CMIS(内容管理互操作服务)技术委员会成形

 source: http://xml.coverpages.org/cmis.html

Contents

• CMIS TC Overview
• From the CMIS TC Charter and Call For Participation
• Comments on the CMIS TC Proposed Charter
• Related Specifications and Implementations
• Publication of CMIS by ECM Vendors
• Bibliographic Information: CMIS Version 0.5
• Vendor Company Announcements for CMIS
  • EMC, IBM, Microsoft Joint Announcement
  • Alfresco Announcement
  • Open Text Announcement
• CMIS Overview: Vendor Statements
  • IBM
  • Microsoft
  • Alfresco
  • EMC
• CMIS Resources from the Vendor Companies
• Principal URIs
• General: News, Announcements, Industry Analysis, Blogs, Commentary

---

Overview

On October 06, 2008, OASIS issued a public call for participation in a new technical committee charteredto define specifications for use of Web services and Web 2.0 interfacesto enable information sharing across content management repositoriesfrom different vendors. The OASIS Content Management InteroperabilityServices (CMIS) TC will build upon existing specifications to "define adomain model and bindings that are designed to be layered on top ofexisting Content Management systems and their existing programmaticinterfaces. The TC will not prescribe how specific features should beimplemented within those Enterprise Content Management (ECM) systems.Rather it will seek to define a generic/universal set of capabilitiesprovided by an ECM system and a set of services for working with thosecapabilities."

As of November 14, 2008, the CMIStechnical work had received broad support through analyst opinion anddeclarations of interest from major companies. Some of these include Alfresco, Day Software, EMC, FatWire, IBM, Magnolia, Microsoft, Nuxeo, Open Text, Oracle, Quark, SAP, Saperion, Vamosa, and Vignette. Early commentaryfrom industry analysts and software engineers is positive about thevalue proposition in standardizing an enterprise content-centricmanagement specification. The OASIS announcement of November 17, 2008 includes endorsements.

Principal use cases motivating the CMIS technical work includecollaborative content applications, portals leveraging contentmanagement repositories, mashups, and searching a content repository.Subject to TC vote, the members may also address additional use caseslike core ECM repository capabilities; collaborative contentapplications; portals leveraging content management repositories;mashups utilizing content; workflow and BPM-centric applicationsutilizing content; content archival applications; compound and virtualdocuments applications; electronic and legal discovery of contentapplications; records management and compliance; digital assetmanagement applications; web content management applications;information rights management applications; desktop integration ofcontent management repositories.

Core deliverables produced by the CMIS technical committes willbuild upon Input Specifications to be contributed at the commencementof TC work. In particular, the TC will accept as input Version 0.5 of the September 2008 CMIS specification as published by EMC, IBM, and Microsoft. Proposed specification titles include Content Management Interoperability Standard, Domain Model Content Management Interoperability Standard, Web Service Binding Content Management Interoperability Standard, and REST/Atom Binding.

Initial TC proposers include representatives from OASIS membercompanies Alfresco, Day Software, EMC, IBM, Microsoft, Open Text,Oracle, SAP AG. The Convenor (Al Brown, IBM) was scheduled to lead anintial meeting of the TC on November 10, 2008, to be held as aconference call. The TC operates under the OASIS RF on RANDIPR Mode. Persons eligible to become voting members at the firstmeeting of the CMIS TC included: Al Brown (IBM), Mark Carlson (Sun),Derek Carr (IBM), David Caruana (Alfresco), David Choy (EMC), ScottConroy (Individual), Cornelia Davis (EMC), Doug Domeny (Ektron), KevinDorr (Flatirons), Dustin Friesenhahn (Microsoft), Gary Gershon(Individual), Paul Goetz (SAP), Ethan Gur-esh (Microsoft), DennisHamilton (Individual), Martin Hermes (SAP), Jens Hübel (Open Text),Gershon Janssen (Individual), John Volker (Saperion), Ijonas Kisselbach(Vamosa), Gregory Melahn (IBM), Pat Miller (Microsoft), Florian Müller(Open Text), John Newton (Alfresco), David Nuescheler (Day), MarkPoston (Mekon), Norrie Quinn (EMC), Craig Randall (EMC), Patrick Ryan(IBM), Patrick Ward (Booz Allen Hamilton).

