capability templates
ISO 16100-6, Industrial automation systems and integration — Manufacturing software capability
profiling for interoperability — Part 6: Interface services and protocols for matching profiles based on
multiple capability class structures
ISO/IEC 25000, Systems and software engineering — Systems and software Quality Requirements and
Evaluation (SQuaRE) — Guide to SQuaRE
ISO/IEC 25010, Systems and software engineering — Systems and software Quality Requirements and
Evaluation (SQuaRE) — System and software quality models
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in ISO 16100-1, ISO 16100-3,
ISO 16100-6 and the following apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at http://www.iso.org/obp
— IEC Electropedia: available at http://www.electropedia.org/
© ISO 2017 – All rights reserved 1
---------------------- Page: 7 ----------------------
ISO 16300-3:2017(E)
3.1
capability class structure
hierarchy of capability classes
[SOURCE: ISO 16100-6:2011, 3.2, modified — The Note was deleted.]
3.2
capability profiling
selection of a set of offered services defined by a particular interface within a software interoperability
framework
[SOURCE: ISO 16100-1:2009, 3.5]
3.3
interoperability validation
procedure which examines the implemented interoperability mechanisms to determine the extent to
which they are compliant with a set of quality characteristics (reliability, security, performance, time
response, etc.)
Note 1 to entry: These quality characteristics are considered as pertinent for the expected behaviour of the
current manufacturing application processes.
3.4
interoperability verification
procedure of checking that the designed interoperability of manufacturing processes match the
corresponding implemented interoperability mechanisms
3.5
manufacturing application requirements document
MARD
document specifying necessary processes to be designed and implemented in order to meet the targeted
manufacturing goal, and also specifying various resources to be available to accomplish processes
execution
3.6
manufacturing capability unit
MCU
manufacturing unit of a type (i.e. mechanical, electrical, electronic, hardware, and/or software, etc.)
intended to support the execution of a particular manufacturing task.
Note 1 to entry: Manufacturing capability unit is a resource capability unit or a process capability unit.
3.7
manufacturing process capability unit
MPCU
process capability unit of a type (i.e. mechanical, electrical, electronic, hardware, and/or software)
corresponding to the execution of a particular manufacturing process
3.8
manufacturing resource capability unit
MRCU
manufacturing capability unit (3.6) of resource (i.e. human, energetic, mechanical, electrical, electronic,
hardware, and/or software, etc.) supporting the execution of manufacturing application (process,
activity or task)
3.9
manufacturing capability profile
concise representation of a manufacturing capability unit (3.6) to meet a requirement of a manufacturing
application
[SOURCE: ISO 16100-1:2009, 3.21]
2 © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved
---------------------- Page: 8 ----------------------
ISO 16300-3:2017(E)
3.10
manufacturing software
type of software resource within an automation system that provides value to a manufacturing
application (e.g. CAD/PDM) by enabling the flow of control and information among the automation
system components involved in the manufacturing processes, between these components and other
enterprise resources, and between enterprises in a supply chain or demand chain
[SOURCE: ISO 16100-1:2009, 3.16, modified — The Note was deleted and “(e.g. CAD/PDM)” was added
to the definition.]
3.11
manufacturing software unit
MSU
class of software resource, consisting of one or more manufacturing software (3.10) components,
performing a definite function or role within a manufacturing activity while supporting a common
information exchange mechanism with other units
Note 1 to entry: A software unit can be modelled using UML as a software object.
[SOURCE: ISO 16100-1:2009, 3.18, modified — The acronym MSU was added to the term.]
3.12
matcher
mechanism set to compare an offered manufacturing capability profile (3.9) with a required
manufacturing capability profile
[SOURCE: ISO 16100-3:2005, 3.1.6, modified — The verb “set” was added after “mechanism” and the
adjective “manufacturing” was added before “capability profile” twice.]
3.13
matching level
qualitative measure of how closely a capability profile of a manufacturing software unit (3.11)
meets the software functional requirements of a manufacturing activity
[SOURCE: ISO 16100-3:2005, 3.1.7]
3.14
MSU interoperability
capability of a manufacturing software unit (3.11) to support a particular usage of an interface
specification in exchanging a set of application information (services) with another manufacturing
software unit
[SOURCE: ISO 16100-3:2005, 3.1.8, modified — The word “(services)” was added to the definition.]
