1. Please review the work plan presented in Section 4 of the evaluation report and contact Alan Doniger (doniger@posc.org) with suggestions of resources that may be suitable to help us carry out the planned tasks. Identifying and obtaining qualified resources for the project were identified in the Results Forum as key success factors.

2. Please contact Alan Doniger (doniger@posc.org) with the names of other projects (POSC-related or not) with which we should coordinate the tasks in the work plan. Another key success factor presented at the Results Forum is the coordination of work with other projects to avoid duplicate work, divergent results, or competition for resources.

3. Review the POSC 1999 Interoperability and Business Objects project proposals, available at this Web site. Please use the online "register interest" form and/or contact Alan Doniger (doniger@posc.org) with indications of interest in sponsoring and/or participating in these proposed projects. Please also contact Alan with suggestions for refining these proposals or for defining alternative projects related to the interoperability theme.

Thank you in advance for your responses to the requests above.

Q - Steve Trythall: What about funding for these interoperability projects?
A: For 1998, we have funding through the activity shown by the lower white bar, according to the current work plan. The activities represented by the other bars will require individual project funding.

Q - Ben Weltevrede: Looking at the relationship between the "Relevance" project and OpenSpirit, it will be helpful to look at how OpenSpirit is going.
A: Yes, it will be helpful to look at the relationship between this project and OpenSpirit, as well as any other implementations of the interoperability specifications.

Q - Gerard Huard: Why is Epicentre not in the Interoperability Group of specifications?
A: Epicentre and all of the other POSC specifications are referenced from the Base Computer Services. As a significant set of specifications, Epicentre is presented as a "group" of its own.

Q: Is Epicentre is missing from the Base Computer Services box on the diagram?
A: Yes, it should be there.

Q - Ben Weltevrede: What about the relationship with Microsoft distributed object technology?
A: Whenever we refer to the OMG and CORBA, we include "and equivalent Microsoft technology". The intention is to enable the use of Microsoft technology.

Q: In the top box, labeled "E&P Technical Applications", the shape could be a "ramp" to indicate increasing interoperability as the higher layers are used.
A: Yes, that is a good idea.

Q - Ben Weltevrede: What was meant by the statement that the IAC (the Interapplication Communication specification) may no longer be used at some future time?
A: The interoperability specifications will include event and messaging capabilities that may supercede the non-object IAC specification.

Other Questions

Q: It will be very important to publicize the compelling business reasons for using the results of the interoperability work.
A: Yes, you are correct.

Q: Ben Weltevrede: What are the manpower estimates?
A: The current work plan calls for 2 man-years of effort expended over 4-5 months.

Q: Ben Weltevrede: How does POSC plan to manage subject experts from outside POSC? Unless the scope is well defined, there is the possibility of too much brainstorming. New technology tends to need a lot of discussion.
A: That is a valid concern. It could be added as another key success factor for the project. It is important to keep the work on track.

Q: Ben Weltevrede: How can people (such as those involved with commercial projects) work with the staff to participate and interject information?
A: In the detailed work plan, Phases 1 and 2 call for workshops; guests may participate in the workshops.

Q - Ben Weltevrede: What about parametric data?
A: Desmond Vaughn-Pope: There is a mechanism for storing values with vertices. The values can be parametric, but the mechanism does not distinguish them as such. Interpolation is not addressed, and parametric representation is only partially addressed.

Q - Bill Quinlivan: What is the relationship between the Subsurface Interpretation domain work in this project and other projects like Shared Earth Model, RESCUE-2, etc?
A - Alan Doniger: We are now in a position to sort out the relationship between our work plan and that of other projects. Specifically, Dan Schenck and I are working out the relationship with the Shared Earth Model project. I understand that the relationship with OpenSpirit work will be a topic at the OpenSpirit meetings next week.

Q - Bill Quinlivan: There has been some follow-on work for Geoshare. Could we fold what this group is doing with "son of Geoshare" for exchange?
A - Alan Doniger: That is something we should consider.

Q - Ben Weltevrede: Would an object in Geoshare be the same as for interoperability?
A - Bill Quinlivan: The Geoshare objects are more for transport, but they are not fundamentally different. They are similar with respect to looking at Epicentre and making components.

Q - Neil McNaughton: Would you clarify the relationship between this project and OpenSpirit?
A - Alan Doniger: There is no formal relationship between the POSC Interoperability project and OpenSpirit. OpenSpirit has always been very supportive of the POSC project. The two projects share the goal of achieving a POSC specification that supports application interoperability using distributed object technology. POSC has a non-voting seat on the OpenSpirit's Project Steering Group and Design Authority Team.
Ben Weltevrede (comment): OpenSpirit will implement the POSC specifications. The implementation may be leading the standard, but OpenSpirit will change if the specifications are different.

Nico de Rooij (comment): The Evaluation Report is a very good document. Compliments to the evaluation team for their excellent work.

Bill Quinlivan (comment): The project appears to be moving along the right track. There is a good process in place for arriving at consensus.