ODBMS Industry Watch » ODBTWG http://www.odbms.org/blog Trends and Information on Big Data, New Data Management Technologies, Data Science and Innovation. Sun, 02 Apr 2017 17:59:10 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.13 ODBMS.ORG Useful Links http://www.odbms.org/blog/2009/02/odbmsorg-useful-links/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2009/02/odbmsorg-useful-links/#comments Mon, 09 Feb 2009 04:14:00 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/odbmsblog/2009/02/09/odbms-org-useful-links/ Since we started up in September 2005, ODBMS.ORG has grown quite a bit. A lot of free resources have been added in the course of the years.

I thought it could be useful to give you a few links to easy your search for useful resources….

Here we are:

If you are interested in Lecture Notes:
Object Databases – Lecture Notes

OO Programming – Lecture Notes

Database in General Lecture notes

If you are interested in testing some vendors software and/or download some free software:
Object Databases – Free Software

OO Programming – Free Software

If you are interested in standards, and in the Object Data Management Group -Past Resources in particular:
Object Data Management Group -Past Resources (ODMG Version 1-3)

If you would like to read user reports on how persistent objects are handled in various domains.

If you are interested in dedicated articles from ODBMS.ORG’s Panel of Experts

And plenty more of Articles and Papers on Object Databases

If you are looking to know more about Commercial and Open Source Object Database Vendors

Last but least if you are looking for books

Hope it helps….

RVZ

]]>
http://www.odbms.org/blog/2009/02/odbmsorg-useful-links/feed/ 0
OMG ODBTWG next steps http://www.odbms.org/blog/2008/12/omg-odbtwg-next-steps/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2008/12/omg-odbtwg-next-steps/#comments Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:23:00 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/odbmsblog/2008/12/16/omg-odbtwg-next-steps/ This is a short note related to the OMG ODBTWG meeting, on December 9, 2008.

During the meeting there was a consensus that the OMG’s Semantic Meta Object Facility (“semantic MOF” or “S-MOF”) would be a good place to start for the object model in the Object Database Standard RFP.

Mike Card is planning to publish a rough draft of an OMG RFP for the new database standard in advance of the March 2009 OMG meeting in Washington DC.

RFP stands for Request for Proposals; the OMG technology adoptions revolve around the RFP.
More info on the OMG Technology Adoption Process.

]]>
http://www.odbms.org/blog/2008/12/omg-odbtwg-next-steps/feed/ 0
LINQ: the best option for a future Java query API? http://www.odbms.org/blog/2008/10/is-really-linq-best-option-for-future/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2008/10/is-really-linq-best-option-for-future/#comments Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:49:00 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/odbmsblog/2008/10/07/linq-the-best-option-for-a-future-java-query-api/ My interview to Mike Card has triggered an intense discussion (still ongoing), on the pros and cons of considering LINQ as the best option for a future Java query API.

There is a consensus that a common query mechanism for odbms is needed.

However, there is quite a disagreement on how this should be done. In particular, some see LINQ as a solution, provided that LINQ is also available for Java. Others on the contrary do not like LINQ, but would rather prefer a vendor neutral solution, for example based on SBQL.

You can follow the discussion here.

I have listed here some useful resources I published in ODBMS.ORG – related to this discussion:

Erik Meijer, José Blakeley
The Microsoft perspective on ORM
An Interview in ACM Queue Magazine with Erik Meijer and José Blakeley. With LINQ (language-integrated query) and the Entity Framework, Microsoft divided its traditional ORM technology into two parts: one part that handles querying (LINQ) and one part that handles mapping (Entity Framework).| September 2008 |

Panel Discussion “ODBMS: Quo Vadis?
Panel discussion with Mike Card, Jim Paterson, and Kazimierz Subieta, on their views on on some critical questions related to Object Databases: Where are Object Database Systems going? Are Relational database systems becoming Object Databases?
Do we need a standard for Object Databases? Why ODMG did not succeed?