4 Symbols and abbreviated terms
MARD manufacturing application requirements document
MCU manufacturing capability unit
MPCU manufacturing process capability unit
MRCU manufacturing resource capability unit
MSU manufacturing software unit
OPM object process model
UML unified modelling language
© ISO 2017 – All rights reserved 3
---------------------- Page: 9 ----------------------
ISO 16300-3:2017(E)
5 Interoperability of MSUs
5.1 Interoperability background
A manufacturing application is developed to realize a product which meets its predetermined
specifications as a result of the application execution. The invoked specifications elaborated according
to the expectations of the product customers or users, include required characteristics to be assured by
the targeted product without exceeding the fixed limits of manufacturing costs and delays.
The development of a manufacturing application generally starts with elaborating a subsequent
requirements specification which is described in MARD. This document includes the architectural,
functional, and qualitative specifications to be met by the concerned application. In respect to MARD,
the application design is then elaborated using adequate formalisms for various design artefacts
addressing mainly:
— the application global structure;
— its capability units;
— their interdependencies; and
— its configuration and deployment.
The adopted design formalisms are generally graphical and textual those are to describe manufacturing
processes as well as the related design artefacts in detail.
The 16300 series addresses the requirements of users and suppliers of manufacturing applications
regarding the interoperability of MCUs in the area of industrial automation. User requirements include:
— building a manufacturing application system by combining capability units;
— selecting appropriate capability units, substituting one capability unit with another; and
— verifying capability unit in reference to the required capability profile.
Supplier requirements shall specify the precise capability of their corresponding interoperability.
The manufacturing application processes shall be composed of designed and planned activities and
operations of various types (human, mechanical, electrical, hardware, networking, and/or computing,
etc.). For each process, the manufacturing application design indicates its functional role inside the
manufacturing application, its individual control flow as well as its underlying specific activities and
functions. For the manufacturing processes implementation, the design shall specify the required
manufacturing resources and their specific capabilities considered as necessary for the manufacturing
execution. These manufacturing resources are of different types (i.e. mechanical, electrical, hardware,
networking, software, etc.) (see ISO/TR 18161), where corresponding capabilities units shall be
described using the dedicated profile template presented in Annex A. A capability unit profile includes
several fields describing various structural, functional and qualitative characteristics of manufacturing
resource unit capabilities.
To accomplish the specified manufacturing goal, the design of manufacturing processes shall indicate the
required interoperability specifying when, where, and how the processes interoperate. It shall indicate
the concerned types of required interoperability related to message communications, data sharing,
data exchanges, or service calling, etc., between interacting manufacturing processes. Subsequently,
a capability unit profile specifies its provided facilities and mechanisms for interoperability. Also,
the manufacturing application execution is associated with various implemented or coded processes
activated to behave according to the process designed model. They shall interact using interoperability
mechanisms and facilities as decided at the application design phase. Manufacturing resources related
to manufacturing processes such as devices, hardware units, software units, etc., shall interact using
various types of interoperating facilities indicated as a part of the capability profile.
4 © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved
---------------------- Page: 10 ----------------------
ISO 16300-3:2017(E)
5.2 MSU interoperability verification and validation
Since the processes are executed using a set of appropriate MRCUs, the verification of processes
interoperability should examine the MRCU profiles used, to check whether they provide the required
processes interoperability.
The interoperability of MCUs should be recognized by the individual MCU capability profiles that
contain a set of MRCU profiles.
This document focuses on MSUs interoperability verification and validation. For the design and
development of the framework, the subset MSU is considered as being a major and central part of the
MCU. In this document, only the interoperability of MSUs is considered for verification and validation.
Figure 1 — Main description entities of MCUs general context
The procedure for verification and validation shall be described as a set of steps to follow, applied on
associated artefacts, to verify and validate the interoperability among designed processes and the
corresponding required MSUs. The MSUs are to be developed or already implemented and ready to
be reused.
