It would be nice to have a common name for that broader vision, now that the name Oslo is being retired. It’s not that SQL Server Modeling is a bad name in and of itself, for what it does — but that name can’t carry the banner for what has been and will continue to be the Oslo vision. No one knows what to call it now.

It my job to make the value of SQL Server/SQL Azure (the broader data platform) important and meaningful to developers.

That is an uphill journey, but I am committed to getting to the top.

Could you tell me if the DSL functionality that we have in our CTP meet your needs?

If not, what do we need to add in terms of features?

You could watch http://microsoftpdc.com/Sessions/FT34 and tell us if we are missing something you need.

.Net developers >>>>>> SQL Server Developer.

Once you tag “SQL Server” in a technology, the number of people that pay attention to it shrinks dramatically.

You must have read the common reactions around the web to the decisions and I bet people are mostly disappointed. That must count for something.

Now that M is relegated to SQL Server, I am waiting what the C# thing is doing with C# 5.0. I heard rumors that they are working having C# compiler as services. They might be finally solve the desire for DSL toolkit in the .Net developer space.

The .NET Framework is not a platform, it is a development framework for our products, such as Windows, Office, SQL Server, etc.

We had a decision to make on what product we were going to ship our modeling technologies in — Windows, SQL Server, Office, etc.

We selected SQL Server as it is most aligned placed to do it and it used by most of the other products.

That doesn’t mean that is the only place that we are going to ship it — but it is certain where folks are going to see it first.

Doug, do you guys understand anything about software architecture?

You had the choice to embed SQL Server in a modeling platform or embed a modeling platform in SQL Server. There is an obvious rationale for the later, right?

I have a suggestion for a new concept that you could try to push: “Heap-Oriented Architecture”. It seems to be a perfect fit for your product “stack” .

As I have said previously, SQL Server and lots of our other products provide .NET and VS programmability. Windows does this. SharePoint does this. The list goes on and one.

Just because something ships with SQL Server, does not mean that it is not part of the .NET Framework or available with VS.

As for the licence, we are still working through all that — but we know that broad availablity of developer technologies is important.

I find it interesting that not a single person has cared if we required a Windows or VS licence to use these technologies — which I find strangely ironic — particularly as I know what licencing options are available and the way that most developers get licences to our software.

To add to that, when I say “SQL Server” — I am including “SQL Azure” in that platform — and that further changes the licensing conversation.

Net: If you are worried about licences, I think you are focused on the wrong thing. I encourage folks to get a lot more focused on value these technologies can bring. If you don’t see any value in what we are delivering, regardless of the name & imagined licencing scenarios, I would be a lot more worried.

Lastly, every single one of these comments give me more data in a series of conversations we are having around the name we use for the data/information platform, so I welcome the feedback.

“I know it is hard for some people to hear the name “SQL Server” and think anything more than “relational engine”, but it is so much more.”

In the next sentence you call “SQL Server” a brand. Have you listened at all to what people outside the company are telling you? To so many of them the SQL Server ‘brand’ is the “relational engine”. How long do you think it will be, and how much effort do you think it will take, to transform the actual, real-world brand recognition to what you claim it should be? 5 years? 10 years? Do you have any practical plan to do this? Is it something the SQL Server team is investing in? In any case, why do you want to change people’s perception of the brand after so many years? What advantage will it be to you, let alone your customers?

I always believed there were three important constituencies that needed to ‘get’ Oslo for it to be widely accepted. a) ISVs. b) the general development community. c) Microsoft product teams.

So let’s look at what you say and how it applies here…

ISVs? You say “Most ISVs that we talk with are already “model-driven” using either a database or XML files, but they effectively roll their own modeling platform. SQL Modeling provides modeling capabilities that these ISVs can leverage, just like Microsoft “ISVs” are doing today” OK. So, many, many ISVs support the SQL Server database to store and manage data. A smaller number use Analysis Services to store and manage aggregated data. But how many build their products over SQL Server Reporting Services? How many use SQL Server’s analytics models? How many built their products on SQL Server Notification Services before it was pulled. How many built their products on the SQL Server Metadata Repository before that was pulled? How many do you think will build their products on SQL Server Modeling before that is pulled? The SQL Server ‘brand’ has history.

My prediction? You won’t find much interest in the ISV community.

Let’s move on. The .NET development community. They want tools and technologies that make their lives easier. They want the technologies to be ‘part of the platform’, which for them is NOT SQL Server, but rather .NET running on Windows. They want the tools to just be there in Visual Studio. You say ““M” is a language for data – and we ship our implementation language with the Microsoft data offering – which for better or worst, we call SQL Server.” This seems to confirm our worst fears. Yes, you really do foresee that ‘M’ will be tied to the SQL Server license.

My prediction? Developers won’t touch this now.

One constituency to go. Microsoft internal product teams. Frankly I couldn’t care less what internal technologies your product teams use to implement their technologies. That is a matter for them and not for me. I’m a customer (obviously not one of the ones you ‘listened to’, though) and I only care about what they ship. I note that Oslo hasn’t made any obvious impact on the DSL story in Visual Studio, and I also observe your obvious relief at finding some home for yourselves in Microsoft which suggests that you have been struggling with this for some time. Is anyone in Microsoft, beyond your immediate team, really interested in Oslo? I hope so, but I’m not confident.

My prediction? At best, a couple of teams may use Oslo to implement some functionality.

I was so excited by the Oslo vision a year ago. This is me now signing OFF. Best of luck for the future.

This time my goal isn’t to be amoung the first critizising micrsoft, but rater have the highest quality content.

I think “ignore SQL in it and get the bits” is a good advice to the DSL/MDD commnity reading this blog.

And by the time you have a better name, we’re all happy and Oslo will receive the Nobel award in Oslo for bringing peace to the world.