OMG Internet Platform Special Interest Group
Minutes of Meeting #15
February 9, 1998
Salt Lake City, Utah
OMG document internet/98-02-01
OMG Internet Platform SIG homepage: http://www.objs.com/isig/home.htm
Craig Thompson - Object Services and Consulting, Inc - firstname.lastname@example.org
Henry Rothkopf - MITRE/Open Systems Center - email@example.com
Andrew Eisenberg - 16474
Jeff Sutherland - IDX Systems - firstname.lastname@example.org
Mike Bigrigg - Carnegie Mellon University - email@example.com
Jonathan Legh-Smith - 944
Brian Breton - 31874
Nick Brachet - 42687
Pranab Baruah - 25243
Tim Frommeyer - AT&T - firstname.lastname@example.org
Dan Klawitter - 25970
Roger Burkhart - 1530
Bapa Rao - Trusted Information Systems - email@example.com
Rudolf M. Riess - Digital Equipment - firstname.lastname@example.org
David Gamble - Micro Focus - email@example.com
Krystian Wirski - Department of National Defence - firstname.lastname@example.org
Dave Chizmadia -25488
Roger Finger - Intel - email@example.com
Debbie Jenkins - Cognitive Communications - firstname.lastname@example.org
Terry Ellis - Fretwell-Downing Data Systems - email@example.com
Ravi Condamoor - Oracle - firstname.lastname@example.org
Sailesh Chutani - Oracle - email@example.com
David S. Dobrotka - Air Intelligence Agency - firstname.lastname@example.org
Silas Larry Smith - IBM - email@example.com
David C. Smith - Deere & Company - firstname.lastname@example.org
Elizabeth Ungar - Boeing - email@example.com
Michael Chonoles - Lockheed Martin Advanced Concepts - firstname.lastname@example.org
Jan R. Schultz - IDX Systems - email@example.com
Gene Jarboe - 10590
James Stegeman - 43533
Russ Clans - 43654
Martin Chapman - IONA - firstname.lastname@example.org
Narizumi Shindo - 43674
Simon Nash - T17
Jim Trezzo - T112
Leo Uzxategui - 25607
William Janssen, Jr. - Xerox - email@example.com
Frank Olken - Lawrence Berkeley Lab
Lorraine Cash - Raytheon - firstname.lastname@example.org
Milo Chan - J.P. Morgan - email@example.com
Junji Fukuzawa - Hitachi - firstname.lastname@example.org
David Harkcom - Trusted Information Systems - email@example.com
Olaf Kaestner - Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme - firstname.lastname@example.org
John Robinson,Department of National Defense - email@example.com
Ron Zahavi - Concept 5 Technologies - firstname.lastname@example.org
Jan Peter van der Bijl - KPN Research - email@example.com
OMG-DARPA Workshop on Compositional Software Architectures,
Craig Thompson, OBJS
The OMG-DARPA Workshop on Compositional Software Architectures was held
in Monterey, California, on 6-8 January, 1998. The homepage for the workshop
The list of 100+ participants, 90+ workshop position papers, and the workshop
report are available from the workshop homepage. The workshop focused on
Thompson presented a summary of the workshop (.ppt).
He mentioned that many of the ideas in the workshop have been forwarded
to the ORMSC.
inserting ilities (non-functional properties like scalability, security,
survivability, evolution, and adaptation) into componentware, and
web-ORB integration architectures and web object models.
Brainstorming on OMG Relationship to Java
We continued a discussion started at the OMG Internet SIG meeting in East
Brunswick (see past
discussion) on whether and how to make OMG more Java-friendly.
Our motivations were that OMG and Java will increasingly overlap in turf
as Java is used for enterprise, middleware, server, and distributed applications,
and that it seems in both groups' interests, and definitely in the interests
of customers if the two camps tend toward convergence and not divergence.
Near the beginning of the discussion, we also noted that there may be
a need to make OMG more web/XML friendly but then limited discussion to
Java friendliness. From the last meeting's discussion, we listed
Many felt that a good thing to do would be to sponsor some sort of workshop
or summit that gathered together OMG and JavaSoft technical management
to share tentative plans to try to see how they might be converged.
The output would be paired roadmaps that attempted to align the two communities.
Going in assumptions would involve the realization that both communities
have different processes, scopes, timelines; both have technology strengths
and gaps; both have similar business motivations and should both be interested
in what customers want. Bifurcating the community with incompatible
choices seems not to be in the best interests of the OMG or JavaSoft communities
though it might benefit the DCOM community. Some pointed out OMG
is lite on semantics, a programming model, a binary standard, garbage collection,
versioning; others that Java enterprise solutions won't meet customer needs;
there are areas of common interest like messaging; controversial
areas like RMI; and areas where both camps need work like federation of
components and services. Some very tentative names were listed as
possibly helpful in a summit: Richard Soley, Andrew Watson, Dave
Curtis, Jon Siegel (all OMG technical management); Pranab Baruah (Boeing)
representing customers, maybe also DARPA; Jim Trezzo (Oracle), Simon Nash
(IBM) (or Leo Uzcategui (IBM) and Ian Brackenberg (IBM)), and Andrew Eisenberg
(Sybase) with some idea of how the roadmaps might fit; Jim Mitchell (JavaSoft),
Rick Cattell (JavaSoft), other technical management TBD. The action
item is for Craig to make initial inquiries of OMG staff to see what they
think there might be willingness for a joint meeting (workshop or summit),
then to approach others. Timeframe: nothing visible will have
happened by OMG Manchester, maybe something will be brewing by Orlando.
It is likely any meeting would not happen on any one's turf, e.g., not
at an OMG meeting.
wholesale replacement of IDL with Java - nobody is suggesting this,
are they? IDL's purpose in life is to be language-neutral to permit interoperability
so we still need it
encourage OMG specs to contain appendices that contain a Java mapping.
