Accredited Standards Committee
X3, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEMS
Doc. No: X3H7-97-10 Doc. Date: 11 March 1997 Project: Reply to: Jeff Sutherland IDX Systems Corporation 116 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02116 617-266-0001 x2920 617-721-1226 FAX jeff.sutherland@idx.com http://www.tiac.net/users/jsuth
X3 Technical Committee X3H7 (OIM)
MINUTES OF MEETING 20 (Draft)
11 March 1997, Austin, TX
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
2. Open Action Items
3. Liaison Activities
4. Technical Report
5. Motions Passed
6. Committee Responsibilities (see X3H7-95-05)
7. References
8. Chronological Details of Meeting Discussions
8.1 Monday, 10 Mar 97
8.1.1 9 AM OMG Liaison
8.1.2 1 PM Administrivia
8.1.3 2 PM New business
8.2 Tuesday, 11 Mar 97
8.2.1 9 AM OMG Liaison
8.2.1 9 AM Work on Draft Enterprise Standard
8.2.3 5 PM Adjourn
8.3 Wednesday, 12 Mar 97
8.3.1 1 PM OMG Liaison
8.3 Thursday, 13 Mar 97
8.3.1 9 AM OMG Liaison
1.0 FIXED EVENTS - none
2.0 PRELIMINARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
2.1 Establish scribe - Jeff Sutherland
2.2 Attendance and introductions
Joaquin Miller, Chair |
MCI SHL Systemhouse |
miller@shl.com |
Jeff Sutherland, Secretary |
IDX Systems Corp. |
jeff.sutherland@idx.com |
Hiam Kilov |
Merrill Lynch |
haim_kilov@ml.com |
Frank Manola |
Object Services and Consulting, Inc. |
fmanola@objs.com |
Roger Burkhart |
Deere & Co. |
roger@90.deere.com |
William Burg |
University of Texas |
wdburg@lonestar.utsa.edu |
Steve Tockey |
Rockwell/Collins Avionics |
srtockey@cca.rockwell.com |
Woody Pidcock |
Boeing |
woody.pidcock@boeing.com |
Paul Rabin |
The Open Group |
rabin@osf.org |
Brian Henderson-Sellers |
Swinburne University |
brian@cssc.swin.edu.au |
2.3 Review the proposed work items
2.4 Administrative
Date |
Meeting |
Place |
21-23 Jun 97 |
X3H7 |
Montreal w/X3J21, OMG |
4-6 Oct 97 |
X3H7 |
Atlanta (OOPSLA) |
29 Nov - 1 Dec 97 |
X3H7 |
Princeton w/X3J21, OMG |
2.5 Special topics
2.6 X3H7 Technical Report
2.7 Review/discuss submitted documents
2.8 Define and schedule work to be done in plenary and breakout groups
MOTION: Ask Tom Kurihara to advise OMC that X3H7 wants to be the TAG for the Enterprise Viewpoint work. (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)
6. Committee Responsibilities (see X3H7-95-05)
RESPONSIBILITY PRIMARY BACKUP
Chair Joaquin Miller Project Editor (Object Models) Frank Manola Project Editor (Enterprise Viewpoint) Joaquin Miller Vocabulary Rep Joaquin Miller Haim Kilov Secretary Jeff Sutherland OMC/SC21 TAG Rep Membership Status Joaquin Miller Document Log/Librarian Jeff Sutherland Document Distribution Jeff Sutherland
X3H7-96-01 |
Some materials on relationships for the enterprise viewpoint of RM-ODP |
Haim Kilov |
5 Jan 96 |
X3H7-96-02 |
Proposed New Work Item: RM-ODP Enterprise Language and Application Architecture |
ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21 N 10387 Rev 1 |
23 May 96 |
X3H7-96-03 |
Minutes of Meeting, Washington, D.C. |
Joaquin Miller |
7 Jun 96 |
X3H7-96-04 |
RFP-1 "Business Objects" BOF Evaluation Scenario |
Oliver Sims, Peter Eeles. OMG BODTF |
6 Sep 96 |
X3H7-96-05 |
Business Object Facility RFP Response Evaluation Guidelines |
Tom Digre (Ed.) OMG BODTF |
7 Sep 96 |
X3H7-96-06 |
