Where is “Oslo” Going, IV
Continuing the conversation with Jean-Jacques.
So if it is not too much to ask, could please clarify the M3 layer of Oslo or, possibly what are the extensible mechanisms you provide at the M3 level to support this kind of concept.
Our M3 (M4M) doesn’t make assertions about implementation.
We do make assertions about our data model at this layer however.
This is layer is, of course, extensible via annotations, specialization, and instantiation.
I have to think more about it, but I think we could make the same claim as MOF (“[s]uffice it to say MOF 2.0 with its reflection model can be used with as few as 2 levels and as many levels as users define”), as we just added a new reflection model to “M” (which will be part of the next CTP, I believe).
DLan can answer that definitively.
What you outline “service implemented as orchestration with one implementation that integrates N operations” is a foundational scenario for what we call the services domain.
If you download and install the SDK, you can see some early work in that that domain (in the models folder).
I talked to Keith Short the other day and he is going to join this conversation to talk concretely on how we are using “M” to model software artifacts and systems.
As you may know, Keith is is very passionate and knowledgeable about employing the technologies like “M” to model the exact sorts of systems you are interested in.
BTW: I absolutely love conversations like this. We have started talking about Oslo with the community (customers, partners and competitors) very early to ensure that we are getting the right level of feedback and involvement. In this day and age, developing something as broad as this requires the involvement of everyone you can muster. The only constant for us is a goal (make it easier to design, build, and manage applications) and a set of principles around approach (data-driven, dynamic, transparent, etc.).
So do you fundamentally disagree with my assertions about Oslo and DSLs or are you just talking about a higher level of abstraction (i.e. that DSLs will drive the models)?
See my first article (in case you haven’t seen it yet) as my assertion:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd441702.aspx
Shawn Wildermuth
11 Apr 09 at 21:51
I read it. Sells sent it around before it was published. I love it and the follow on piece at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd548006.aspx.
I am not too sure why you would think I would disagree with your assertions. I think that what you outline is a great way to use the “Oslo” stack.
This thread (”Where is Oslo going?”) has largely been about using Oslo for modeling connected systems and what sort of support that we have in the stack to do that.
Modeling connected systems is just one domain that Microsoft will have tDSL/vDSLs (I am stealing JJD syntax, which I like), models, and runtimes for.
douglasp
12 Apr 09 at 02:23
I had taken the wrong assumption that “Where Oslo is Going” is the only place that Oslo is going. Where I think that textual DSLs can end up in a model driven architecture, that’s not the only use. I am trying to drive the point that DSL’s aren’t just for architects and the like…but typical developers can really be helped by them (and by extension the ease at which you can write Grammars in Oslo makes them viable, instead of dealing with Lex/Yacc which seem to be more driven to GPL’s than DSLs). Thanks for the vote of confidence
Shawn Wildermuth
12 Apr 09 at 03:23
I couldn’t agree more.
This is why we are doing things like MUrl, MService too.
We want this foundational technology to apply to architect, developers, and ITPro pros alike.
douglasp
12 Apr 09 at 04:14
Doug:
thanks for your answer. Yes I have heard of Keith Short
and I’ll wait for him to bring some clarity to this question.
I know that Oslo has included a “service implementation” as part of its scenarios and I am very excited about that.
I just want to point out that I have no agenda with respect to the OMG, MOF or MDA. MOF for instance is incomplete and as a result lots of people are using UML as an M3 layer, which it was never designed for.
On a similar note, Microsoft has a similar problem in the “Operations and Management” space. It recently came out with SML (Service ML). The standard before SML was way too complex for an M3 layer and became unusable. That’s the only reason for me pointing out the importance of creating an explicit metametamodel.
Jean-Jacques Dubray
12 Apr 09 at 06:08
We spend a bunch of time with the management team to ensure that what we are building will work for them.
Keith can comment on that as he is involved in a lot of that work as well.
douglasp
12 Apr 09 at 06:11
Incidentally, you may want to revert to naming this level “M3″, “M4M” comes with lots of unrelated materials as you are trying to search for it.
Jean-Jacques Dubray
12 Apr 09 at 21:00
M4M is a common abbreviation for “Men 4 Men”. You are going to lose this space on search engines
Dody Gunawinata
13 Apr 09 at 08:54
Well, I don’t know. Maybe it may bring in a whole new audience
Charles Young
14 Apr 09 at 01:31
As for all the M0..N talk, just a practical example that will save me writing another autodoc app:
http://bengillis.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/where-is-microsoft-oslo-going/
Ben Gillis
15 Apr 09 at 06:09
[...] a good discussion between Jean-Jacques Dubray, Doug Purdy, and Charles Young about if/how Oslo relates to MDA, MOP, UML, SOA, metamodels and a number of [...]
Tune Up Your PC » Post Topic » What Does Oslo Mean By Model-Driven?
17 Apr 09 at 18:47
[...] Does Oslo Mean By Model-Driven? There’s a good discussion between Jean-Jacques Dubray, Doug Purdy, and Charles Young about if/how Oslo relates to MDA, MOP, UML, SOA, metamodels and a number of [...]
What Does Oslo Mean By Model-Driven? | Coded Style
17 Apr 09 at 19:18
Reading this all with interest. One thing that bothers me still is the repository technology. What happens when SQL Server doesn’t support a construct for a schema defined in M? Is the table schema just there as a ‘cc’, and the master is stored in the .MX file?
Joe
8 May 09 at 02:14
If that happen to occur, it would be stored in the catalog (and in the MX file).
I say happen to occur, as one of our goals is to have a “natural SQL database” for everything in our meta-model.
I am loathed to say the meta prefix however.
douglasp
9 May 09 at 21:29
[...] JSON replacement! all of the above!). Douglas Purdy makes a valiant 4-part effort (1, 2, 3, 4) but it’s still not crisp enough for my small brain. Even David Chapell, explainer [...]
William Vambenepe’s blog » Blog Archive » With M (Oslo), is Microsoft on the path to reinventing RDF?
15 Jun 09 at 22:44