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

[Kizzort, Brad]

Adrian,

There is a relationship to CCSDS-MOIMS for almost any ground control element
standard that SDTF would undertake.  The Operations Procedure Model draft RFP
happens to be one that the SDTF has been working on for awhile and has a sponsor
that has been willing to keep it moving toward release. 

I am quite certain that there is no clear, shared concept for whether a new work
item belongs in OMG, CCSDS, or both.  That is certainly one element of the
cooperative agreement that needs to be worked out for the cooperation to be
successful.  The resounding silence has more to do with personal workloads than
lack of interest.  As you have characterized the CCSDS view of standardization,
it would not be feasible without an architecture definition, so chances are,
unless there are holes in the CCSDS architecture, it is unlikely that there will
be an ignored element that obviously requires the attention of the SDTF, so I
wouldn't choose that as a selection criteria.

The SDTF criteria in the past has been: In what areas do the active members have
expertise and/or immediate needs.  While that may appear to be a haphazard
approach to standardization, it is, in fact, the way most IT standards get
developed.  The industry-driven point of view is that successful IT standards
create markets.  Standardization is technology development.  IT markets are
reluctant to accept innovation without standardization, because that would tie
them to a single source.  

Characterizing the OMG as API-focused is an oversimplification.  With CORBA, OMG
may have focused on the API's and software portability first and defined wire
protocols / interoperability later.  UML and MDA have changed that somewhat,
since now the model provides the primary portability and reuse.  But, mapping,
API's, wire protocols, and exchange formats are still essential to
standardization, especially for encouraging a software product marketplace.
Most task forces have ongoing standardization activities in those areas as well.


Given that the date for Athens is closing in, it is doubtful we will have a
proposed technical coordination mechanism prior to the joint meeting.   I hope
that we have some fruitful discussions about cooperation in the interim and in
Athens.

Cheers,
Brad K.
_______________________________________________________________________________
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