U.S. ballot comments on SC21 N10387 - New Work Item Proposal for Enterprise Language |
Tom Rutt X3T3-96-096 |
16 Sep 96 |
X3H7-96-07R2 |
Business rules for the Enterprise Viewpoint of RM-ODP |
Haim Kilov |
7 Dec 96 |
X3H7-96-08 |
Minutes of Meeting, Hyannis, MA |
Jeff Sutherland |
17 Sep 96 |
X3H7-96-09 |
Starting Point for Enterprise Work |
UK draft |
6 Dec 96 |
X3H7-96-10 |
SC Enterprise Framework Process, Version 1 |
Sematech |
27 Nov 96 |
X3H7-96-11 |
Texas Instruments Enterprise Framework Overview |
Sematech |
6 Dec 96 |
X3H7-96-12 |
Understanding the semantics of (collective) behavior: the ISO General Relationship Model. ECOOP’95 Workshop 6: Use of Object-Oriented Technology for Network Design and Management. Arhus, Denmark. |
Haim Kilov |
8 Aug 96 |
X3H7-96-13 |
X3H7 Technical Committee (Object Information Management) Object Model Technical Report |
Frank Manola (Ed.) |
Dec 96 |
X3H7-96-14 |
Contribution to U.S. Position at Canberra |
Haim Kilov |
7 Dec 96 |
X3H7-96-15 |
Contribution to U.S. Position at Canberra |
Frank Manola |
7 Dec 96 |
X3H7-96-16 |
Contribution to U.S. Position at Canberra |
Glenn Hollowell |
7 Dec 96 |
X3H7-96-17 |
Contribution to U.S. Position at Canberra |
William Burg |
7 Dec 96 |
X3H7-96-18 |
Contribution to U.S. Position at Canberra |
Jeff Sutherland |
7 Dec 96 |
X3H7-96-19 |
[Proposed] Delegates instructions. RM-ODP enterprise language, January 1997 meeting of SC21/WG7. U.S. proprietary document. |
Joaquin Miller |
6 Dec 96 |
X3H7-96-20 |
US contribution to WG7 meeting on Enterprise Viewpoint Language |
Joaquin Miller |
6 Dec 96 |
X3H7-96-21 |
Minutes of Meeting, Boston, MA |
Jeff Sutherland |
7 Dec 96 |
X3H7-97-01 |
Study Group 15-Contribution: Text of Draft Recommendation G.851-01. (Application of RM-ODP to telecommunication domain.) |
International Telecommunication Union, COM 15-238R1-E |
|
X3H7-97-02 |
Working Document for RM-ODP Enterprise Viewpoint and Application Architecture |
Project Editor, Enterprise Viewpoint Rapporteur Group, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 21 |
17 Jan 97 |
X3H7-97-03 |
X3H7 Technical Committee (Object Information Management) Object Model Technical Report (Major revision) |
Frank Manola (Ed.) |
11 Mar 97 |
X3H7-97-04 |
Annual Report |
Joaquin Miller (Ed.) |
11 Mar 97 |
X3H7-97-05 |
Proposed Working Draft ISO/IEC 14481, Annex D: Mathematical Conventions and Notation (nice mathematical summary of definitions for sets, functions, graphs, relations, … |
|
30 Dec 97 |
X3H7-97-06 |
Business Rules: From Business Specification to Design. IBM Research Report RC 20754 (91981) |
Haim Kilov |
4 Mar 97 |
X3H7-97-07 |
Roles: Conceptual Abstraction Theory and Practical Language Issues. Theory and Practice of Object Systems 2:3:143-160 |
Bent Bruun Kristensen and Kasper Østerbye |
1996 |
X3H7-97-08 |
Mathematical Models for Computing Science. <ftp://comlab.ox.ac.uk/> |
C.A.R. Hoare |
Aug 94 |
X3H7-97-09 |
Modeling Business Enterprises as Value-Added Process Hierarchies with Resource-Event-Agent Object Templates. OOPSLA'95 Business Object Workshop. |
Guido L. Geerts and William E. McCarthy |
16 Oct 95 |
8. Chronological Details of Meeting Discussions
Meet with OMG Object Model Subcommittee and OMG Business Object Domain Task Force. Described work and called for volunteers at the Object Model meeting.