According to the CMIS TC statement of purpose:

"Historically, content management systems were purchased forspecific application uses and this led to islands of incompatiblesystems. The lack of a standard interface to content management systemsmade it difficult to integrate content from multiple repositories intoa single application such as a portal, CRM system, or office desktop.It also made it difficult for Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) andintegrators to build applications that supported multiple contentmanagement systems consistently or easily.

The purpose of the Content Management Interoperability Services(CMIS) TC will define a domain model including a data model andabstract capabilities for Content Management (CM) and a set of bindingsthat can be used by applications to work with one or more ContentManagement Repositories/systems and that can be implemented by contentrepositories and enable interoperability across repositories for theset of use cases below. These capabilities and interfaces will notmatch every existing content management system and may require somelevel of change to existing products, at least in terms of conformingexisting interfaces to those defined here. However, it is an explicitgoal that CMIS Domain Model and Bindings will NOT require major productchanges or significant data model changes in existing major CMrepositories.

From the CMIS TC Charter and Call For Participation

The complete (hyper)text of the CMIS TC Call for Participationis also available online. It explains eligibility requirements forbecoming a participant in the TC at the first meeting, and indicateshow to join the CMIS TC.

• Charter and Call For Participation
  • 1A Name of the TC
  • 1B Statement of Purpose
  • 1C Scope of Work
  • 1D List of Deliverables
  • 1E IPR Mode
  • 1F Audience for the TC
  • 1G Language
• Additional Information
  • 2A Similar or Applicable Work
  • 2B First Meeting
  • 2C Schedule
  • 2D Proposers
  • 2E Convenor
  • 2G Input Specifications
  • 2I Proposed Specification Titles

OASIS Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) TC

1A Name of the TC

Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) Technical Committee

1B Statement of Purpose

Historically content management systems were purchased for specificapplication uses and this led to islands of incompatible systems. The lackof a standard interface to content management systems made it difficult tointegrate content from multiple repositories into a single application suchas a portal, CRM system, or office desktop. It also made it difficult forIndependent Software Vendors (ISVs) and integrators to build applicationsthat supported multiple content management systems consistently or easily.

The purpose of the Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) TCwill define a domain model including a data model and abstract capabilitiesfor Content Management (CM) and a set of bindings that can be used byapplications to work with one or more Content ManagementRepositories/systems and that can be implemented by content repositories andenable interoperability across repositories for the set of use cases below.These capabilities and interfaces will not match every existing contentmanagement system and may require some level of change to existing products,at least in terms of conforming existing interfaces to those defined here.However, it is an explicit goal that CMIS Domain Model and Bindings will NOTrequire major product changes or significant data model changes in existingmajor CM repositories.

As such, the CMIS TC should define a domain model and bindings that aredesigned to be layered on top of existing Content Management systems andtheir existing programmatic interfaces. This TC should not prescribe howspecific features should be implemented within those Enterprise ContentManagement (ECM) systems. This TC is intended to define a generic/universalset of capabilities provided by an ECM system and a set of services forworking with those capabilities.

1C Scope of Work

The TC will accept as input Version 0.5 of the CMIS specification aspublished by EMC, IBM and Microsoft on September 10th, 2008. Thespecification is located at:

• http://community.emc.com/community/labs/cmis
• http://www.ibm.com/software/data/content-management/cm-interoperablity-services.html
• http://www.microsoft.com/sharepoint/capabilities/ecm/cmis.mspx

Other contributions and changes to the input documents will be accepted forconsideration without any prejudice or restrictions and evaluated based ontechnical merit in so far as they conform to this charter.

The initial set of deliverables will be targeted for the following usecases:

• Collaborative Content Applications
• Portals leveraging Content Management repositories
• Mashups
• Searching a Content Repository

The following use cases should be able to be supported by CMIS Domain Modeland Bindings, but are not primary drivers:

• Workflow and Business Process Management (BPM)-centric applications utilizing Content
• Archival Applications
• Compound and Virtual Documents
• Electronic and Legal Discovery

The following use cases are out of scope for the initial set of deliverables:

• Records Management (RM) and Compliance
• Digital Asset Management (DAM)
• Web Content Management (WCM)
• Subscription and Notification Services

Also, this TC will engage in maintenance of the specifications produced by this TC.

