From puk@multi10.netcomi.com Thu Aug 28 20:52:57 1997 Received: from multi10.netcomi.com (puk@[204.58.155.210]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA13850 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 20:52:50 +0200 Received: (from puk@localhost) by multi10.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id NAA21718; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 13:52:38 -0500 Received: from dkuug.dk (dkuug.dk [193.88.44.89]) by multi10.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA21553 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 13:51:25 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA13488 for SC24-list; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 20:34:41 +0200 Message-Id: <199708281834.UAA13488@dkuug.dk> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:22:52 -0700 From: "Richard F. Puk" X-Sequence: SC24@dkuug.dk 336 Errors-To: SC24-request@dkuug.dk Reply-To: puk@rbc.dec.com Organization: Intelligraphics Incorporated X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (WinNT; I) [AXP] MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-To: Steve Carson CC: SC24@dkuug.dk Subject: (SC24.336) Proposed statement to JTC 1 about OMG References: <199708281728.TAA12096@dkuug.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Loop: puk@igraphics.com To: puk@rbc.dec.com, dick@igraphics.com Steve -- =46rom my perspective, it looks good the way it is except that it should be passed through a spelling checker. -- Dick Steve Carson wrote: > = > After consulting with several of our experts with an interest in Object= > technology, we have decided that SC 24 has an obligation to call the > attention of all JTC 1 NBs to the uncooperative attitude that OMG has > displayed in the past in its dealings with SC 24. Since the OMG has now= > applied to be a PAS submitter, and their policies and procedures have n= ot > changes so as to allow our experts individually or our SC as a whole to= ^d > participate in the work of OMG without all of us individually joining a= nd > paying exorbitant fees, we feel that we must speak out. The goal is not= to > block the OMG application, but rather to force them to change their way= of > working on those projects that might be submitted to ISO as PAS submiss= ions. > = > I have based this proposed contribution on the US submission that was > circulated on the reflector several weeks ago. > = > Lets have any necessary discussion on this on this reflector and -- if > there are no unresolved objections -- we will forward this statement to= JTC > 1 on Friday 5 September. > = > - - - > SC 24 N xxxx > = > Statement from SC 24 to JTC 1 on the Application of OMG for Recognition= as > a PAS Submitter > = > Introduction > = > The following comments are submitted by JTC 1/ SC 24 (Computer Graphics= and > Image Processing) in response to ISO/IEC JTC 1 N 4801, the application= > from OMG for recognition as a submitter of publicly available > specifications. These comments are based on SC24=92s unsuccessful expe= rience > in working with OMG as a Class C liaison. We have attached as importan= t > background material the following documents: > = > 1) OMG document 94-10-37, Referencing of OMG specs in ISO/IEC CD 14 478= -1,2 > 2) ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 N 1284, Liaison Statement to the Object Manageme= nt > Group > 3) ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 N 1285 Difficulties of Category C Liaison with S= ome > Consortia > = > These documents describe the difficulties encountered while working wit= h > the OMG, due to OMG's uncooperative attitude and to problems in OMG > practices and procedures which made it impossible for ISO expects to > participate in joint work with OMG unless the employers were OMG corpor= ate > members. > = > Value of the ISO Process > = > The following points summarize areas where we feel the ISO standards > development process exceeds that of most consortia based processes and > provides for the creation of viable, long lived standards which are > developed in the best interest for both the implementers and users of t= he > standards. > = > 1. The ISO standardization process is an open consensus based proc= ess > which provides for input by various types of experts (through JTC1 ball= ots > and public reviews). ISO subcommittees are required to coordinate > standards development efforts with other subcommittees as well as outsi= de > technical experts and other standards developing organizations in order= to > ensure that the standards are of the highest quality and usability. > 2. The ISO process requires that a mature well founded body of wor= k with > market relevance and national body participation be established prior t= o > originating a new ISO project. However, when a new project is establis= hed, > the initial level of maturity of the founding work may vary, due to the= > technical nature and complexity of the issues to be resolved by the > standard. > 3. When an ISO JTC1 standard is published, the developing ISO JTC1= > subcommittee typically retains responsibility for maintaining, revising= , > and extending the standard as required utilizing the same open consensu= s > based process. > 4. When work is submitted to ISO for publication, typically ISO re= tains > the copyright to the material. > = > History of SC 24's Relationship with the OMG > = > In the 1991, 1992 time frame, a research effort was started by a few of= the > ISO/IEC JTC1 SC 24 participating national body members to ascertain the= > feasibility of developing an object oriented multimedia standard. The = need > was recognized based on current standards which addressed presentation,= > interaction, and exchange of imaging and graphical data as well as the > growing need to further refine and incorporate mechanisms which could > address application requirements for enhanced interaction and presentat= ion > mediums in an object oriented paradigm. > = > Throughout this feasibility study, Sun, IBM, and HP, all of whom > participated in or more national delegations to SC 24 at the time, led > efforts to orient SC24 to the body of work under development within the= > OMG. Sun, IBM, and HP were at the time and still are copyright holders= of > the material and believed that the material would provide an excellent > architecture/methodology upon which to develop a multimedia object orie= nted > standard. Even though the body of work was still in the early phases o= f > development, the key concepts and principles were fairly well establish= ed > and provided a path forward towards further refinement through the OMG.