Martin Chapman argued that this is unnecessary since many tools with Java-IDL
and IDL-Java mappings will exist that allow mapping of all existing OMG
specs to Java and that everyone should use the automatic mapping, which
is designed as much as possible to be Java programmer friendly. [Does everyone
feel this is the case?]
have OMG involved in some way in the Sun Java PAS, but this would require
JavaSoft as well as OMG to agree. Someone noted that, while OMG and
JavaSoft are both PAS submitters, the JavaSoft status is limited in some
ways, to the language but not all the way to any class libraries.
[Anyone know the actual status?]
Brainstorming on Web-ORB Integration Architectures
and Data Models
Thompson started the brainstorming by asking if there is an ideal integration
of ORB technology and Web technology so we can "have our cake and eat it
too" and avoid having both communities re-invent each other's wheels as
the Web increasingly adds enterprise middleware services to its list of
architectural standards. He then broke the general problem into two
We listed Web-ORB integration architectures.
Web-ORB integration architectures - these are interesting because they
should provide us routes for combining CORBA and HTTP
Web object models - these are interesting because much of the world's data
will soon be in either a web format like XML or to a lesser extent in an
object format so can the two interoperate seamlessly?
DOM/XML, HTML, PS, …
ORBs in the back-end -- web client accesses web server, CGI is then used
to access ORB client that accesses ORB server.
ORBs in the client -- download Java ORB client into Web client, then let
ORB client access ORB servers. Visigenics approach.
intermediary architecture -- insert ORB services between Web client and
Web server via graph of active web proxies and/or an ORB that can access
replace HTTP server with HTTP* server that accepts HTTP and also ORB type
models. W3C HTTP-NG approach. Bill Janssen drew a diagram of
how HTTP-NG is structured (where TCWA = The Classic Web Application)
Bill mentioned that a feasibility study will be complete in June and
that W3C members can critique the work in progress.
Variations including ORB client built into Web client. And downloading
an application via IIOP instead of HTTP. Someone mentioned Microsoft
has associated dynamic events with DOM objects.
use of DOM which is an API and a type system, just different than most
OO-ers are used to
We discussed some places where web and ORB architectures overlap beyond
the basic architecture and object model listed above. One of these
was RDF versus MOF, which uses UML. In addition, Bill Janssen mentioned
some projects he'd like to see someone in Internet SIG take on:
If someone is interested, we'd welcome a presentation on your thoughts
on any of these.
IETF character sets
IPv6 security vs. OMG Security
ONC RPF profile for CORBA (did I get this right?)
Work Session on OTAM, Mike Bigrigg, CMU
OTAM is a proposed information access facility (composed of services)
based loosely on ISO FTAM. It consists of a virtual file system that provides
an interface to a collection of physical file stores and database records.
A Trader stores the file and database schemas plus potentially more (e.g.,
data conversions). This is an attempt to objectify file systems so CORBA
can operate on them. FTAM can be viewed as a file system adapter.
Mike Bigrigg (CMU) led this discussion. He said the initial goal
is an OTAM White Paper (initial draft by Shel Sutton at the East Brunswick
meeting) followed by an OTAM RFP.
As envisioned, OTAM sits in front of plug-in file systems Unix, NFS,
AFS, Win NT, others. It provides a standard interface across all
Internally, OTAM seems like it would depend on a number of CORBAservices
There are more issues than answers about OTAM at this time. We need
a careful analysis and an OTAM architecture. Open issues are:
objects by value
URL - IOR mapping
caching (which we do not have yet)
replication (which we do not have yet)
versioning (which we do not have yet)
how far down the path should OTAM go in presenting a standard file system
interface if some file systems do more than others. Should
file system differences be mirrored in OTAM? Should OTAM "hug" file
systems and provide exactly and only their capabilities (via an OO API)
or should it provide additional capability?
since OTAM is oo-based, does it know about different file types, including
various data interchange formats? If it does, can it add behavior
(methods) to file types? can it access objects within files or just
should OTAM allow mounting FTP, relational DBMS, and OODBMS under its hood?
If some of these systems have extra capabilities, will they shine through
the OTAM API?
which of the above listed services does the OTAM Facility depend on?
This question is interesting because one can envision an OTAM service with
or without trading, with or without collections and queries, and so this
is a really interesting test of what we at OMG mean by a facility and how
similar facilities with different capabilities might interoperate.
Collaboration Working Group, Henry Rothkopf,
Henry Rothkoph (MITRE) is interested in building support for an Internet
SIG Working Group on Collaboration. He is generally interested in a variety
of application domains like healthcare and C4I where people perform a variety
of tasks accessing a variety of data sources, with changes over time to
both the task mix and data sources needed. We discussed the need for
We also talked about subsetting the problem so one only looked at the subarchitecture
for accessing multiple data sources (see OTAM discussion above). We looked
for examples of people doing this kind of work-one noted was the NIIIP
Consortium's puzzle of configuring virtual enterprising them, then provisioning
roles. We ended up talking about the MITRE Collaborative Virtual Workspace
(CVW) tool, which will be demoed on Wednesday.
flexible binding glue to connect together services,
models or configurations of services that a user might have in her profile
and might send to other users so they might share parts of a configuration,
primitives for auto-downloading services as needed,
controls over data dissemination,
dynamic security policies, and
integration of the whole using OMG componentry as a challenge problem.
Next steps are to continue to build interest in a Collaboration Working
Group at OMG Manchester then to invite several speakers to OMG Orlando
to talk about aspects of collaborative workspaces. Action item:
Henry to invite to Orlando 4-6 speakers at 20-30 minutes each, plus a one
hour discussion, 2-3 hours in all.