POSC September Business Forum Meeting Notes

D3 Board POSC / PPDM Committee Report; Bertrand du Castel, Schlumberger


  • Summary: Bertrand reviewed the history of joint work between POSC and PPDM, the formation of a POSC Board Committee, and the recent meetings between the committee and representatives of the PPDM Board. He described these meetings as being useful and said that contacts will continue until the committee and PPDM agree on proposals for future collaboration or consolidation. Bertrand observed that it is not good for the E&P industry to have multiple organizations working on data models. He said that a large range of options was being considered and that some of these had far-reaching conseqences.
  • At the June POSC Board meeting, it was agreed for form a committee to meet with a PPDM board-level group to establish a relationship. The members of the POSC Board committee are: Larry Belomy, chair (Mobil), Malcolm Paterson (Chevron), Jim Downing (Landmark), and Bertrand du Castel (Schlumberger). The members of the PPDM group are: Mary Kai Manson (Chevron Canada, representing PPDM), Dave Fisher (Shell Canada, PPDM Board chairman), Pete Stark (PI), and Doug Benson (Oracle).
  • The POSC Board committee has had three meetings: July with the PPDM group in Denver, August 19 with the POSC staff in Houston, and August 22 with the PPDM group in Calgary. The committee reported to the September 3rd POSC Board meeting.
  • The theme of the July meeting was to establish a relationship and to begin to mend the effects of prior difficulties. Each group described the other group's organization. The committee recognized the focus of PPDM, its ability to deliver, and the scope of use of its work products. The PPDM group recognized POSC's strong world-wide presence and extended perspective. POSC's work was identified with logical data modeling and access as a driving force in the context of delivering specifications for the full E&P life cycle. PPDM's work was identified with relational DBMS data modeling. The PPDM group wanted the committee to understand that PPDM's pragmatic, relational DBMS implementation approach is a historical artifact. PPDM recognizes that the world is changing, e.g. to adopt object technology, and this must be taken into account.
  • In the August 19th meeting with the POSC staff, there was agreement on the common language of understanding established at the July meeting.
  • In the August 22nd meeting with the PPDM group, there was an attempt to understand how to implement a collaborative relationship. A common vision was established. The goal under discussion was to establish a standard, relational projection of Epicentre. This was discussed as a goal, but was not an expectation for the very near future. It was understood as a bold objective. An objective that would see a single logical data model, a relational projection-based physical implementation and physical isolation for application programs through the Data Access and Exchange (DAE) application programming interface (API).
  • Discussion of how to implement the goal was difficult. There are large differences between POSC and PPDM in size and funding level. There was a lot of brainstorming. A key element may be to recognize the value of the experience so far of Project Discovery. That project is working toward a relational projection of Epicentre that is widely accepted by application vendors. The project work is concentrated now in the seismic acquisition area. It is intended to use the results in commercial products in 1997.
  • In the report to the Board, there was discussion of POSC's continued concentration on logical data model specification and PPDM's role to establish a relational projection of Epicentre. The committee intends to keep working. The next meeting with the PPDM group will be in a few weeks in Austin.
  • Questions and Answers

  • Response to question asking how Project Discovery relates to the committee's work:
  • David Roper observed that two separate organizations with one focused on a logical data model and the other focused on physical implementation would not be good. He advised that the memberships of the two organizations must come together. Bertrand acknowledged that the committees had discussed these issues, but had not come to any agreement yet.
  • Tom Gulman asked where PPDM sees themselves going. Bertrand explained that PPDM sees themselves as continuing to do technical work. PPDM has no management decision-making structure. Bertrand added that the oil industry in Canada has changed and that this may allow PPDM members and POSC members to find common ground.

    Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996 Petrotechnical Open Software Corporation. All rights reserved.

    Send questions and comments to webmaster@posc.org