Java Object Persistence: State of the Union PART II
Panel discussion with Jose Blakeley (Microsoft), Rick Cattell (Sun Microsystems), William Cook (University of Texas at Austin), Robert Greene (Versant), and Alan Santos (Progress). The panel addressed the ever open issue of the impedance mismatch.

Java Object Persistence: State of the Union PART I
Panel discussion with Mike Keith: EJB co-spec lead, main architect of Oracle Toplink ORM, Ted Neward: Independent consultant, often blogging on ORM and persistence topics, Carl Rosenberger: lead architect of db4objects, open source embeddable object database. Craig Russell: Spec lead of Java Data Objects (JDO) JSR, architect of entity bean engine in Sun’s appservers prior to Glassfish, on their views on the current State of the Union of object persistence with respect to Java.

Stack-Based Approach (SBA) and Stack-Based Query Language (SBQL)
Kazimierz Subieta, Polish-Japanese Institute of Information Technology
Introduction to object-oriented concepts in programming languages and databases, SBA and SBQL

The Object-Relational Impedance Mismatch
Scott Ambler, IBM. Scott explores the technical and the cultural impedance mismatch between the relational and the object world.

ORM Smackdown – Transcript
Ted Neward, Oren “Ayende” Eini. Transcripts of the Panel discussion “ORM Smackdown” on different viewpoints on Object-Relational Mapping (ORM) systems, courtesy of FranklinsNet.

OOPSLA Panel Objects and Databases
William Cook et.al. Transcript of a high ranking panel on objects and databases at the OOPSLA conference 2006, with representatives from BEA, db4objects, GemStone, Microsoft, Progress, Sun, and Versant.

]]>
http://www.odbms.org/blog/2008/10/is-really-linq-best-option-for-future/feed/ 0
LINQ is the best option for a future Java query API http://www.odbms.org/blog/2008/08/linq-is-best-option-for-future-java/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2008/08/linq-is-best-option-for-future-java/#comments Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:26:00 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/odbmsblog/2008/08/27/linq-is-the-best-option-for-a-future-java-query-api/ A conversation with Mike Card.

I have interviewed Mike Card on the latest development of the OMG working group which aims at defining a new standards for Object Database Systems.

Mike works with Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC) and is involved in object databases and their application to challenging problems, including pattern recognition. He chairs the ODBT group in OMG to advance object database standardization.

R. Zicari: Mike, you recently chaired an OMG ODBTWG meeting, on June 24, 2008 What kind of synergy do you see outside OMG in relation to your work?

Mike Card: We think it is likely that the OMG would need to participate in the Java Community Process (JCP) in order to write a Java Specification Request (JSR) to add LINQ functionality to Java.

R. Zicari: There has been a lot of discussion lately on the merit of SBQL vs. LINQ as a possible query API standard for object databases . Did you discuss this issue at the meeting?

M. Card: I began the technical part of our meeting by reviewing Professor Subieta’s comparison of SBQL and LINQ. It was my understanding from this comparison that LINQ was technically capable of performing any query that could be performed by SBQL, and I wanted to know if the participants saw this the same way. They agreed in general, and believed that even if LINQ were only able to do 90% of what SBQL could do in terms of data retrieval that it would still be the way to go.

R. Zicari: Could you please go a bit more in detail on this?

M. Card: Sure. At the meeting it was pointed out that Prof. Subieta had noted in his comparison that he had not shown queries using features that are not a part of LINQ, such as fixed-point arithmetic, numeric ranges, etc.

These are language features that would be familiar to users of Ada but which are not found in languages like C++, C#, and Java so they would likely not be missed and would be considered esoteric.

It was also pointed out that the query examples chosen by Prof. Subieta in his comparison were all “projections” (relational term meaning a query or operation that produces as its output table a subset of the input table, usually containing only some of the input table’s columns).

A query like this by definition will rely on iteration, and this will show the inherent expressive power of SBQL since the abstract machine contains a stack that can be used to do the iteration processing and thus avoid the loops, variables, etc. needed by SQL/LINQ.

R. Zicari: Did you agree on a common direction for your work in the group?

M. Card: The consensus at this meeting and at ICOODB conference in Berlin was that LINQ was the best option for a future Java query API since it already had broad support in the .Net community. We will have to choose a new name for the OMG-Java effort, however, as LINQ is trademarked by Microsoft.

