ISO 16100-3:2005

Industrial automation systems and integration — Manufacturing software capability profiling for interoperability — Part 3: Interface services, protocols and capability templates

ISO 16100-3:2005 specifies requirements for interface services and protocols used to access and edit capability profiles and associated templates used in the capability profiling method defined in Clause 5 of ISO 16100-2. The detailed services for accessing capability profiles and performing the matching process on these profiles are defined in ISO 16100-3:2005. ISO 16100-3:2005 is applicable only for the interoperability of software units used in the manufacturing domain. Concerns regarding interchangeability of manufacturing software units are outside the scope of this part of ISO 16100.

Systèmes d'automatisation industrielle et intégration — Profil d'aptitude du logiciel de fabrication pour interopérabilité — Partie 3: Services d'interface, protocoles et gabarits d'aptitude

General Information

• Status: Published
• Publication Date: 11-Dec-2005
• ICS: 25.040.01 - Industrial automation systems in general
• Technical Committee: ISO/TC 184/SC 5 - Interoperability, integration, and architectures for enterprise systems and automation applications
• Drafting Committee: ISO/TC 184/SC 5/WG 4 - Manufacturing software and its environment
• Current Stage: 9060 - Close of review
• Start Date: 04-Mar-2025

Standards Content (Sample)

INTERNATIONAL ISO
STANDARD 16100-3
First edition
2005-12-15


Industrial automation systems and
integration — Manufacturing software
capability profiling for interoperability —
Part 3:
Interface services, protocols and
capability templates
Systèmes d'automatisation industrielle et intégration — Profil d'aptitude
du logiciel de fabrication pour interopérabilité —
Partie 3: Services d'interface, protocoles et gabarits d'aptitude




Reference number
ISO 16100-3:2005(E)
©
ISO 2005

---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
ISO 16100-3:2005(E)
PDF disclaimer
This PDF file may contain embedded typefaces. In accordance with Adobe's licensing policy, this file may be printed or viewed but
shall not be edited unless the typefaces which are embedded are licensed to and installed on the computer performing the editing. In
downloading this file, parties accept therein the responsibility of not infringing Adobe's licensing policy. The ISO Central Secretariat
accepts no liability in this area.
Adobe is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.
Details of the software products used to create this PDF file can be found in the General Info relative to the file; the PDF-creation
parameters were optimized for printing. Every care has been taken to ensure that the file is suitable for use by ISO member bodies. In
the unlikely event that a problem relating to it is found, please inform the Central Secretariat at the address given below.


©  ISO 2005
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and microfilm, without permission in writing from either ISO at the address below or
ISO's member body in the country of the requester.
ISO copyright office
Case postale 56 • CH-1211 Geneva 20
Tel. + 41 22 749 01 11
Fax + 41 22 749 09 47
E-mail [e-mail]
Web www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland

ii © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

---------------------- Page: 2 ----------------------
ISO 16100-3:2005(E)
Contents
1 Scope. 1
2 Normative references. 1
3 Terms and definitions . 2
3.1 ISO 16100-3 definitions. 2
3.2 Applicable definitions from ISO 16100-1. 3
3.3 Applicable definitions from ISO 16100-2. 4
4 Abbreviated terms . 5
5 Manufacturing software information model and profile. 5
5.1 Manufacturing activity and information exchange model. 5
5.2 Manufacturing software unit . 6
5.3 Matching capability profiles . 7
5.3.1 General . 7
5.3.2 Type 1 Matcher. 9
5.3.3 Type 2 Matcher. 9
5.4 Interface service definition. 10
6 Capability profile interface, service, and protocol. 10
6.1 Capability profile service usage. 10
6.1.1 Capability profile access . 10
6.1.2 Matching of two capability profiles. 10
6.1.3 Service set Type 1 primitives . 12
6.1.4 Common management services for the capability profiling and analysis process . 14
6.1.5 Validation of capability profiles . 16
6.2 Protocol specifications . 16
6.2.1 Service URL syntax . 16
6.2.2 Type 1 service protocol . 17
6.2.3 Common management service protocol. 18
6.2.4 Type 2 and Type 3 service protocols . 19
7 Templates. 20
7.1 Overall structure. 20
7.1.1 General . 20
7.1.2 Formal structure . 20
7.2 Common part . 20
7.2.1 General . 20
7.2.2 Formal structure . 21
7.3 Specific part . 23
7.4 Usage of Templates. 23
8 Conformance. 23

