archive-org.com » ORG » J » JEFFSUTHERLAND.ORG

Total: 379

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Minutes, Meeting 7, X3H7 Tech. Comm.
    Glenn New consortium 10 large organizations like Microsoft Lotus SAP etc have formed Object Applications Group OAG Have dropped off radar screen X3H7 proposes to become the TAG for an RM ODP Enterprise Viewpoint Companion Standard Right now we cannot according to X3 rules have any official relationship with OMG If we have an ISO work product we can form a liaison with OMG thorough that mechanism A discussion ensued as to what is the value of X3H7 working with OMG on standardization They already have a Class C formal relationship with ISO If X3H7 receives ISO support they can work with OMG on standards with an Enterprise flavor Tom Frost the acting Chair of OMC should be consulted Rudolf Tom Rutt will be making the official proposal Glenn with go to ISO Ottawa meeting as a delegate Two people from NIST will also be going The X3H7 proposal was modified slightly to meet the recommendations of X3T3 and will be submitted as an X3T3 proposal to ISO Some detail was taken out to avoid raising issues peripheral to the proposal Workshop chairs should look at Andersen Consulting specification languages presented at last OMG TC meeting Colin Scott from the Eagle Project There is a document number on the OMG server for this 2 10 OOPSLA Workshop Richard Due presented by Glenn Hollowell Copy of the announcement was circulated Richard needs to recruit participation by Email as does Jeff There is a lot of competition for getting good papers because of the number of workshops 2 10 Future Meeting Dates Sep 11 15 OMG Ottawa Oct 11 13 X3H7 Austin confirmed Oct 15 19 OOPSLA Austin Jan 8 12 96 OMG San Diego Jan 7 9 96 X3H7 San Diego confirmed 1 2 day each day concurrent with OMG meetings X3T3 X3T2 X3J21 X3H4 will be meeting there Apr 1 5 95 OMG Hyannisport Cape Cod Apr 14 17 NIST Inst for Future Ft Lauderdale Apr 21 22 95 X3J21 Dearborn MI Ford October meeting will start at 1PM on Wednesday and go for the next two days We may adjourn at noon on Friday depending on work Meeting fees will be taken care of by Sematech A block of rooms has been reserved at the Wyndam Hotel Ask for the Sematech X3H7 block of rooms Rate is 75 per night It is not one of the OOPSLA hotels It is on the far south side of Austin Those participating in OOPSLA may want to move to an OOPSLA hotel over the weekend You can stay at the Wyndam at Sematech rates if you want to stay there through OOPSLA There will probably not be an OOPSLA bus from the Wyndam Cab ride will probably be 6 7 each way between Wyndam and the OOPSLA convention center We have an invitation from X3J21 Ford representative to meet in conjunction with X3J21 at Dearborn in April 95 We will table the meeting date discussion until Wednesday evening at 5 7PM Our