The tasks of the TC include:

• To articulate the principles of the interoperable content management through formal specifications
• To assess the relationship of CMIS to other related standards andindustry efforts. These include java Content Repository (JCR) (JSR-170,JSR-283), WebDAV and its related specifications including DASL, SearchWeb Services TC, and other relevant standards.
• To define appropriate specifications for interoperable content management
  • Including schemas, such as XML Schema Definition (XSD)
  • Including service definitions, such as Web Service Definition Language (WSDL)
• To standardize the common types of entities and capabilities in CM
• To encourage cooperation within and between the various topical domains and groups

After the first set of deliverables, the TC will continue to work on thenext versions of the specification. Specific functional content of the nextversions will be determined by a TC vote. The next versions may address thefollowing use cases:

• Core ECM Repository capabilities
• Collaborative Content Applications
• Portals leveraging Content Management repositories
• Mashups utilizing Content
• Workflow and BPM-centric applications utilizing Content
• Content Archival Applications
• Compound and Virtual Documents applications
• Electronic and Legal Discovery of Content applications
• Records Management and Compliance
• Digital Asset Management Applications
• Web Content Management Applications
• Information Rights Management applications
• Desktop Integration of Content Management repositories

The TC MAY define other bindings explicitly listed below after the firstdeliverable:

• Web Services
• REST
• JSON-RPC
• XMPP
• JMS
• JCA
• SMTP

Maintenance

Once the TC has completed work on a deliverable and it has become an OASISstandard, the TC will enter "maintenance mode" for the deliverable.

The purpose of maintenance mode is to provide minor revisions to previouslyadopted deliverables to clarify ambiguities, inconsistencies and obviouserrors. Maintenance mode is not intended to enhance a deliverable or extendits functionality.

The TC will collect issues raised against the deliverables and periodicallyprocess those issues. Issues that request or require new or enhancedfunctionality shall be marked as enhancement requests and set aside. Issuesthat result in the clarification or correction of the deliverables shall beprocessed. The TC shall maintain a list of these adopted clarifications andshall periodically create a new minor revision of the deliverables includingthese updates. Periodically, but at least once a year, the TC shall produceand vote upon a new minor revision of the deliverables.

1D List of Deliverables

The initial set of deliverables and projected duration:

• CMIS Domain model specification (September 2009)
• CMIS SOAP-based Web Services binding specification (September 2009)
• CMIS REST/Atom-based Web Services binding specification (September 2009)

1E IPR Mode

The IP mode for the TC will be RF on RAND.

1F Audience for the TC

The primary audience for the final output of this TC includes ECM and BCSapplication architects and ECM repository architects and implementers.

1G Language

The language in which the TC shall conduct business:

English

Additional Information

Section 2: Non-normative Information

2A Similar or Applicable Work

Identification of similar or applicable work that is being done in other OASIS TCs or by other organizations:

• WebDAV: Not targeting ECM and does not provide a CM domain model
• JCR: java based specification and does not specify a protocol

2B First Meeting

Date, time and place of the first TC meeting:

12PM EST/9AM PST, 10 November 2008, conference call

2C Schedule

Ongoing meeting schedule:

The CMIS TC will meet by telephone every other week at Monday 9AM PST. Thetime, date and recurrence of the periodic phone call will be confirmed atthe first TC meeting. The meetings will last no more than two hours. TheCMIS TC will hold face-to-face meetings three (3) times a year for three daysstarting:

1/26/2009 (Redmond, Washington, hosted by Ethan Gur-esh, Microsoft)

2D Proposers

Names and email addresses of members (minimum three [Eligible Persons]):

• Albert Brown, [e-mail]
• Cornelia Davis, [e-mail]
• Craig Randall, [e-mail]
• Derek Carr, [e-mail]
• David Caruana, [e-mail]
• David Choy, [e-mail]
• Dustin Friesenhahn, [e-mail]
• Paul Goetz, [e-mail]
• Ethan Gur-esh, [e-mail]
• Dennis Hamilton, [e-mail]
• Martin Hermes, [e-mail]
• Jens Hübel, [e-mail]
• Ryan McVeigh, [e-mail]
• Gregory Melahn, [e-mail]
• Pat Miller, [e-mail]
• Florian Müller, [e-mail]
• John Newton, [e-mail]
• David Nuescheler, [e-mail]
• Norrie Quinn, [e-mail]
• Steve Roth, [e-mail]