1:00 PM Meeting Convened
Next meeting will be in Montreal concurrent with the OMG meeting in June. Following meeting will be at OOPSLA in October.
Do we want to be the U.S. TAG on the Enterprise Viewpoint work. It requires additional administrative 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>
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?
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 of the instance level when new instances appear that do not fit the old model. When a new concept appears that the current instance structure does not support (relations do not support objects), then the instance storage structure must change. (Bill)
The interesting challenge of defining meta-object protocols is defining enough constraints on the meta-object definitions so that you do not have infinite variability which causes systems to malfunction. (Frank)
Lassie is collie which is an instance of species which is an instance of ….
But collie is a class which is an instance of a metaclass - a different viewpoint. (Woody)
RM-ODP says what abstraction is. Eliminating unnecessary detail to define a simplified model. (Haim) Meta is not the same think as abstraction. Example is cars and trucks abstracted to position, velocity, and mass. There is nothing meta here. (Joaquin)
RM-ODP definition of model is Webster's definition of model.
Meta is a type of abstraction. It is not orthogonal to abstraction. It may be more than just a type of abstraction. (differing opinions)
There a programming languages where for each object there is a meta-object. The meta-object contains the description, the code that implements the object behavior. When you send a message to an object, the meta-object gets it. It is so that any instance can have its own behavior. The class describes the common features of a bunch of objects. (Frank)
We observe that this thing and that thing (pointing to two chairs) have something in common. They are each a chair (a model). We look at what is similar between chairs and dogs and we might abstract to a meta-model. (Haim)
Model can be viewed as a mapping between concepts and things in a universe of discourse. One mapping is a dog. Another is a cat. The dog or a cat is a relationship between a concept and the instances. A type is a relationship. The model itself is an expression of the mapping. The model doesn't mean anything unless you understand the meta-concepts and the universe of discourse. (Steve) This is an abstraction that happens only after you've done the three levels. (Frank)
To distinguish between a dog and a cat, I must describe the specific things that are different between the dog and the cat and this is the model. (Frank)
Frank maps to person maps to type. Dog maps to animal maps to type. Walking maps to activity maps to "???". "Frank walks the dog" maps to "???". (Haim)
In Japanese, the honorifics in the language are difficult for Americans to understand. This is because they are a description of the situation. A salutation would actually mean "I am a man at the door that a woman of higher rank just opened." Each situation has its own description, analogous to an object language where each object can have its own behavior. Information does not transfer between Japanese and English (at least without a lot of difficulty) because the metamodels are different. Here is an example where we need a meta-meta-model to be able to talk about both environments.
Everything in the UML must be captured by MOF at a minimum. This is probably on track for adoption already. A minority opinion feels that we should push for a MOF to be a minimal subset of concepts. This is probably not under serious consideration.
If MOF needs any new concepts, these concepts must be in the OA&D model. (Joaquin) What we really want is something that is extensible. (Frank)
Object modeling is more complex than arithmetic. Godel has show that you cannot have a system even in arithmetic that can prove every true thing within the system without the system proving some false concepts to be true. Peter Wegner has just shown that "interactive" systems are not Turing machines and cannot be fully specified.
Frank Manola met with OMG Meta-Object Facility Task Force.
8.2.1 9 AM Work on Draft Enterprise Standard
Joaquin was given instructions at Canberra for further editing of a WG7 working document. We will use this as a starting point for developing a U.S. submission for the next Enterprise Viewpoint meeting in Helsinki.
Meet with OMG Boundary Working Group, to discuss common issues concerning the Meta-Object Facility, Business Object Facility, and Analysis and Design Facility. Described work and called for volunteers.
Meet with Analysis and Design Domain Task Force. Described work and called for volunteers.