    Original URL path: http://jeffsutherland.org/x3h7/h7meet14.html (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Minutes, Meeting 7, X3H7 Tech. Comm.
    I want and know whether the product I am looking at does it Haim How can we specify a system object model SQL specification describes behavior The fact that it is a language is not the point But for SQL we had initially Codd s 10 page paper that laid out all the concepts First SQL standard was not very good There has been a lot of evolution We do not have to define an enterprise language perfectly on the first attempt Could we write the paper that is analogous to the original Codd paper RM ODP references an Enterprise Language I resist language It is an arcane form of expression Cory RM ODP language is a general term for a wide variety of notations It does not describe a particular language but states that the language must be able to express these concepts Different viewpoints may use different languages Haim Before SQL there were multiple languages QUEL etc But Codd s paper could help distinguish whether on not the language supports relational concepts Haim This was because the notion of relational completeness was defined Frank Technique OR Specs if do X y happens with side effects z language a la C language a la subset of English set of concepts Enterprise completeness Working rule assume whole world has one vendor language os underneath Joaquim Better yet assume OMG has taken care of the plumbing Glenn I can use any implementation I want BOMSIG RFP picture above is very useful for defining layers Application Component Framework is not the right words behavior semantics of business components Haim Goal Vendors can specific complete behavior of their product by using this language that specifies components Don Specify sets of concepts In picture what are we specifying We are looking at common supertypes of objects in the picture Dynamic supertyping Dynamic multiple inheritance as roles Component needs to specific behaviors as events which other components can register for This is a type of relationship Haim If we clarify these types of concepts and clarify them there are probably not more than 10 of them we can solve the problem Vendors can integrate without being dependent on the internal behaviors of their systems We are talking about a connectivity framework Frank Need metadata Cory Agenda Part A What is our purpose see consensus below How do we narrow the work item see consensus below How do we make the work item more precise see consensus below What are out relations with OMG Solicit co membership Use all appropriate OMG standards as foundation If OMG adopts enterprise related specifications we will use them if at all possible Encourage X3H7 membership to participate in OMG activities where appropriate We have come to an important consensus Haim agreed by group specify behavioral semantics of enterprise components need a set of common concepts the concepts will be application independent the number of these concepts is small when concepts are defined it will be possible and desireable to specify one or more languages to implement them results of work fits within RM ODP relationship between business object and the enterprise viewpoint of ODP will be clearly specified techniques will be useful in enterprise design of information systems not necessarily ADP we will build on accepted de facto and de jure standards ISO OMG others It was an eye opener for a customer that use cases were helpful irrespective of whether these were used to implement a computer system Haim BPR is independent of computing systems even though IT shops are driving a lot of BPR efforts Frank 11 20 Agenda Part B What is Enterprise Viewpoint vs Enterprise Modelling We are not enterprise modelling EM model of enterprise that is broader than IS EV viewpoint on IS model Information system focused We are working toward concepts for EV Notations of specifying these concepts not our current work What is a Business Object and or is this concept off our agenda We must explain BOM in terms of RM ODP EV What needs to be added to this list relation rule role agent What needs to be added to this list interface protocol meaning What needs to be added to this list protocols for state change relationships rules 6 Is role equivalent to dynamic supertype or dynamic class or dynamic multiple inheritance Answer Yes But there are a number of definitions for role Haim X3H7 will remain X3H7 but will have standing We will be the advisory group to the U S national body that votes in the ISO process We will be a part of WG7 through the auspices of X3T3 who is the official U S TAG for RM ODP and may have an independent role We need to progress our draft of the RM ODP Enterprise Viewpoint Component Standard There are five or six other standards groups that will comment and add to the draft We will be the editor If we are the Secretariat we determine the rate of progress of the draft Membership in X3H7 is a company membership and company vote The cost is 300 year With an international piece of work there is an additional 300 charge per company Any number of people from a company may attend the meetings but only one vote per company ACTION Glenn will present our annual report in November to X3 and clarify the relationship of X3H7 to ISO and make a recommendation back to the Committee whether we should be the Secretariat for our item of work 1 25 Reconvene after lunch We buy with fuzzy specification We know what we buy needs to work with what we ve got PC 486 ISA bus etc Consider DBMS procurement Some people write books for specifications Some people write a few pages Neither are very precise if you look carefully at them They are not necessarily complete You may be look at supplier to help educate you on what the complete specification should be If TI were to