It was also agreed that the query language need not include object update capability, as object updates were generally handled by object method invocations and not from within query expressions.

Now, since LINQ allows method invocations as part of navigation (e.g. “my_object.getBoss().getName()”) it is entirely possible that these method calls could have side effects that update the target objects, perhaps in such a way that the changes would not get saved to the database.

This was recognized as a problem, ideas kicked around for how to solve it included source code analysis tools.
This is something we will need a good answer for as it is a potential “open manhole cover” if we intend the LINQ API to be read-only and not capable of updating the database (especially unintentionally!)

R. Zicari: What else did you address at the meeting?

Mike Card: The discussion then moved on to a list of items included Carl Rosenberger’s ICOODB presentation.
Other items were also reviewed from an e-mail thread in the ODBMS.ORG forumthat included comments from both Prof. Subieta and Prof. William Cook.

The areas discussed were broken down into 3 groups:
i) those things there was consensus on for standardization,
ii) those things that needed more discussion/participation by a larger group, and
iii) those things that there was consensus on for exclusion from standardization.

R. Zicari: What are the areas you agree to standardize?

Mike Card: The areas we agree to standardize are:

1. object lifecycle (in memory): What happens at object creation/deletion, “attached” and “detached” objects, what happens during a database transaction (activation and de-activation), etc. It is desirable that we base our efforts in this area on what has already been done in existing standards for Java such as JDO, JPA, OMG, et. al. This interacts with the concurrency control mechanism for the database engine, may need to refer to Bernstein et. al. for serialization theory / CC algorithms.

2. object identification: A participant raised a concern here RE: re-use of OID where the OID is implemented as a physical pointer and memory is re-cycled resulting in re-use of an OID, which can corrupt some applications. He favored a standard requiring all OIDs to be unique and not re-used

3. session:: what are the definition and semantics of a session?
a. Concurrency control: again, we should refer to Bernstein et. al. for proven algorithms and mathematical definitions in lieu of ACID criteria (ACA: Avoidance of Cascading Aborts, ST: Strict, SR: Serializable, RC: Recoverable for characterizing transaction execution sequences)
b. Transactions: semantics/behavior and span/scope

4. Object model: what OM will we base our work upon?

5. Native language APIs: how will we define these? Will they be based on the Java APIs in ODMG 3.0, or will they be different? Will they be interfaces?

6. Conformance test suite: we will need one of these for each OO language we intend to define a standard for. The test suite, however, is not the definition of the standard; the definition must exist in the specification.

7. Error behavior: exception definitions etc.

R. Zicari: What are the areas where no agreement was (yet) found?

Mike Card: Areas we need to find agreement on are:

1. keys and indices: how do you sort objects? How do you define compound keys or spatial keys? Uniqueness constraints? Can this be handled by annotation, with the annotation being standardized but the implementation being vendor-specific? This interacts with the query mechanism, e.g. availability of an index could be checked for by the query optimizer.

2. referential integrity: do we want to enforce this? Avoidance of dangling pointers, this interacts with object lifecycle/GC considerations.

3. cascaded delete: when you delete an object, do you also delete all objects that it references? It was pointed out that this has issues for a client/server model ODBMS like Versant because it may have to “push” out to clients that objects on the server have been deleted, so you have a distributed cache consistency problem to solve.

4. replication/synchronization: how much should we standardize the ability to keep a synchronized copy of part or all of an object database? Should the replication mechanism be interoperable with relational databases? Part or all of this capability could be included in an optional portion of the standard.

a. Backup:
this is a specialized form of replication, how much should this be standardized? Is the answer to this
question dependent upon the kind of environment (DBA or DBA-less/embedded) that the ODBMS is operating in?

5. events/triggers: do we want to standardize certain kinds of activity (callbacks et. al.) when certain database operations occur?

