Subject: CGM ISPs

From: Anne Mumford <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 96 10:47:05 BST

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