    Original URL path: http://jeffsutherland.org/x3h7/h7meet15.html (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Minutes, Meeting 7, X3H7 Tech. Comm.
    that colocation with OMG is very importance and significantly enhances visibility and participation There was general agreement that this is a good policy to continue Discussion of X3H7 Technical Report Frank Manola passed out the December 1996 X3H7 Technical Committee Object Model Technical Report Dec 96 which outlines future X3H7 activities p 17 Section 4 1 3 Enterprise Modeling is the major piece of work We need to decide on process for developing an Enterprise Modeling standard because it is now a formal international standards project Glenn Hollowell We need written submissions to work from They do not need to be formal change proposals as in X3H2 but they do need to be written and distributed People need to write down their ideas even if they are in the formative stage We also need a method for distribution Frank Manola MCI will set up a Web site Joaquin They may also support conference calls if IBM supports some IBM has not had a lot of success with conference calls in Europe because written submissions are the key Haim TI has had success with conference calls with someone taking minutes and reporting them out immediately Glenn The important of conference calls is meeting to pull some things together and make decisions Frank Anything we submit international must be in writing a month ahead of the meeting This will enforce some basic discipline Joaquin Ultimately the X3H2 discipline will need to be imposed for the international work Frank Agenda for today How do we develop material for Canberra What would we like to do with Frank s contribution X3H2 votes on the Technical Report next week and will make comments X3H7 could take the document home and comment back in writing along with X3H2 Action Decisions After this meeting there will not be work to be done until the later part of January Joaquin will come back with first international draft There is already schedule an X3H7 meeting in Austin in March We need a process between now and then Glenn Joaquin I would like deadlines each month and circulate an increment of work with conference calls as necessary By the end of the year the Committee must review the introductory material in the Technical Report and comment back to Frank Manola by 31 December 1996 Frank as Editor is the arbiter of inclusion of comments Approval of rewritten SQL Features Matrix Email vote Reapproval of Technical Report for submission to OMC Email vote At the March OMC meeeting Joaquin will present the updated report Preparation for ISO Meeting in Canberra The material available is not sufficient for an initial draft for the Canberra meeting Haim The UK Note has some good material The metamodel show links as relationships without sufficient explanation It needs further work Certain concepts are already defined in RM ODP and this definition needs to be explicitly stated The intended disposition of the UK document is for Joaquin to use it as a discussion item in Canberra Glenn The discussion needs to go on at two levels Frank What set of different things does a specific concept fail to distinguish What are we talking about at a high level What do we want to describe This has been a difficulty in understanding the RM ODP documents Unless you understand the history of the problems RM ODP was trying to deal with it is hard to understand the motivation for pieces of the document We need to get a clear outline of what we are going to try to specify before we descend into detailed analysis of concepts Section 2 3 1 provides a good start at beginning to define an intuitive overview of the enterprise viewpoint Haim Are we trying to describe the entire enterprise its parts and relationships or only the part of the enterprise that is an information system What is an ODP System Frank The specification should start with a total description of the enterprise manual and automated The next level down should describe the automated piece Bill There is an international Conceptual Schema group that is trying to describe the larger world The work item that we have is directed toward an information system Glenn We need to model the information system and its environment Joaquin We need to go one level higher than our specification to set a context Bill The enterprise viewpoint is a collection of viewpoints on the enterprise regulatory viewpoint business needs etc Sometimes they are consistent sometimes they are not consistent Haim Are there relationships in the enterprise external to the enterprise system that we do not have to describe in the enterprise viewpoint Frank We need to focus on a specific system Joaquin The enterprise system can be the business object schema or it could be viewed as the requirements that reflect what the information system is supposed to do maybe obligations of the corporation to external parties these may be direct as the printer fails and the paycheck will not be printed or more indirect as what obligations does the corporation have to stake holders What is the relationship between the operation of the system and the obligations to external parties Does the failure of a piece of the system violate the law Does this imply that you need a conceptual model of the enterprise that contains the information system Frank Going back to the RM ODP viewpoints the five viewpoints provide information for specification of an ODP system I think we need to agree that this is an information system A viewpoint on an ODP system and its environment that focuses on the purpose scope and policies of an information system Joaquin An ODP system is a system that conforms to the requirements of ODP standards In 6 5 the statement is made that the word system can refer to an information system but can also be more general Business specification design System specification design Software system specification design If there are parts of the system