6. update within query facility: this is a recognition of the limitations of LINQ, which does not support object update it is “read-only.” Generally, object updates and deletes are performed by method invocations in a program and not by query statements.
The question is, since LINQ allows method invocations as part of navigation, e.g. “my_employee_obj.getBoss().getName(),” is it possible in cases like this that such method calls could have side effects which update the object(s) in the navigation statement? If so, what should be done?

7. extents: do we expose APIs for extents to the user?

8. support for C++: how will we support C++/legacy languages for which a LINQ-like facility is not available? We could investigate string-based QL like OQL and/or we could use a facility similar to Cook/db4o “native queries”

R. Zicari: And what are the areas you definitely do not want to standardize?

Mike Card: Areas we do not want to standardize are:

1. garbage collection: issue here is behavioral differences between “embedded” (linked-in) OODBMS vs. client/server OODBMS

2. stored procedures/functions/views: these are relational/SQL concepts that are not necessarily applicable to object-oriented programming languages which are the purview of object databases.

R. Zicari: How will you ensure that the vendor community will support this proposal?

Mike Card: We plan on discussing this list and verify that others not present agree with the grouping of these items. We should also figure out what we want to do with the items in the “middle” group and then begin prioritizing these things. It appears likely that a next-generation ODBMS standard will follow a “dual-track” model in that the query mechanism (at least for Java) will be developed as a JSR within the JCP, while all of the other items will be developed within the OMG process.

For C# (assuming C# is a language we will want an ODBMS standard for, and I think it is), the query API will be built into the language via LINQ and we will need to address all of the “other” issues within our OMG effort just as with Java. In the case of C# and Java, most of these issues can probably be dealt with in the same manner.

How much interest there is in a C++ standardization effort is unclear, this is an area we will need to discuss further.
A LINQ-like facility for C++ is not an option since unlike C# and Java there is no central maintenance point for C++ compilers.

There is an ISO WG that maintains the C++ standard, but C++ “culture” accepts non-conformant compilers so there are many C++ compilers out there that only conform to part of the ISO standard.

The developers present who work with C++ mentioned that their C++ code base must be “tweaked” to work with various compilers as a given set of C++ code might compile fine with 7 compilers but fail with the compiler from vendor number 8.
In general, the maintenance of C++ is more difficult than for Java and C# due to inconsistency in compiler implementation and this complicates anything we want to do with something as complex as object persistence.
##

Some Useful Resources:
Panel Discussion “ODBMS: Quo Vadis?

Java Object Persistence: State of the Union PART II

Java Object Persistence: State of the Union PART I

]]>
http://www.odbms.org/blog/2008/08/linq-is-best-option-for-future-java/feed/ 72
News from the OMG Object Database Technology Users and Vendors http://www.odbms.org/blog/2008/02/news-from-omg-object-database/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2008/02/news-from-omg-object-database/#comments Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:33:00 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/odbmsblog/2008/02/06/news-from-the-omg-object-database-technology-users-and-vendors/ I have received some information from Mrs. Charlotte W. Wales (The MITRE Corporation) related to the OMG Object Database Technology Users and Vendors Roundtable, which took place on 11 December 2007 at the OMG meeting in Burlingame, CA. I have listed it below as I have received it.

——————————————————————————–

News from OMG Object Database Technology Users and Vendors Roundtable, 11 December 2007

All the hard work that went into preparation of the Next Generation Object Database Standardization White Paper, augmented by the publicity received here at the ODBMS.ORG Portal (in the Forum), resulted in a successful Users and Vendors Users and Vendors Roundtable at the OMG meeting last December in Burlingame, CA. The meeting attendance of 14 was a healthy mixture of users and vendors representing Objectivity, Versant, Gemstone, db4Objects, and Fujitsu (used to market Jasmine) Tibco, Progeny, Boeing, TUMunich, Kangwon Univ (Korea), PJI, Syracuse Research, and MITRE.

After a welcome and introductions conducted by Char Wales (MITRE), Mike Card (Syracuse Research), calling in from his sickbed in New York, introduced the Next Generation Object Database Standardization effort, providing important historical and technical background including his role in the ODMG.

