[Ccsds-omg-liaison] Operations Procedure Model draft RFP

[Adrian J. Hooke]

At 11:41 AM 3/25/2005, Simon C Gerry Contr Det 12/VOC wrote:
>My bad.  We have, however,  been corresponding directly with Roger 
>Thompson on this issue.

Gerry: yes, well clearly there is a relationship here to the CCSDS-MOIMS 
Area; in fact, MOIMS is mentioned in an incomplete reference in the SDTF's 
draft RFP. However, I'm still not comfortable that we have a clear concept 
for whether a new work item possibly belongs in OMG or CCSDS, or both. If 
you will remember, I tried to start this discussion in February:

>At 09:55 AM 2/16/2005, Adrian J. Hooke wrote:
>..... at some point, it seems to me, we need to establish some clear 
>evaluation criteria for whether we initiate and pursue work within the OMG 
>or within CCSDS. New work proposals - originating on both sides of the 
>fence - should then be cooperatively evaluated to see where they will be 
>most effectively executed. So far, the following top-level differences in 
>operating approach have been alluded-to:
>
>1. OMG is an industry-driven organization that views standardization as a 
>way to get compatible commercial products to market in a short period of 
>time, using current technology. CCSDS is a mission and Agency-driven 
>organization that looks ahead at prospective requirements and views 
>standardization as a technology development and technology infusion 
>activity that has has a medium-term gestation time.
>
>2. OMG nowadays is all about standardizing APIs, with very little ongoing 
>work on wire protocols. CCSDS is all about  standardizing wire protocols 
>to achieve interoperability, with little if any attempt to standardize APIs.
>
>Are those differences - one managerial, one technical - correct? Are there 
>other major differences? If we understand the differences, then perhaps we 
>can find a way to ensure that our future activities are fully 
>complementary. So over the next 6-weeks, I'd like to use this discussion 
>list to see whether we can come up with a set of clear evaluation criteria 
>and a proposed technical coordination mechanism that we can lay-out on 
>paper and present to OMG and CCSDS management for their joint agreement in 
>Athens.

Given the resounding silence that followed my proposal, one might conclude 
that there is little interest in trying to coordinate our work. Is that the 
message that we intend to convey to our respective management chains in Athens?

Best regards
Adrian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/ccsds-omg-liaison/attachments/20050325/97339720/attachment.htm