A.1 General capability profile template. 24
A.1.1 Filled template. 24
A.1.2 Common part sample. 24
A.2 Manufacturing capability class structure . 25
A.2.1 Sample of a reference class structure using XML syntax. 25
A.2.2 Example of a requirement capability profile.26
A.2.3 Example of a capability profile of a MSU . 27
A.2.4 Matching a required capability profile with one of a MSU . 29

© ISO 2005 – All rights reserved iii

---------------------- Page: 3 ----------------------
ISO 16100-3:2005(E)
A.3 Capability class structure for a test unit .29
A.3.1 Sample of a reference class structure using XML syntax.29
A.3.2 Example of a requirement capability profile .34
A.3.3 Example of a capability profile of a MSU.35

B.1 Capability class diagram and object model.37
B.2 Capability collaboration diagram.43

C.1 Software unit for Data Analysis and Visualization (DAV).51
C.2 Services — Offering common functions .52
C.3 Items — The communicated objects .52
C.4 Software components — The functional modules of a software unit .53
C.5 Setting up a software unit.54
C.6 Example of communicated objects.58

iv © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

---------------------- Page: 4 ----------------------
ISO 16100-3:2005(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.
International Standards are drafted in accordance with the rules given in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2.
The main task of technical committees is to prepare International Standards. Draft International Standards
adopted by the technical committees are circulated to the member bodies for voting. Publication as an
International Standard requires approval by at least 75 % of the member bodies casting a vote.
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.
ISO 16100-3 was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 184, Industrial automation systems and integration,
Subcommittee SC 5, Architecture, communications and integration frameworks.
ISO 16100 consists of the following parts, under the general title Industrial automation systems and
integration — Manufacturing software capability profiling for interoperability:
— Part 1: Framework
— Part 2: Profiling methodology
— Part 3: Interface services, protocols and capability templates
In addition, the following part is envisaged:
— Part 4: Conformance test methods, criteria and reports

© ISO 2005 – All rights reserved v

---------------------- Page: 5 ----------------------
ISO 16100-3:2005(E)
Introduction
The motivation for ISO 16100 stems from the industrial and economic environment, in particular:
a) a growing base of vendor-specific software intensive solutions;
b) increasing user difficulty in applying independently-developed standards;
c) a need to move to modular and interoperable sets of system integration tools;
d) a recognition that application software and the expertise to apply that software are assets of the enterprise.
This part of ISO 16100 is an International Standard for the computer-interpretable and human readable representation
of a capability profile. Its goal is to provide a method to represent the capability of manufacturing application software
relative to its role throughout the life cycle of a manufacturing application, independent of a particular system
architecture or implementation platform.
Certain diagrams in this part of ISO 16100 are constructed following UML conventions. Because not all concepts
embodied in these diagrams are explained in the text, some familiarity with UML on the part of the reader is
assumed.
In this part of the ISO 16100, references to classes (objects) and services use a specific naming convention as
shown in the following examples:
ServiceAccessPoint a service access point object
registerProfile a service primitive for profile registration

vi © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

---------------------- Page: 6 ----------------------
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO 16100-3:2005(E)


Industrial automation systems and integration — Manufacturing
software capability profiling for interoperability —
Part 3:
Interface services, protocols and capability templates

1 Scope
This part of ISO 16100 specifies requirements for interface services and protocols used to access and edit
capability profiles and associated templates used in the capability profiling method defined in Clause 5 of
ISO 16100-2.
The detailed services for accessing capability profiles and performing the matching process on these profiles
are defined in this part of ISO 16100.
This part of ISO 16100 is applicable only for the interoperability of software units used in the manufacturing
domain. Concerns regarding interchangeability of manufacturing software units are outside the scope of this
standard.