Prof K. Subieta (PJIT) then gave a presentation on his Stack Based Approach to Object Databases. Anat Ghafni (db4Objects) presented and summarized the high points of the sometimes lively discussions that appeared in the ODBMS Forum in response to the White Paper. These presentations laid an excellent groundwork for discussions during the ensuing Roundtable, moderated by Mike Card and Char Wales, which fulfilled the Roundtable’s “Objectives” – a completely open Forum, with nothing off limits.

The conclusion of the Roundtable was an agreement to work on a Roadmap for achieving the goal of an adopted Next Generation Object Database Standard with vendor implementations by 2009. Facilitated by teleconferences – the plan is to have an initial version of this Roadmap ready in time to present at the ICOODB 2008 ICOODB 2008 conference in Berlin and at the OMG Technical Committee meeting in Washington, DC, both scheduled for the same week in March 2008. If things proceed well, it is hoped that an RFP will be ready for issuance by June 2008, and – with luck – initial
submissions ready for review by the end of this year.

For the benefit of those who have not been part of this “from the beginning”, a recap of a few of the significant events within OMG leading to the Roundtable last December is in order:

-Sep 03: 1st Object Database Working Group meeting; idea of improving existing ODMG3.0 standard introduced.

-Nov 03, Apr ’04: “Socialization” of this idea within OMG.

-May 04: Morgan-Kauffman grants OMG the right “to publish, revise, disseminate and use original and revised versions of the Standard as an OMG specification (the “Specification”)” subject to limitations detailed in letter to OMG.

-Sep 05: ODBMS.ORG portal launched.

-Dec 06: Decision to expand scope to Object Database Technology (including modeling and mappings between object and relational).

-Feb 06: Object Database Technology Request for Information (RFI) Issued.

-Jun 06: Report summarizing 11 RFI responses identified three ways forward.

-Sep 07: Next-Generation Object Database Standardization White Paper issued.

Charlotte W. Wales

]]>
http://www.odbms.org/blog/2008/02/news-from-omg-object-database/feed/ 0
What Standards for Object Databases? http://www.odbms.org/blog/2007/12/what-standards-for-object-databases/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2007/12/what-standards-for-object-databases/#comments Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:56:00 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/odbmsblog/2007/12/19/what-standards-for-object-databases/ I thought it would be interested to give you an insight of the discussion currently going on at ODBMS.ORG. The issue is what Standards for Object Databases?
Here are two notes, one from Wiliam Cook and one from Mike Card.

A copy of the OMG white paper on Next-Generation Object Database Standardization written by the OMG`s Object Database Technology Working Group, can be download here Next-Generation Object Database Standardization

Roberto V. Zicari
————–

Hi everybody.
I’m sorry that I was not able to attend the meeting on Dec 12. I hope that someone can post some information on it. I think it is great that these topics are being discussed, but I also have some significant disagrements with points being made here.

My biggest issue is that I don’t agree with the premise of the OMG RFI and Prof. Subieta’s response. The premise is that the problem is “the underlying lack of a set of precise definitions and semantics that has plagued ODMSs for years” [mpcard]. The assumption here is that people didn’t use object databases because OODBs didn’t have a solid theory like relational algebra. I do not believe that was the reason. I think the reason was that (1) most of the original OODBs systems didn’t support query optimization or transactions (2) they had difficulty externalizing their data in a way that could be evolved and used by other tools (3) when the did introduce query languages, they were subject to the same impedence mismatch as relational systems.

I think that Impedence mismatch is a language problem not a data problem. Relational data maps very well to traditional data structures in C, Pascal, or any other programming language: just create an array of records. Relational data maps fairly well to objects too, especially since you can represent relationships easily. The impedence mismatch comes from the need to partition a program into two parts: a query that is sent to the database, and a client program that uses the query results. Previously this partitioning was done by putting the query into a string, which causes all sorts of problems. Native Queries and LINQ are two more modern and effective ways to partition a program into a query and a client, so that the semantic connections between them are preserved. Prof. Subieta’s proposal does not address this problem, as far as I can tell.