    Original URL path: http://jeffsutherland.org/x3h7/h7meet19.html (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Minutes, Meeting 7, X3H7 Tech. Comm.
    overhead and doubles the membership fee to 600 Joaquin is the project editor independent of TAG status Do we want to merge with X3T3 If they have to be the TAG they will want us to merge with them MOTION Ask Tom Kurihara to advise OMC that X3H7 wants to be the TAG Frank Manola moved Haim Kilov second passed by unanimous consent MOTION Submit the final draft of the X3H7 Technical Report for approval as an ANSI document Jeff Sutherland moved Roger Burkhart second 5 for 0 against no abstentions Discussed formalizing relationship with OMG No action at this time Open for discussion at future meetings ODP RM Part I Overview is available in hard copy from Joaquin Parts II and III are available on the Web www iso ch 8000 RM ODP 8 1 3 2 PM New business The Working document for RM ODP Enterprise Viewpoint and Application Architecture developed at the last ISO IEC JTC 1 SC 21 meeting was discussed Overlap with other ongoing efforts was examined KIF is another possible technique to use for specification of an enterprise system In Section 11 Notation Information means for information only not part of the standard It should be taken out as it relates to another standard under consideration If that becomes standard then there should be a reference to the standard GRM includes for historical reasons a lot of informative material that makes it difficult to read and use We need to select the parts we want to refer to Haim What is our OMG alignment strategy CDL metamodel in JBOF should it become a standard MOF model UNISYS meta meta model is one of several on fast track for BOF OA D MOF The OMG Architecture Board has declared that BOF MOF and OA D will use the same metamodel RM ODP OA D standards development Application of Features Matrix Joaquin has been working with OA D Task Force models and there is a core set of concepts that are meta to themselves Do these support all the constructs in the X3H7 Object Model Features Matrix Self for example not sure The Object Model Features Matrix provides a mechanism for evaluating models The RM ODP is only partially in the Features Matrix UML and MOF are not in it Do we need to do any work there maybe If people are going to worry about Enterprise viewpoints as opposed to the OA D Facility do we have to have clear insight into these meta issues Frank Two action items 1 It is now the responsibility of X3H7 to do the mapping of RM ODP to OMG Facilities Haim We need to do something with the boundary meeting issues 2 What is the action plan between now and June on the Draft document for the next international meeting Item1 MOF attempts to define a meta meta model that can define meta models that can describe classes that describe instances If meta model core is sufficient to describe the meta model you do not need a meta meta model to describe it This is possible if we are in a well defined domain like OA D methods then the core is easily identified The meta object facility is the thing you need when you go across areas and things are a lot more different than you might think For example when we mix in the Features Matrix programming languages and Express there was a certain amount of disconnect Programs have methods that implement behavior Conceptual models do not necessarily have these notions Frank If we collapse the meta meta model into the core of the meta model when other dissimilar models come along they may not map to the core Frank But the MOF JBOF and OA D models are collapsible into a core Joaquin This implies that the proposed MOF may not be adequate for future model mapping Frank I ve worked on defining the CDIF metamodel for the last five years and am Chair of the CDIF Committee Jim Odell has presented an example of how the meta levels can continue upward indefinitely CDIF collapses the transfer information from one system to another into the model level and assumes a set of meta level concepts Woody Can we always take a set of core concepts that define a domain and use that core to be self describing and not need a metamodel Yes When new domains appear can we not expand the core to include it and still not need a meta model No The things I use to build the model are my meta model Woody An example was drawn defining a process with boxes and lines More than that is needed Haim You need pre and post conditions A thing and a description of the thing is a level of stratification Frank The CDIF work has come up with a architecture based on three levels because it is useful for extensibility Woody You must distinguish between the thing described and the description The description may or may no have the concepts necessary to describe itself Frank The answer to this discussion The OMG Architecture Board has specified that the MOF BOF and OA D will have the same meta model Therefore the meta meta model must be the same as the meta model Relabel instance level as things in a universe of discourse I then build a model of it using a minimal set of constructs to define the things I believe it is not only the things but the associations and the relationships between the things I need the meta model because we need an agreement on the language we are using to describe the model Woody An instance can be a contract between an employer and an employee At the model level we have an employment contract Preconditions are at the model level The concepts of precondition relationships etc are at the meta model level Haim Extensibility requires redescribing the model

