External DSLs are harder as the transform is one way right now.

It is on our backlog, but that is a much harder problem, so I don’t know if we get there for v1.

Not sure if I’m missing something obvious here.

Compared to the March 2009 “Oslo” FAQ (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd129873.aspx) your statement of “The term “Oslo” today refers to a modeling stack — which is just technology jargon for a data stack. … taking that stack and working with teams all over Microsoft to move the application lifecycle (design, build, manage) to top of this stack.” is ways better than what you could find in the FAQ. I would suggest to add this ASAP to the extremely broad “”Oslo” is the code name for Microsoft’s platform for model-driven applications” answer what is in the FAQ now to the “What is “Oslo”?” question.

Regarding the E2E team I would like to see some public release/communication from them since such an all technologies end-to-end work is quite essential. This could also clarify that their current mission is not completely in contradiction to the original FTA one (which BTW was communicated by Adam not as to drive the old “Oslo” but just provide an all-up scenario based approach to the development of the diverse set of technologies involved in the quite broad initial “Oslo”). With such an update on their blog the old entries could remain unchanged I think.

I will also add to my comment on the Infoq article that the E2E group communication was last year.

We use an optimistic concurrency model with the repository.

While in memory, the observation system handles any update between N views

When you go to commit and the data has changed, we guide you through conflict resolution.

If you think dataset with N views on top, that is close to right mental model, although we do a lot of work to help the user in the tool.

These are all pragmatic customer driven decisions. We make our decisions based on delivering customer value as soon as possible, even it means we are going to take a “hit” in how to talk about it. In Dev10, the Oslo initiative birthed a new workflow engine, new designers for that, new XAML stack (with DevDiv), new component model (MEF, with DevDiv) and other improvements to other components of .NET like WCF, etc. In Azure, the Oslo initiative birthed the .Net Services part of the Azure Service Platform and influence the overall strategy broadly.

The term “Oslo” today refers to a modeling stack — which is just technology jargon for a data stack. We have a language (”M”) for writing down other languages, instance data, schemas, expressions and functions. We have a repository (which is just a SQL Server database with a “catalog” in it) for storing data. We have a tool (”Quadrant”) for getting N views (graphical and textual over that data). We have a set of base “models” that people can use and extend to help people write down and access data. We are then taking that stack and working with teams all over Microsoft to move the application lifecycle (design, build, manage) to top of this stack.

The E2E team is still functioning, they are working broadly across the all the technologies offered by the Microsoft (but with special focus on the technologies birthed as part of the Oslo initiative).

IF ““Oslo” == Modeling + WF 4 + what is now Dublin + what is now .Net Services” is a past tense now

AND what Adam Denning has been written between February 4 and March 23 should be taken down from the http://blogs.msdn.com/e2eblog/default.aspx

THEN:

1. What is Oslo as of today?

2. What happened to Adam Denning’s group and/or his mission?

Thanks,
Pete