2 Normative references
The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application 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 16100-1:2002 Industrial automation systems and integration — Manufacturing software
capability profiling for interoperability — Part 1: Framework
ISO 16100-2:2003 Industrial automation systems and integration — Manufacturing software
capability profiling for interoperability — Part 2: Profiling methodology
IEEE 1320.1-1998 Standard for Functional Modeling Language — Syntax and Semantics for
IDEF0
OMG ad/2003-04-01 Unified Modeling Language; Superstructure v2.0
REC-xml-19980210 Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 W3C Recommendation

REC-soap12-20021219 SOAP Version 1.2 — Part 1: Messaging Framework
REC-xmlschema-1-20010502 XML Schema Part 1: Structures

© ISO 2005 – All rights reserved 1

---------------------- Page: 7 ----------------------
ISO 16100-3:2005(E)
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this part of ISO 16100, the following terms and definitions apply.
3.1 ISO 16100-3 definitions
3.1.1
capability profile interface
functional (implementation-independent) service access point that provides a set of services described in 5.4
of this part of ISO 16100 to handle capability profiles
NOTE In some implementations as noted in ISO 16100-2 the CPI can be implemented by a database server.
3.1.2
capability profile service provider
software that implements the capability profile interface
3.1.3
cluster
set of manufacturing resource units
3.1.4
component
part of a manufacturing software unit, including manufacturing software components.
3.1.5
consumer

user of profile or Matching Level result
3.1.6
matcher
mechanism to compare an offered capability profile with a required capability profile.
3.1.7
matching level

qualitative measure of how closely a capability profile of a MSU meets the software functional requirements of
a manufacturing activity
3.1.8
MSU interoperability
capability of a MSU to support a particular usage of an interface specification in exchanging a set of
application information with another MSU
3.1.9
MSU interchangeability
capability of a MSU to replace another MSU in performing a required function within a particular manufacturing
activity
3.1.10
producer

generator of profile or Matching Level result for consumption
3.1.11
reference capability class structure
schema representing a hierarchy of capability classes to be used for capability profiling.
2 © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

---------------------- Page: 8 ----------------------
ISO 16100-3:2005(E)
3.1.12
reference dictionary
list of capability classes used in the reference capability class structure
3.1.13
schema
XML meta-data definition
3.1.14
template
schema for a manufacturing software capability profile
3.1.15
type I matcher
matcher that can process profiles derived from the same capability class structure
3.1.16
type II matcher
matcher that can process profiles whether they are derived from the same or from different capability class
structures
3.2 Applicable definitions from ISO 16100-1
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions from ISO 16100-1 apply. The reference
to the specific subclause in ISO 16100-1 appears in brackets after the definition. Following clause C.1.4 of
ISO / IEC directives, part 2 some definitions are repeated here with notes added as required.
3.2.1
capability

set of functions and services with a set of criteria for evaluating the performance of a capability provider

[3.3]
3.2.2
capability profiling
selection of a set of offered services defined by a particular interface within a software interoperability
framework

[3.4]
3.2.3
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

[3.10]
3.2.4
manufacturing software capability
set of manufacturing software functions and services against a set of criteria for evaluating performance under
a given set of manufacturing conditions

[3.14]


© ISO 2005 – All rights reserved
3

---------------------- Page: 9 ----------------------
ISO 16100-3:2005(E)
3.2.5
manufacturing software capability profile
concise representation of a manufacturing software capability to meet a requirement of a manufacturing
application

[3.15]
3.2.6
manufacturing software component
class of manufacturing software resource intended to support the execution of a particular manufacturing task

[3.11]
3.2.7
manufacturing software unit
class of software resource, consisting of one or more manufacturing software components, performing a
definite function or role within a manufacturing activity while supporting a common information exchange
mechanism with other units