As for data models, I think that Entity-Relationship models, UML class diagrams, and Subieta’s models are all essentially equivalent. They have the concept of records of attributes connected by relationships. The relational model also has ses of records, but the relationships are not explicit in the data model, but must be specified on each join operation. You can argue over fine points of inheritance and such things, but these are small points compared to the basic similarities of the models. It is not fair to compare any of these models to the network model, which as far as I can tell was a hack on top of the hierarchical data model. It is asuming that hierarchical data models have had a resurgence under the name XML; these are very useful for data transmission but are not a suitable foundation for a database.

As for query languages, I don’t think that the stack-based query language has anything fundament to offer over OQL. It is like saying that an HP calculator with postfix notation has a more solid theoretical model than a standard calcular that uses infix. I also want to point out that the core of OQL is not really object-oriented, becuase it does not deal with methods. It is just a great query language for ER data models. The key point is “entities and relationships” and that is what OQL was designed for and is good at. I do not agree that OQL is inconsistent. Suad pointed out some difficulties with the Java binding, and perhaps there are some other small problems with the way the standard was defined. But rather than fix these small issues, he claimed that the entire system is inconsistent.
See here for an alternative and more balanced view. I think that Prof. Subieta’s query syntax is perfectly reasonable as well. But it is not a fundamental advance, as far as I can tell.

NOTE: Native Queries are not propretary; they were described by one of my students and me in an ECOOP paper and then implemented by db4objects. They have been implemented by others as well, although not in any commercial systems. They are also similar to Microsoft’s LINQ in some ways.

So, to summarize. I think that OMQ is again trying to solve the wrong problem. I sent in a response to the RFI; and yes, it wasn’t what you wanted to hear. But I’m going to keep saying it.

The problem is not a lack of a grand unifying theory. There is plenty of theory to cover ER models, OQL, and other traditional ideas. The disucssions you are having don’t deal with impedence mismatch, which can happen even with an object-oriented language accessing an object-oriented database using OQL! If you put OQL into a string, then you are going to have impedence, and nothing about the formality of the data model or query language is going to fix it. The real problems are impedence mismatch, good query optimization, solid transaction support, evolution of data, and scalability to multiple servers. These are things that OODB vendors didn’t address until it was too late. They thought that objects alone would magically make everthing work well. But.. they don’t.

I’m sorry to be so negative about this, but I really think that there is an opportunity to improve the DB/PL interface.

Wiliam Cook
Assistant Professor
Department of Computer Sciences
University of Texas at Austin

————–
Hello Prof. Cook-

You wrote:

“My biggest issue is that I don’t agree with the premise of the OMG RFI and Prof. Subieta’s response. The premise is that the problem is “the underlying lack of a set of precise definitions and semantics that has plagued ODMSs for years” [mpcard]. The assumption here is that people didn’t use object databases because OODBs didn’t have a solid theory like relational algebra. I do not believe that was the reason. I think the reason was that (1) most of the original OODBs systems didn’t support query optimization or transactions (2) they had difficulty externalizing their data in a way that could be evolved and used by other tools (3) when the did introduce query languages, they were subject to the same impedence mismatch as relational systems.”

I don’t think the RFI itself had a “premise,” at least that I am aware of. Regarding your 3 reasons why ODBMSs were not widely adopted, I would argue that you could trace all 3 of these issues to the lack of a good underlying object model and set of definitions and semantics. I cannot see how you think the “impedance mismatch” or DB/PL interface issue will be solved without laying a good theoretical foundation.

“The problem is not a lack of a grand unifying theory. There is plenty of theory to cover ER models, OQL, and other traditional ideas. The disucssions you are having don’t deal with impedence mismatch, which can happen even with an object-oriented language accessing an object-oriented database using OQL! If you put OQL into a string, then you are going to have impedence, and nothing about the formality of the data model or query language is going to fix it.”