    Original URL path: http://jeffsutherland.org/x3h7/h7meet20.html (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Dr. Jeff Sutherland's Biographical Sketch
    the PatientKeeper Personal application is the most widely used mobile patient record application in healthcare The mobile platform SDK supports interoperability between multiple independently authored applications on a single device The platform server techology supports multiple device types personalization of mobile data for applications independently authored by third party developers automated administration and update of mobile devices web reporting and auditing of mobile transactions the Certicom encryption infrastructure and enterprise integration with hundreds of legacy healthcare software and hardware products As Senior VP of Engineering and Product Development and now Chief Technology Officer at IDX Systems Corporation he helped launch the first web enabled patient medical record the IDX Outreach product and the first physician s practice management system on the web IDXsite a high volume transaction processing application OutReach provides physicians with web browser Internet access to important patient information IDXsite provides complete billing accounts receivable scheduling and manage care claims processing for physician groups As a Founder and VP of Product Development of Individual Inc now NewsEdge he conceived and implemented the prototype that launched the company and established the base technology for Individual products and services Individual delivered the first personalized information products in the industry First Heads Up Newspage and Personal Newspage As VP of Object Technology VMARK Software now Informix he led the team that delivered new Internet products to the marketplace including the HyperSTAR Web Development Kit which allows simultaneous access to multiple databases over the WWW via innovative inter server processing and communications and Object Studio an enterprise Smalltalk development environment As VP of Object Technology Easel Corporation he architected the product and led the team that delivered Synchronicity the first Business Object Management tool in the industry and the SCRUM development process Synchronicity was tightly integrated with the Object Studio Smalltalk development environment and supported object oriented analysis and design Rumbaugh Coad Yourdon Objectory and CRC card features generation of an object request broker for seamless integration with relational databases and code generation for business models and graphical user interfaces Key members of the Synchronicity team are now leading Rational Rose development As VP of Product Development Saddlebrook Corporation then VP of Engineering Graphael Inc and subsequently Founder and President of Object Databases now Mattisse Software Inc he developed the base technology and architected the first high volume transaction processing object database product MATISSE designed for performance intensive VLDB applications in robotics manufacturing banking health care and library publishing services MATISSE achieved the highest TPC C benchmark results ever recorded on a Sun SparcStation in 1996 and can access Web server data 15 times faster than the native file system Object Oriented Application Development Dr Sutherland s broad experience in object oriented systems development includes developing production applications for many U S and European manufacturing health care financial and aerospace corporations Since 1983 he has been VP of Engineering Product Development or Object Technology at eight software companies that introduced new object technology products to the marketplace Concurrently he was also a

    Original URL path: http://jeffsutherland.org/papers/bio.html (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • BOMA Diversity
    BOMA approach has been applied to a wide range of business applications Application domains include food production tourism clothing manufacture discrete assembly heavy equipment distribution and service automotive component manufacture wide area transport office furniture configuration high volume packaging wire

    Original URL path: http://jeffsutherland.org/oopsla97/marshall/tsld002.htm (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Business Engineering Model
    modified and extended to account for the organic rather than hierarchical structure of modern organizations An organization unit might be a single person who to be successful will doubtless have goals and objectives purpose will know how to do certain things processes using tools of the trade such as computers cell phones vehicles etc resources The work of individual people might be managed by a workgroup organization unit whose purpose

    Original URL path: http://jeffsutherland.org/oopsla97/marshall/tsld003.htm (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Value Chain
    slide View graphic version Notes This basic model may be used to model the process chains by which businesses add value to their customers This diagram illustrates the relationships between purpose processes and resources in an organization unit It also

    Original URL path: http://jeffsutherland.org/oopsla97/marshall/tsld004.htm (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive



  •