[3.12]
3.3 Applicable definitions from ISO 16100-2
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions from ISO 16100-2 apply. The reference
to the specific subclause in ISO 16100-2 appears in brackets after the definition.
3.3.1
capability class
element within the capability profiling method that represents software unit functionality and behaviour with
regard to the software units role in a manufacturing activity

[3.3]
3.3.2
capability profile integration
process in which two or more software units interoperate using equivalent interfaces that are configured in a
compatible manner as indicated by their capability profiles

[3.4]
3.3.3
interface
abstraction of the behaviour of an object that consists of a subset of the interactions of that object together
with a set of constraints on when they may occur

[3.8]
3.3.4
profile
set of one or more base specifications or sub-profiles or both, and, where applicable, the identification of
chosen classes, conforming subsets, options and parameters of those base specifications, or sub-profiles
necessary to accomplish a particular function, activity, or relationship

[3.10]


4 © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

---------------------- Page: 10 ----------------------
ISO 16100-3:2005(E)
4 Abbreviated terms

CPI Capability Profile Interface
DTD Document Type Definition
ML Matching Level
MSU Manufacturing Software Unit
UML Unified Modeling Language
XML eXtensible Markup Language



5 Manufacturing software information model and profile
5.1 Manufacturing activity and information exchange model
A manufacturing application shall be modeled as a set of manufacturing processes that are enabled,
controlled and automated by a set of manufacturing resources through a series of information exchanges,
along with transfers of materials and energy. This is shown in Figure 4 of ISO 16100-1.
A manufacturing process shall be modeled as a sequence of scheduled manufacturing activities, where each
manufacturing activity is associated with a set of manufacturing functions (see 5.3 of ISO 16100-1 and Annex
C of this part).
In order to meet the requirements of a manufacturing application, a set of MSUs shall be sequenced and
scheduled to accomplish the combined set(s) of required manufacturing functions for all the manufacturing
activities associated with the set of manufacturing processes that constitute a manufacturing application.
Per the manufacturing software interoperability framework in Clause 6 of ISO 16100-1, each manufacturing
activity shall be associated with a set of MSUs. As shown in Annex A of ISO 16100-1 that is based on IEC
62264, a complex manufacturing activity can be modeled as a combination of a set of simpler manufacturing
activities. A simple manufacturing activity shall correspond to a single function and the activity shall be
enabled by a single MSU.
Each manufacturing function can be accomplished by a set of manufacturing software units (MSUs). A set of
manufacturing functions may be accomplished by one MSU (see 6.2 of ISO 16100-1).
EXAMPLE A simple manufacturing application (e.g. pick-and-place) can be modeled as a set of three manufacturing
process (e.g. load an item, move an item, unload an item). Each manufacturing process can be associated with a single
activity composed of a particular sequence of functions from the following set – locate item, identify item, identify place, go
to item, acquire item, locate place, go to place, release item to place, notify process coordinators. In one case, two classes
of MSUs (load/unload, move) with two capability templates can be profiled into three MSU instances (one for each activity).
In another case, there maybe four lower level activities or MSU classes (locate, identify/notify, acquire/release, go to target)
and nine MSU instances.
As shown in Figure 1 a MSU provides several interfaces to its capabilities, including its capability profile. The
capability profile can be accessed at a Capability Profile Interface (CPI). Information about the other interfaces
is included in the capability profile and therefore the information is accessible via the CPI.