Sure, but no one has ever tried to tie object definition/store models all the way up to a QL, defined with an abstract query processor, like Prof. Subieta has (at least as far as I have read). It is true that the formality of the data model won’t solve the “impedance mismatch” between a query string and a native PL,
but again this falls into the area of further work we have to do. Everyone thinks they have the best way to do this: everyone in ODMG thought their APIs were best and their way was best, and that a formal set of definitions, semantics, and object models was unnecessary because in the end developers just need to write code. That’s why ODMG chapter 2 was so weak and why there were so many “holes” in the ODMG specification: we were trying to write something that would cover several existing products without requiring anyone to make significant code changes. Users didn’t care about the standard because it did not guarantee application code (or even data) portability, so what did it matter? There was no conformance test suite, so you couldn’t even say for sure who was conformant to what.

“The real problems are impedence mismatch, good query optimization, solid transaction support, evolution of data, and scalability to multiple servers. These are things that OODB vendors didn’t address until it was too late. They thought that objects alone would magically make everthing work well. But.. they don’t.”

Yes these are real problems but I would argue that solving them will require a common theoretical foundation from which to build. I guess we’ll see if there is consensus on that view or not at next month’s ODBTWG telecon.

Mike Card
Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC)

]]>
http://www.odbms.org/blog/2007/12/what-standards-for-object-databases/feed/ 1
Tuesday, December 12, OMG Object Database Technology Users and Vendors Roundtable http://www.odbms.org/blog/2007/12/tuesday-december-12-omg-object-database/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2007/12/tuesday-december-12-omg-object-database/#comments Mon, 03 Dec 2007 03:42:00 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/odbmsblog/2007/12/03/tuesday-december-12-omg-object-database-technology-users-and-vendors-roundtable/ For those of you interested in standards, here is an event you may want to consider attending, the:

Object Database Technology Users and Vendors Roundtable
on Tuesday, December 12, 2007 08:00-12:00 am, part of the
OMG Technical Meeting in Burlingame, CA

The Meeting is Sponsored by the OMG Middleware and Related Services Platform Task Force (MARS)

The Committee is composed of Michael Card Char Wales Anat Ghafni and Kazimierz Subieta.

I copy here the Objective of the meeting, as written by the above Commitee:

“Gather together vendors in and users of Object Database Technology in order to learn and share their opinions on the work performed so far by the OMG Object Database Technology Working Group (ODBTWG).

Working from the responses to the Request for Information (RFI) issued in February 2006, the WG has been investigating the research done by Prof. Kazimierz Subieta of the Polish Japanese Institute for Information Technology (PJIT) in Warsaw, Poland. Prof. Subieta’s team has developed an approach called “Stack-Based Architecture (SBA)” for defining the contents of an object database, the semantics of an abstract stack-based query processor, and its associated query language (SBQL). The WG considers this work to represent the object equivalent of the relational calculus in that it provides a precisely-defined, semantically complete set of definitions of what objects are, how they are stored, and how they can be queried.

Looking ahead, we would like to consider basing any future object database standard on the SBA object model so that the language bindings, query languages, etc. that follow are well-defined, self-consistent, and complete. Doing this would address many of the criticisms leveled at the earlier ODMG standards (e.g,, ODMG 3.0).

The objective of this meeting is not only to explain how we think the principles of the SBA could be incorporated into a future object database standard but also to listen to the opinions of object database vendors and users regarding this idea. To that end, nothing will be off limits. Let this be a forum for open discussions on what future object database standards should or should not look like, open-source collaborative projects such as reference implementations or conformance test suites, trends in the object database marketplace, level of user interest in object database technology, etc. ”

And here is the agenda:

-8:00 – 8:15 Call to Order: Introductions and Agenda Char Wales

-8:15 – 8:30 Introduction to the Next Generation Object Database Standardization Effort Mike Card

-8:30 – 9:45 Keynote: “Object database semantics: the stack-based architecture” Prof . Kazimierz Subieta

– Break 9:45 – 10:00

-10:00 – 10:30 ODBMS Forum: Summary of Initial Reactions to White Paper Anat Ghafni

-10:30 – 11:30 Roundtable: Users and Vendors reactions, comments, discussions Mike Card – Facilitator

11:30 – 12:00 Moving Forward – Plan of Action Char Wales – Facilitator

If you are interested to attend, you would need to register here

]]>
http://www.odbms.org/blog/2007/12/tuesday-december-12-omg-object-database/feed/ 0
How the OMG technology process works http://www.odbms.org/blog/2007/11/how-the-omg-technology-process-works/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2007/11/how-the-omg-technology-process-works/#comments Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:03:00 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/odbmsblog/2007/11/20/how-the-omg-technology-process-works/ I was asked by a number of people how the OMG standardization process works.

