From A.M.Mumford@lboro.ac.uk Mon Apr 29 11:48:12 1996 Received: from mailhost.lut.ac.uk (pp@bgate.lut.ac.uk [131.231.16.7]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA20343 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 11:48:07 +0200 Received: by hpc.lboro.ac.uk (15.11/SMI-4.1) id AA00433; Mon, 29 Apr 96 10:47:08 bst Message-Id: <9604290947.AA00433@hpc.lboro.ac.uk> From: Anne Mumford Subject: CGM ISPs To: Brannon@isocs.iso.ch, 100434.3031@compuserve.com, SC24@dkuug.dk, MMAAS@ansi.org Date: Mon, 29 Apr 96 10:47:05 BST X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0 (LUT)] Re CGM ISPs - DISP 12071 (parts 1-4) There has been ongoing debate via email on the resolution of the comment regarding the naming of ISPs for the CGM standard. This debate has continued to be lively with people being concerned to ensure that the results will be acceptable to industry and that other profiles can be developed which build on the agreements reached (there has been a real danger of loosing any hope of this). My recommendation as Editor of the work is as follows: The profiles should remain named with the names agreed by SGFS and that given in TR10000 (ie FCG-11 etc). This should be reflected in the title of the standard together with the people-frienfly names - ie "Basic Scientific and technical (BST)" etc. Within the metafile however it is the menemonic which will be used and will be "BST", "APV" (ie not (FCG-BST as in the DISP)) Future metafiles will cluster round the 4 points and will use the FCG name. For example if the PIP profile were to be adopted (Petroleum Industry Profile) - and we expecvt it to be proposed once the 4 core profiles are in place. This is based on FCG33. So this would become FCF331 (ie first profile to be built on FCG33) and then within the metafile it would have the PIP Profile identifier. This proposal seems to have general agreement, does not compromise the SGFS decision re names, and allows for extensibility in a way which industry is likely to agree with. Please let mw know of any problems with this suggestion by 13 May 1996 Anne Mumford