2E Convenor

Al Brown, IBM, [e-mail]

2G Input Specifications

• CMIS Part I — Domain Model v0.5
• CMIS Part II — Web Services Binding v0.5
• CMIS Part II — REST-Atom Binding v0.5
• CMIS — Appendices v0.5

Specifications available at:

• http://community.emc.com/community/labs/cmis
• http://www.ibm.com/software/data/content-management/cm-interoperablity-services.html
• http://www.microsoft.com/sharepoint/capabilities/ecm/cmis.mspx

2I Proposed Specification Titles

• Content Management Interoperability Standard
• Domain Model Content Management Interoperability Standard
• Web Service Binding Content Management Interoperability Standard
• REST/Atom Binding

Comments on the CMIS TC Proposed Charter

Comments on the CMIS Proposed Charter posted to the 'oasis-charter-discuss' list, with disposition in the CMIS Comment Resolution Log.

• IPR Mode. Dennis E. Hamilton ([e-mail]):"I am curious about the value that 'RF on RAND' has in contrast withmaximizing assurance of easy entry into an integration model..." Response:"Al: Thank you for the feedback. The goal is the widest use possible.However, the proposers have already agreed to RF on RAND and we areunlikely to get the same or larger group with RF on Limited."

• Scope. Jeff Mischkinsky ([e-mail]):"I have a concern that the charter IPR scope is too unbounded withrespect to future versions of the the spec (after the firstdeliverable) for some companies to make a proper determination onwhether to join or not..." Response: "Al: Thank you for the feedback on the IPR issue around future versions. The charter has been updated to resolve this issue."

• Search Web Services. Kerry Blinco ([e-mail]): "Can I suggest that the CMIS TC also look at the work being done by the OASIS Search Web Services TCwhen assessing the relationship of CMIS to other efforts as the workcurrently being undertaken by this TC. The Search Web Services TC isdeveloping Web services definitions for search and retrievalapplications..." Response: "Al: Thank you for the awareness ofthis TC. Search Web Services TC has been added to the charter as apotential interesting related standard. The TC when it first meets willdiscuss which standards to coordinate with and at which levels."

• WebDAV Search. Dennis E. Hamilton ([e-mail]): "I see that the WebDAV SEARCH(formerly known as DASL) has been accepted as an IETF ProposedStandard... I notice that Search within a CM repository is notexplicitly mentioned in the CMIS scope as either in- or out-ofscope..." Response: "Al: Thank you. The charter has beenupdated to also include WebDAV search, DASL, explicitly. The TC when itmeets will discuss interacting with WebDAV and DASL. The focus of theTC is for providing specification around common Enterprise ContentManagement (ECM) functionality and thus a searching paradigm designedfor that environment. Search also has been added as an explicit usecase."

• Overall Design. Gary Gershon ([e-mail]):"The proposed CMIS TC is building upon a substantial base oftrail-blazing work accomplished by the convening companies... I wouldlike to encourage the CMIS technical committee leadership to devotesufficient attention in the design of the TC deliverables to embraceseveral core SOA architectural principles..." Response: Al:These are great tenets and the TC should give them due thought. Thiswill be referred to the TC for consideration during its work.

• java JSR 170 and 283. William Cox ([e-mail]):"I urge the proposed TC to revisit the importance of java JSR 170 and283. Speaking for JSR170, the work did a good job of establishingcommon interfaces to the major content management systems..." Response:"Al: Thank you. JSR 170 and 283 (JCR) is an important standard and theTC has in its charter to interact with JCR. We might potentiallycombine efforts where that makes sense. I have started the discussionwith David Nuescheller from JSR-283 who has been quite helpful. JCR'sdomain model might not be a good starting place for the services thisTC wants to specify. Please see the draft specification. The TC when itfirst meets will discuss the level of interaction with JCR."

• java JSR 170 and 283. William Cox ([e-mail]):"The last paragraph of section 1B is an excellent description of thework done (in the java domain) on JSR 170. I suggest a clear statementthat alignment with the model and interfaces of the JSRs for CMIS aspart of the charter..." Response: [preceding]

• Acronyms. William Cox ([e-mail]): "Please spell out acronyms, e.g., ECM and BCS and ECM..." Response: "Al: Thank you."