I have found a link to a power point presentation which explains the essence of how the OMG technology process works
and it’s the official OMG word rather than just my interpretation of it.

Here’s the link to a Power Point presentation (as .pdf ) which does not require an OMG username/password to access: OMG Process

Char Wales explained me that the work they are doing in the Object DB technology WG fits into that structure.

]]>
http://www.odbms.org/blog/2007/11/how-the-omg-technology-process-works/feed/ 0
Object Database Technologies Users and Vendors Roundtable http://www.odbms.org/blog/2007/11/object-database-technologies-users-and/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2007/11/object-database-technologies-users-and/#comments Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:51:00 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/odbmsblog/2007/11/05/object-database-technologies-users-and-vendors-roundtable/ Here is an interesting information. As you may know, after a long period of no activity some work on standards for Object Database Systems resumed under the umbrella of the Object Management Group (OMG).

For those of you who are interested in standards, and willing to actively participate in such activites, here is an opportunity:

I have received this note from Mike Card:

“The OMG is hosting an Object Database Technologies Users and Vendors Roundtable in Burlingame, CA at the Hyatt Regency San Francisco Airport on Tuesday morning, December 11th 2007.

I will provide an update with the exact start time and the name of the ballroom/ conference room where the round-table will be held as the date gets closer.

The purpose of this meeting will be to get industry and user reaction to the work done so far by the OMG Object Database Technology Working Group (ODBTWG). Our group has been investigating the research done by
Prof. Kazimierz Subieta of the Polish Japanese Institute for Information Technology in Warsaw, Poland. Prof. Subieta’s team has come up with a so-called
Stack-Based Architecture (SBA) for defining the contents of an object database and the semantics of an abstract stack-based query processor and its associated query language (SBQL). Their work is the object equivalent of the relational calculus in that it provides a precisely-defined, semantically complete set of definitions of what objects are, how they are
stored and how they can be queried. We would like to base any future object database standard on the object model he has developed so that the language bindings, query languages, etc. that follow are well-defined, self-consistent, and complete. Doing this would address many of the criticisms leveled at the earlier ODMG standards.

The ODBTWG has prepared a white paper on our approach to future object database standardization and our incorporation of Prof. Subieta’s ideas which you can download from: ODBMS.ORG

Prof. Subieta will be in attendance at this meeting and we will have him give an overview and brief demonstration of his work, concrete implementations of which have been built for various EU projects.

We will then open the discussion up to all participants, we are especially eager to hear thoughts from object database vendors about Prof. Subieta’s ideas and to explain how we think his ideas could be incorporated into future object database standards. We would welcome discussions on what future object database standards should or should not look like, open-source collaborative projects such as reference implementations or conformance test suites, trends in the object database marketplace, etc. In short, we are seeking industry participation and nothing will be off-limits.

If you are interested to attend, there is a $150 registration fee for this event, to register please visit here

There should be a link there soon to register for this event.

Michael P. Card, Syracuse Research Corporation

]]>
http://www.odbms.org/blog/2007/11/object-database-technologies-users-and/feed/ 0
OMG White Paper on Next-Generation Object Database Standardization published! http://www.odbms.org/blog/2007/10/omg-white-paper-on-next-generation/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2007/10/omg-white-paper-on-next-generation/#comments Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:00:00 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/odbmsblog/2007/10/16/omg-white-paper-on-next-generation-object-database-standardization-published/ As I have anticipated, I have published in ODBMS.ORG a white paper on Next-Generation Object Database Standardization written by the OMG`s Object Database Technology Working Group.

It is a very interesting readings!

]]>
http://www.odbms.org/blog/2007/10/omg-white-paper-on-next-generation/feed/ 0