Interoperability and Business Objects RFT Process Update

1
Interoperability and Business Objects (RFT)
Process Update
POSC Member General MeetingApril 24, 1998
HoustonSession K
2
Interop Project Proposal

• Background
• First Workshop in Early 1996
• Request for Comment (RFC) in Q2 1997
• Request for Technology (RFT)
• Issued in November 1997
• Submissions Due May 15, 1998

3
Description

• Continue and Complete current RFT process
• Follow-on through release of first version of
  specifications
• Initiate Registration Procedure
• Support Refinements to existing POSC
  Specifications

4
Interop 1998 Project Sponsors

• The 7 POSC Sponsors and Shell
• Additional Project Sponsors are Welcome
• Sign-up by cut-off date (to be determined)
• Project Sponsor Fee is 100K

5
Deliverables

• RFT Evaluation Results Solution Alternative
  Document(s)
• New Specifications
• Interoperability Architecture
• Subsurface Interpretation Object Model and
  Business Objects
• Related updates to other specifications, e.g. BCS
• Registration Procedure

6
Duration / Phases

• This project covered the initial architecture and
  initial Subsurface Interpretation Domain
  definitions
• Future projects will address other domains (e.g.
  Seismic Acq/Prc, Drilling, Surface Facilities,
  etc.) and extensions to the architecture (if
  required)

7
Target Budget

• 1998 Estimate
• 1,000K
• 3.5 - 4.5 man-years
• Travel, other expenses

8
Key Dates

• May 15 - RFT Submissions Due
• May 25 - Evaluation Team Begins Work
• May 28 - RFT Submitters Forum
• June 15 - Registration Procedure Begins
• August ? - Evaluation Completed
• September ? - Evaluation Results Forum
• December ? - Specifications Published

9
References

• Web Site
• www.posc.org/technical/interop
• Email List
• interop_at_POSC.org
• Send subscribe interop to Majordomo_at_POSC.org

10
The RFT (from the Abstract)

• This Request for Technology (RFT) document states
  the goals and direction of this initiative and
  invites proposals of workable architecture and
  Subsurface Interpretation business object
  specifications suitable to become POSC SIP
  specifications.

11
RFT Table of Contents

• Requirements for Domain ...
• RFT Timetable
• Appendices
• Glossary
• RFC Supplement
• Preliminary Architecture
• References
• Submission Checklist

• Introduction
• Context
• Evaluation Process
• Instructions for Submitters
• General Requirements
• Requirements for Architecture ...

12
Architecture Overview Context
13
RFT Letters of Intent to Submit

• CGG - Petrosystems
• Chevron
• Iona
• Netherlands Institute of Applied Geology -TNO
• POSC/CAESAR Association
• PrismTech
• Schlumberger
• Shell
• Statoil

14
RFT Evaluation Goals

• A Fair and Open Specification Development Process
• A Critical Review of Submissions By Qualified
  Experts Representing a Cross-Section of the POSC
  Community
• Allow Submitters to Address Concerns Raised
• Build Consensus on the Path Forward

15
RFT Evaluation Process

• Starts from the RFT and the Submissions
• Ends with
• Solution Alternative Document(s), each having
• identified portions of submissions
• analysis against RFT requirements
• estimate of additional work required to reach
  workable POSC specifications
• comparative strengths and weaknesses

16
Evaluation Team Members

• Johnny Brown, Schlumberger Architecture
• Fred Patrick, Chevron Domain
• M. C. (Ineke) Reijsmeijer, Shell Domain
• John Russell, PrismTech Limited Architecture
• Henning Sundby, Statoil Architecture

17
Evaluation Team POSC

• Alan Doniger, coordinator
• Dortha Dougherty Domain
• G. Chen Architecture
• Advisors
• John Bobbitt Domain
• Art Culbertson Architecture

18
Role of POSC Team Members

• Facilitate the process
• Provide needed additional skills / expertise
• training
• submitter representatives
• consulting
• Interpret the intent of the RFT, if needed
• Introduce POSC specifications, where appropriate

19
After the Evaluation

• Plan and execute the follow-on work, including
• marketing the results within the membership
• additional technical work
• completing and publishing the specifications
• support the use of the new specifications
• participate in follow-on or allied projects