More clues on the Oslo/SCA/SML trail: it’s “D”

I just found out that I completly missed some interesting information about Oslo-related efforts at Microsoft. Back in February, Mary-Jo Foley reported on a new modeling language (code-name “D”, apparently) that is part of this initiative. And more recently she reported that David Chappell gave a presentation about Oslo (and more generally Microsoft’s SOA plans) at TechEd. He reportedly said that we should expect a new “schema language” (which Mary-Jo thinks is “D”). What I want to know is what its relationship is with SML/SDM and SCA.

Mary-Jo might not know about SCA and SML but I know that David does. He wrote this white paper about SCA and an article arguing that “Microsoft Should Not Support SCA” (based on an a questionable assessment that SCA is only about portability). He and I also had a little back-and-forth about SCA, SML and Microsoft in the comments section of his post. Unfortunately, David hasn’t blogged about Microsoft’s SOA strategy for a while for us non-TechEd people.

In addition to Mary-Jo’s report, the only information I was about to quickly dig out about David’s presentation is this blog post on Microsoft’s Israel site. Looks like David gave the same presentation at TechEd Israel 2008. Anyone who understands Hebrew cares to translate the blog? Fortunately there is a two-minutes video (also available here) in which we can hear David talk (in English). During the second of the two minutes you’ll hear and see something that could come straight out of a SCA presentation…

For some reason, David’s TechEd Israel presentation doesn’t seem to be listed here and TechEd online tells me that “Featured videos are unavailable at this time”. That’s both for IT Professionals and Developers. But of course they forced me to install Silverlight before telling me that.

[UPDATED 2008/8/11: Here is a 14 minutes video interview of David Chappell providing an update on Oslo.]


Filed under Application Mgmt, Automation, Conference, Desired State, Everything, IT Systems Mgmt, Mgmt integration, Microsoft, Modeling, Oslo, SCA, SML, Tech

3 Responses to More clues on the Oslo/SCA/SML trail: it’s “D”

  1. Hi Willian,

    Has I wrote the Hebrew stuff which is hard to read by some :-) see below the English base of it.
    Here are links to the PPT, WMV and WebCast of David’s Presentation I found on the Microsoft Israel Blogs.
    I am not translating the post due to the fact that David explains himself better then I do.

    WMV: mms://


    More presentation David (and others) gave at TechEd Israel 2008 (in English):

    Try this link too:


  2. Some responses, William:
    – As far as I know, Microsoft hasn’t said anything publicly about how Oslo’s new schema language relates to SML. I don’t speak for them anyway, so all I can do is give my personal perspective, which is this: Even though the Oslo schema language isn’t the same as SML, I could imagine that it might be possible to surface information defined in this language as SML. I could also imagine that this might make sense for some of what’s defined in the Oslo repository. Will Microsoft actually do this? I really don’t know.
    – How Oslo compares with SCA is something I’m also really interested in. Oslo is a much bigger and broader effort, covering lots more terrain than SCA, but some aspects of Oslo might be analogous to SCA composites. The Oslo repository’s schema for application, for instance, can describe a composite application, including references to services provided by other software (e.g., an SAP or Oracle application). A more detailed comparison will have to wait until at least Microsoft’s Professional Developer’s Conference this fall, when they tell us that lots more detail will be made public.
    – The SCA standards really are about portability only, not interoperability. The specs make this clear, but to be sure, I discussed this point with several of the orginal creators of SCA, all of whom agreed. Since SCA defines no new wire protocols at all, how could it possibly define anything new for interoperability? As with the Java EE specs, there’s plenty of potential value in portability–having this focus is entirely reasonable.

    Also, my talk at TechEd Israel was completely different from the Oslo talk at TechEd US. The US talk was the first time that a good chunk of this Oslo information was made public, and so I couldn’t say any of it in the earlier presentation in Israel.

  3. Thanks a lot for the pointers Tal. I’ll check them out on Sunday. Even though David clarified in the comment that follows yours that the Israel presentation doesn’t have the same content as the US TechEd talk.

    And thank you David too for the clarifications and opinions. WRT to SCA interop vs. portability I fully agree that it doesn’t provide any interop. But these are not the only two dimensions. From a systems management perspective SCA is interesting not because it lets the same composite app be deployed on different platforms but because it provides a comprehensive model of dependencies, policies, etc…