Starting from the interoperability framework of ISO 15745-1 and ISO 16100-1, a software interoperability
framework is described based on the aspects related to:
— the syntax and semantics shared between MSUs;
— the functional relationships between the MSUs;
© ISO 2017 – All rights reserved 5
---------------------- Page: 11 ----------------------
ISO 16300-3:2017(E)
— the services, interfaces and protocols provided by the MSUs;
— the ability to provide MSUs capability profiling.
The last aspect dealt with at length in the ISO 16100 series. Nevertheless, the verification and validation
processes of interoperability among MSUs are concerned by the whole set of these enumerated aspects.
The verification and validation processes of interoperability among MSUs shall be necessary to
check the extent to which the effective working interoperability among MSUs implements its design
and meets the interoperability requirements. In the general context of MSUs within a manufacturing
domain application (Figure 1), application artefacts shall be issued from three major development
phases corresponding to three description levels: requirements definition level, design level, and
implementation level. Four major sets of artefacts called A, B, C and D, defined in Table 1, shall be
considered for interoperability verification and validation.
Table 1 — Four major sets of artefacts
Set of artefact Description
composed of design schemas of expected activities of MSUs and associated interoperability
A mechanisms that shall be designed to meet requirements of data sharing, messages exchange,
services invocation and exchange, or procedure call which can occur among MSUs.
composed of code parts implementing the effective capabilities of MSUs and working interoper-
B
ability mechanisms permitting to concerned MSUs to accomplish associated activities
composed of the quality model elements specifying the expected interoperability quality criteria
as they shall be fulfilled by the implemented interoperability mechanisms and services. These
C criteria and corresponding characteristics, sub-characteristics and properties shall be specified
according to ISO/IEC 25000 quality model with effective quality characteristics, sub-character-
istics, and properties of implemented MSUs interoperability (see Annex B).
composed of the quality reports providing the numerical values or ranking values of effective
D
quality characteristics specified in the instantiated quality model.
Sets A and B are composed of artefacts corresponding to the design of expected interoperability
mechanisms necessary for the targeted execution of the current application. Sets C and D correspond
to the designed interoperability quality and the quality of its corresponding working implementation.
The term “expected” refers to what was adopted at the design level and shall be met at the
implementation level. Therefore, the expected interoperability shall describe different types of
interoperability mechanisms adopted and designed to be implemented for the operating MSUs.
The term “effective” refers to what was implemented according to the interoperability design and
how the required types of interoperability mechanisms were effectively implemented to meet their
description at the design phase.
The first type of compliance assessment between two artefacts sets A and B is the goal of interoperability
verification process. This compliance shall be achieved by examining the matching level between the
design artefacts with the corresponding implementation artefacts. The design of individual MSUs shall
take into account the specification of their individual capability profile.
The second type of compliance assessment shall be based on examining that the quality design of
interoperability described by the artefacts of set C matches the quality of effective interoperability
described by the artefacts of set D. The assessment of the compliance level shall be the goal of the
interoperability validation process.
5.3 Interoperability levels
The interoperability quality shall depend to the level of interoperability occurring between MSUs.
Major interoperability levels are considered in Table 2.
6 © ISO 2017 – All rights reserved
---------------------- Page: 12 ----------------------
ISO 16300-3:2017(E)
Table 2 — Interoperability levels
Interoperability levels Description
technical level of interoperability that shall concern the data exchange among MSUs.
1
At this level, the used networks and protocols shall be considered and evaluated.
syntactic interoperability level concerning common data structure that shall be used
2 to exchange information among the MSUs. For this objective, a common data format
shall be adopted and strictly utilized.
common reference model for information exchange, where the information exchanged
3
shall share a common semantic with a unique shared meaning of exchanged data
collaborative interoperability corresponding to the case of interoperable manu-
facturing applications, manufacturing processes or MSUs that shall recognize the
4
behaviour of functions and services provided by each other. This level requires that
the preceding levels are already reached.
conceptual interoperability achieved when the conceptual models are based on the
engineering methods that shall enable their interpretation and evaluation by the
5
developers of the concerned applications or processes. This shall be based on the
common conceptual model with
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.