© ISO 2005 – All rights reserved
5

---------------------- Page: 11 ----------------------
ISO 16100-3:2005(E)
Capability
Profile
MSU
CPI
Service
Provider
: Provides a method (type 1 service in clause
5.4) to get a capability profile
Capability Profile
Capability
: This is an XML file
Figure 1 — MSU with its capability and corresponding capability interfaces,
especially the Capability Profile Interface
5.2 Manufacturing software unit
A manufacturing software unit (MSU) shall be modeled as a type of manufacturing resource that can satisfy a
set of interoperability criteria. These criteria shall be determined by the required sequence and timing of the
specific set of manufacturing functions that have to be accomplished by a MSU and the information
exchanges that it has to support.
As shown in Figure 4 of ISO 16100-1 a MSU shall be associated with a manufacturing activity and its
corresponding capability. A software component shall not be associated with a capability profile.
A manufacturing function associated with a capability class of a manufacturing activity shall be modeled as
being enabled by one or more MSUs.
EXAMPLE A manufacturing function associated with manufacturing activity N in Figure 2 is enabled by MSU 3. On the
other hand, a manufacturing function associated with manufacturing activity M is enabled by both MSU 1 and MSU 2.
The manufacturing capability classes supported by a set of MSUs shall be determined by the manufacturing
function of a manufacturing activity and the related information exchanges among the other manufacturing
resources deployed to enable the manufacturing process.
A particular class of MSU may be used in different activities. Each MSU shall provide a set of interfaces. The
interoperability criteria between MSUs shall be determined only by the requirements of the interoperable
activities. Interoperability criteria between manufacturing processes shall not be considered in this
International Standard. Interoperability criteria involving groups of MSUs associated with manufacturing
processes shall not be considered in this part of ISO 16100.
At each level, the manufacturing software requirements can be modeled as a set of capability classes
organized in a similar structure as shown in Figure B.1.
NOTE 1 In Figure 4 of ISO 16100-1, a manufacturing process is composed from a set of manufacturing activities. A
manufacturing process can have a nested or hierarchical structure of manufacturing activities. The interoperability of
MSUs only applies to the latter set (i.e. activities).
When two or more MSUs provide the required manufacturing software function within a manufacturing activity,
these MSUs shall satisfy a set of interoperability criteria. The required interface(s) for interoperability of a set
of MSUs within a particular activity shall be designated in a software capability profile of that activity.
NOTE 2 In Figure 2, an interface A provided by MSU 1 from vendor A interoperates with interface B provided by MSU 2
from vendor B. The interoperability criteria is denoted by interoperability I based on requirements of activity M. The
capability profile for interface A should match the capability profile for interface B to support interoperability I. This profile
can differ for different manufacturing activities.
NOTE 3 In Figure 2, when two activities such as M and N have to cooperate, another set of interoperability criteria can
be used. The interoperability criteria denoted by interoperability J is based on common requirements of activities M and N.
The set of MSUs that enable both activities have capability profiles that support interoperability J.
6 © ISO 2005 – All rights reserved

---------------------- Page: 12 ----------------------
ISO 16100-3:2005(E)
A combined behaviour of multiple MSUs shall be equivalent to the situation in which the manufacturing
software requirements of the activity were being provided by a single MSU. This combined behaviour (of a
single equivalent MSU) depends on the compatible use of an interface specification common to a set of MSUs.
Conversely, a MSU can be composed of a set of MSUs to reflect a decomposition of a single activity into a set
of activities.
When a MSU is modelled as a set of manufacturing software components, this MSU shall not contain another
MSU. These MSU components shall be considered to belong only to that MSU. The information exchange and
associated interfaces among the components within a MSU are outside the scope of this standard.
NOTE 4 In Figure 2, a MSU 2 provided by vendor C may replace a MSU 2 provided by vendor B in providing the
manufacturing function required within manufacturing activity M. Although interface A provided by MSU 1 from vendor A
interoperates with interface C provided by MSU 2 from vendor C, the full interchangeability of both MSU 2s cannot be
realized. The capability profile for interface B matches the capability profile for interface C to support interoperability but
not their interchangeability.
Interoperability J
(within scope)
Manufacturing Activity M
Manufacturing Activity N
Component
interoperability Interoperability I
MSU 3
(not within scope)
Vendor
D
MSU 1 MSU 2
D
Vendor Vendor
A B
A B
MSU
Component x
Interchangeability
Component y
(not within scope)
MSU 2
C Vendor
C
Component z
Key

D Interfaces


Figure 2 — MSUs within a manufacturing activity
5.3 Matching capability profiles
5.3.1 General
The structure of a MSU capability template shall be
...