From CS1CJC@pa.shef.ac.uk Tue Aug 11 10:34:23 1992 Received: from danpost4.uni-c.dk by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8) id AA03584; Tue, 11 Aug 92 10:34:23 +0200 X400-Received: by mta danpost4.uni-c.dk in /PRMD=minerva/ADMD=dk400/C=dk/; Relayed; Tue, 11 Aug 1992 10:33:39 +0200 X400-Received: by /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/; Relayed; Tue, 11 Aug 1992 10:33:34 +0200 X400-Received: by /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Tue, 11 Aug 1992 11:21:25 +0200 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 11:21:25 +0200 X400-Originator: CS1CJC@PRIMEA.SHEFFIELD.ac.uk X400-Recipients: sc24@DKUUG.dk X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD= /C=gb/;mhs-relay..119:11.07.92.08.33.34] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: Recent UK inp... From: "C.Cartledge" Message-Id: <"2122 Tue Aug 11 09:33:39 1992"@mhs-relay.ac.uk> To: sc24 Subject: Recent UK inputs X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Chris Cartledge Tel: 0742 768555 Ext: 4274 Academic Computing Services Fax: 0742 753899 University of Sheffield SHEFFIELD, UK, S10 2TN Dear Colleagues, Enclosed are the texts of recent UK inputs. Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------ UK Comments and Vote on Draft New Work Item Proposal Programming Environments for Graphical Objects (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC24 N427) The UK votes NO to SC24 N427 (the Draft New Work Item Proposal - Programming Environments for Graphical Objects). This is done because of the lack of information available. UK experts look forward to the PREGO Initial Draft which will be prepared at Chiemsee. In the light of that draft and with satisfactory responses to the detailed comments made below, The UK hopes to be able to change its vote to YES. a) It is very difficult to distinguish what is within the scope of the project and what is outside. The UK believes that clear information in the NP over scope is vital to enable work to a defined target on achievable timescales. The discipline entailed in a a well defined work has, for example, enabled new work on CGM to be finished on time in very tight timescales. It is appreciated that the work envisaged here is of much greater magnitude but clear technical targets are of even more (not less) importance in this context. b) The timescales are extremely agressive given the limited technical information supplied here. Experts need to review the timescales to ensure that they are feasible. c) In 2.1 a number of areas of application are mentioned presumably so potential users in these areas look to PREGO rather than existing standards work to meet their requirements. Unfortunately these application areas overlap with aims of existing standards. In particular CAD/CAM, scientific visualisation and data exploration are covered by PHIGS PLUS already. Within its scope as a pure 2D system, GKS Review meets many of the requirements and goals of PREGO. User interfaces have been historically addressed by SC24 work, but much industrial practice now separates the issues of graphical user interface from graphics itself. Standards work in IEEE and in SC18 is addressing user interface issues, yet no justification is given in this document for duplication of that effort. The new things in this section not addressed by existing work in SC24 are surely animation (and hence time) and multimedia (or integration of material in more than one medium in time). d) There is almost no mention of how the standard relates and builds on other standards work which is particularly regrettable in the context of multi-media and in the light user requirements for integration (with window systems and other media). There is in particular no mention of relationship to (in no particular order and in what is not claimed to be an exhaustive list): The Graphics Reference Model; existing graphics standards - CGI, CGM GKS, PHIGS (and PHIGS PLUS); graphics work in progress - GKS Review, IPI; other proposed SC24 work on frameworks and components; SC18 font work for integration of high quality text; SC18 work on time synchronisation and music; SC18 work on multimedia documents; SPDL page desciption language; X windows data stream and associated toolkits; ODA (which allows documents with nested components of many types); SQL (in the light of user requirements for database facilities); TOSCA (Text and Office Systems Colour Architecture); SGML. If there is no relationship, it should be said so explicitly. If there is a relationship, it should be defined, at least in outline. e) Bold claims are made of the advantages of an object orientated approach: "... superfluous concepts, known in connection with traversal models such as pick-paths, filters, namesets, pick identiers and labels can be avoided." Unfortunately no example is given so that the reader can understand how this will be done nor is reference given to any existing experimental system that already demonstrates this. f) The use of the word "may" in the second sentence of the last paragraph of section 2.2.1 is ambiguous. "This means an application may allow end-users to interactively define or modify graphical objects..." The word "may" is this context means "is permitted to". The word "can" meaning "is able to" is more appropriate. Existing systems permit this, after all, but they do not enable it. g) In 2.2.2 it is claimed that PREGO will be "reflecting the state of the art at the time it is published". This is a very damaging claim which can never be true for any standard - they take too long to develop. It is also a recipe for non-completion of the work since, however well developed the PREGO work is, it will be open to groups wanting to add "just one more" state of the art feature. This statement must be removed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ UK Input on SC24 Structure UK Vote and Comments on Proposed Revised 24 Structure (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC24 N739 Rev) The UK Disapproves of the proposed new SC24 Working Group Structure (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC24 N739 Rev.) for the following reasons: The UK is concerned that the proposed structure appears to have been more governed by the availability of convenors willing to do the job rather than by the concern to efficiently coordinate related work. Some of the resultant groups are very large and the UK hopes that Coveners will have the necessary support to ensure that they can run the groups in accordance with the JTC1 Directives. In saying this the UK does not want to devalue the importance of Coveners as individual managers nor large amount of work they put into the task. WG1 The UK is happy with the proposed work in WG1 (but see comments under WG8 below). WG4 The UK no longer thinks that having a separate WG for language bindings is an efficient way of working. The UK has long had trouble in staffing this WG, yet it has experts who are interested in individual bindings. The original point of the group was to tackle the problems (then new) of binding abstract functional specifications to programming languages in a consistent way. This is now much better understood and is documented in Guidelines for Language Bindings (DTR 10182, JTC1 N1818) from SC22, which is in fact largely based on SC24 experience. Other minor issues collated by WG4 included tables of abbreviations for SC24 bindings, but these are often ignored by editors. The UK now believes that each binding would be best progressed by the group designing corresponding the functional specification. WG6 The UK is concerned at the proposed size of this working group. Considerable work continues in WG2, which the UK also sees as being a possible location for the PREGO work, if approved. While little work is currently going on in WG3, its role of coordinating encodings and in particular in getting major improvements in ASN.1 for transfer of graphics data must be a priority. The UK wishes WG2 and WG3 to remain separate and not to be fused into WG6, if possible. WG7 The UK has no comment. WG8 The UK believes that the planning of a group in this form is premature. The UK has insufficent knowledge to say that these pieces of work (PREGO and the component and frameworks model) need close coordination but have little relationship with any existing work, which this structure would suggest. The UK suggests that existing practice be followed: that these pieces of work remain in WG1 until approved. Once approved the technical content will be better understood and a more considered judgement about proper allocation to WGs will be possible. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- UK vote on SC24 N764 (C Language Binding Proposals for Registered Graphical Items) YES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ UK vote on SC24 N765 (SC24 Goals Statement) ABSTAIN with the following comments: The UK sees no particular need for the issuing of a goals statement by SC24. A clear understanding of the goals and processes of standards making is important. BSI has long had a document that expalains these, BS0 (A standard for standards). Part 1 of that document is concerned with "General principles of standardization" and it is is notable that there seems to be no equivalent for ISO/IEC JTC1.