Initiative |
Scope of interoperability |
Sponsors |
Support * |
Technologies |
| COM for Energy | Technical and Financial. | GeoQuest Landmark Microsoft PriceWaterhouseCoopers SAP |
BP Amoco POSC Statoil |
COM SAP BAPI |
| Synergy | Facilities, Subsurface, Technical and Financial. |
Chevron Oracle Statoil |
Prism Technologies POSC |
Oracle 8i Java Epicentre POSC/Caesar |
| Open Spirit | Subsurface | CGG Chevron Elf Geoquest PGS Shell Statoil |
Prism Technologies. POSC |
CORBA Vendor data stores. POSC Business Objects. |
* By support we mean both technical and moral - i.e. quoted as supporting the initiative.
Interop space
This is a deliberately simplified analysis (pace David!) of the breakdown into technology and support. The important facts to emerge are the polarities of the different initiatives. They are several, and on both technical and commercial planes we would offer the following as possible constituents of a multi-dimensional ternary diagram which we invite you to draft yourselves :-
COM for Energy vs. Synergy = Microsoft vs. Oracle
COM for Energy vs. Synergy = COM vs. CORBA
COM for Energy vs. Synergy = Oracle Financials vs. SAP
GeoQuest's presence in both COM for Energy and Synergy precludes an editorially tempting GeoQuest vs. Landmark categorization, but it historically true that Landmark have shown increasing leanings towards Microsoft COM and away from the UNIX CORBA of OpenSpirit. Yet another slice through interoperability space shows Landmark and GeoQuest as outside of Synergy, a situation that reflects perhaps vendor reticence at throwing their own data models away and starting over with new technology. Java and Microsoft's ActiveX must be slugging it out in yet another dimension of the hyperspace.
Click here to comment on this article
If your browser does not work with the MailTo button, send mail to
pdm@oilit.com with PDM_V_3.3_9902_3 as the subject. © Oil IT Journal - all rights reserved.