• Also on java JSR 170. Rex Brooks ([e-mail])[re: "I urge the proposed TC to revisit the importance of java JSR 170and 283.." — (Rex) "Having worked on v1.0 and much of v2.0 of WSRPbefore it got a bit bogged down prior to completing work and achievingapproval, I heartily concur." Response: "Al: See above."

Related Specifications and Implementations

• Java Content Repository (JCR): JSR 170 and JSR 283
• Apache Sling
• WebDAV
• OASIS SRU/CQL Specifications
• Atom
• SOAP
• Open Document Management API (ODMA)

......
......
......

"The objective of the CMIS standard is to define a common contentmanagement web services interface that can be implemented by contentrepositories and enable interoperability across repositories. Thesecapabilities and interfaces will not match every existing contentmanagement system and may require some level of change to existingproducts, at least in terms of conforming existing interfaces to thosedefined here. However, it is an explicit goal that CMIS will notrequire major product changes or significant data model changes likeother standards such as JSR 170 have required..."

"The CMIS standard will expose core/common ECM repositorycapabilities in an intentionally generic way. These will allow forapplications to be constructed that can work with content residing inone or more ECM repositories, without having to understandimplementation differences between the individual repositories orworrying about interface inconsistencies between the repositories...Thusly:

While most/all of the capabilities that will be exposed via CMISgenerally fall into the core/basic functions of an ECM repository, thegoal of this standard is to ensure that ECM applications can be builton top of the CMIS interfaces that enable richer/business criticalapplications and use cases, like Business Process Management andElectronic Discovery. Because those application use cases have beenunder consideration through the CMIS design process, CMIS will enableECM applications to focus on solving business logic problems at theapplication-level without worrying about the implementations ofspecific ECM repositories...

"By providing a services-oriented architecture for interacting withan ECM repository, ECM applications can use CMIS to be loosely-coupledto individual repositories, rather than more tightly integrated. Thiswill make it simpler for (a) applications to use CMIS interfaces 'a lacarte' rather than having to having to invoke the full-set of CMISinterfaces, and (b) allow applications to be built in a ServicesOriented Architecture.

According to the published "Overview of Content ManagementInteroperability Services 1.0," CMIS "defines four base types ofobjects that exist within a Repository, where the Repository can defineadditional Object Types for any of these type of objects. An ObjectType specifies the schema of Properties that are allowed or requiredfor the object. (1) Documents represent individual content objects in the repository. A Document may or may not include one content-stream. (2) Folders represent organizational containers in which Documents (or other folders) can be stored.(3) Relationships represent loose relationships between exactly two (2) objects (documents or folders) in the Repository. (4) Policies represent administrative policies that may be applied to objects."

CMIS "exposes services for:

• Discovering Object Type definitions and other Repositoryinformation — including which optional capabilities are supported by aparticular Repository
• Creating, Reading, Updating, and Deleting objects
• Filing Documents into zero, one, or more Folders — if the repository supports the optional multi-filing capability
• Navigating and traversing the hierarchy of folders in the Repository
• Creating versions of Documents and accessing a Document's version history
• Querying a repository to retrieve one or more objects matchinguser-specified search criteria, including full-text search queries"

Document objects can be versioned, but 'folder', 'relationship', and'policy' objects are not versioned. All methods forreferring/retrieving a Document can specify whether they refer to aspecific version of a Document, or should always retrieve the latestversion.

A CMIS Repository has the option of supporting multi-filing ofDocuments into zero, one, or more than one folder concurrently. Folderscan never be multi-filed. The Repository's level of support formulti-filing will be exposed to applications through the Repositoryservice..."

On September 10, 2008, OASIS member companies submitted a proposedcharter for a new OASIS Content Management Interoperability Services(CMIS) Technical Committee. Based upon Version 0.5 of the CMISspecification, the TC would "define a domain model including a datamodel and abstract capabilities for Content Management (CM) and a setof bindings that can be used by applications to work with one or moreContent Management Repositories/systems and that can be implemented bycontent repositories and enable interoperability across repositories."