= > OMG=92s membership was increasing and the OMG was eagerly continuing to= > develop and mature the material. The US National Body was eventually > convinced and proposed the usage of the OMG material to SC24. The US > provided experts to present the OMG material to SC24 and eventually > convinced SC24 to base the new PREMO standard upon the OMG specificatio= ns. > = > ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 established a Class C Liaison with the OMG and > continued development of the PREMO standard. OMG participated to some > extent in the initial object model for PREMO and the development of the= > PREMO foundation component. At the time it was envisioned that the > standard would be developed in OMG=92s Interface Definition Language (I= DL) > and would be well suited to be implemented on top of OMG=92s Common Obj= ect > Request Broker Architecture (CORBA). In order to meet the needs of the= > standard and with OMG=92s knowledge, SC24 worked to develop modificatio= ns to > IDL and submitted suggested revisions to the OMG. It was determined th= at > OMG was not very willing to alter the IDL specification and that SC24=92= s > liaison status had little or no bearing in SC24=92s ability to particip= ate in > the OMG process. In fact, even though SC24 held a Class C Liaison with= the > OMG, SC24 did not receive OMG documents and was not invited to attend o= r > participate in OMG meetings. In addition, SC24 was requested to remove= all > OMG text from their standards, even though OMG did not hold the copyrig= ht > to the material, only a limited license. Due to these problems, SC24 = was > finally forced to drop the usage of IDL and the CORBA object paradigm f= rom > its work. This decision did not affect the overall usability of the > standard, rather it delayed the development effort and caused embarrass= ment > to the US national body who strongly urged cooperation OMG with and > utilization of their architecture. It is important to note here that S= C24 > has not had these types of problems with other Class C liaisons or > organizations with which they hold cooperative agreements (e.g. the > Interactive Multimedia Association, the VRML Consortium, the North Atla= ntic > Treaty Organization, and the Imagery Standards Management Committee) > = > SC24 is also aware of the cooperation which has occurred between the OM= G > and SC21/WG7. The primary reason for the success of this liaison is du= e to > the fact that there is significant overlap between the two organization= s > with respect to the work which is being standardized and in individual > members. Thus, the typical liaison relationship which requires negotiat= ion > and potential comprise by all parties involved is not truly a factor in= > this case. SC24, on the other hand, was not trying to standardize a > present body of OMG material, but was instead trying to utilize OMG=92s= > material as a framework upon which to develop a new technology based > standard. This scenario did require two way communication and compromi= se > in order to ideally benefit both parties. Based on this fact, we belie= ve > that the scenario encountered by SC24 is more typical of what future > coordinating standards development efforts will most likely encounter a= nd > what should be protected against by JTC1. > = > SC24 believes that a relationship with the OMG and standardization of i= ts > material may be beneficial to ISO. However, based on the text of the > current OMG submission, and our past experiences, it appears that what = is > requested is for ISO to grant publication of OMG material without havin= g > input to the development/finalization of the standard or in the resolut= ion > of defects and maintenance of the standard. It is important for JTC1 t= o > make sure that the OMG will accept input from its subcommittees in orde= r to > harmonize the transposed standards with the current JTC1 body of work (= both > established and developmental). If this does not occur, certain confli= cts > will most likely arise which will be hard to resolve due to the drastic= ally > varying standards development approaches. With the PREMO experience st= ill > fresh in our minds, SC24 cautions JTC1 to coordinate the interaction of= the > JTC1 SCs and their ability to participate in the transposition and > maintenance of standards with the OMG and recommends that OMG not be > granted PAS submitter status unless the following conditions are satisf= ied: > = > 1. The OMG process must be revised, with respect to PAS submissions, su= ch > that JTC1 organizations holding Category C Liaisons with the OMG can > participate effectively in the OMG process. At a minimum, representati= ves > must be able to attend OMG meetings, be granted the right to speak at s= uch > meetings, and to submit items for inclusion on the agenda. Also, the O= MG > must accept contributions from JTC1 organizations and treat them in a > manner similar to contributions from OMG member companies. > = > 2. With regard to PAS submissions, OMG processes must be opened to allo= w > participation by all interested parties. In particular and at a minimu= m: > = > (a) any organization or individual must be able to submit technology to= an > OMG RTF; > = > (b) public comment must be solicited, accepted, seriously considered an= d > properly resolved during all OMG development projects; and > = > (c) there must be provisions so that any organization or individual who= can > make a contribution to the work of the OMG and requests to participate = can > participate in its working groups without being required to join the OM= G. > This is due to the fact that as it stands today, contributing experts w= ould > be required to pay very high fees to gain the level of membership requi= red > within the OMG to participate in the adoption and maintenance of OMG PA= S > submissions. > = > --------------------------------------------------------- > Steve Carson phone: +1-505-521-7399 > GSC Associates Inc. fax: +1-505-521-9321 > 5272 Redman Road e-mail: carson@siggraph.org > Las Cruces, NM 88011 USA > --------------------------------------------------------- -- = /----------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Richard F. Puk Tel: +1-760-753-9027 | | Intelligraphics Incorporated Fax: +1-760-753-9027 | | 7644 Cortina Court E-Mail: puk@igraphics.com | | Carlsbad, California 92009-8206 | | USA | \----------------------------------------------------------------------/