Subject: Life Sciences, OMG, Standards etc.

From: Graham Cameron <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:57:26 +0100

Dear Colleagues,

The tone of the  discussion  on  Object  Technology,  CORBA,
Standards  and  the OMG leads me to think that there is some
misunderstanding of recent developments in establishing  the
OMG  DSIG  for  life  sciences  research  and  about the EBI
position and intentions.  I attempt here to clarify the  EBI
position  (which  may  or  may  not  coincide  with  the OMG
philosophy).

Apologies if you are one one of the mailing lists peripheral
to  this  discussion.   I  promise  to  shut  up  after this
message!

     1.  This is not a crusade - no-one is going to *impose*
         standards.   Even were it desirable it would not be
         possible.  Standards which come out of the  process
         will be adopted if they turn out to be useful.

     2.  Any future CORBA-based services of the EBI will not
         supplant existing traditional data delivery methods
         - except in the unlikely event that the demand  for
         the old methods dwindles to near zero.

     3.  The process of defining  standards  within  OMG  is
         (a) open, and (b) non-authoritarian.  Anyone can be
         involved   in   both   proposing   and   evaluating
         standards,  and standards are chosen from proposals
         by organisations willing to implement them.

     4.  The question of  whether  we  believe  that  Object
         Technology in general, and CORBA in particular will
         lend  themselves  technically   and   socially   to
         application  in  the  life sciences is an open one.
         We feel that it is best if those who are  committed
         to  giving  it  a try attempt to work to standards;
         and the OMG process, while at  first  sight  rather
         complex,  does  seem  a good way to define workable
         standards.

     5.  NCBI would be best to speak for  themselves.   They
         were  represented  at  the first meeting, but since
         they have no immediate committment to CORBA it  may
         not be so high on their list of priorities.

     6.  We at the EBI supply about 60 biological  databases
         (two  or three of the major ones are collaborations
         with NCBI and/or the DNA Databank  of  Japan),  but
         this  is  still  a  fraction  of  all life sciences
         information.

On object technology and CORBA

We have experience of both at the EBI, and we are  convinced
of  the utility of this technology, even if only internally.
Already the approach is doing real  work  for  us.   We  are
committed to offering CORBA services, but will continue with
our other services.  We plan these developments  because  we
believe  that they will turn out to be really useful, but we
have no desire or need to drag the unwilling down this path.
A  number  of  collaborators and developers are keen to work
with us on this, and as our  collective  experience  builds,
the  picture  will clarify.  For us there is little downside
to even a negative community response to this approach -  it
offers so much for our internal purposes as to be worthwhile
anyway.

So, for heaven's sake don't let us be  cultist  about  this.
It's  a  method  that  works in our hands, and it may create
opportunities for others.

Graham.

--
Graham Cameron
Head of Services
EMBL Outstation - the European Bioinformatics Institute
Wellcome Trust Genome Campus
Hinxton
CB10 1SD
Cambridge
UK

phone:  +44 (0) 1223 494467 (direct)
        +44 (0) 1223 494649 (secretary)

fax:    +44 (0) 1223 494468

email:  [email-masked]
--