From carson@siggraph.org Thu Aug 28 19:22:37 1997 Received: from siggraph.cgrg.ohio-state.edu (siggraph.cgrg.ohio-state.edu [128.146.18.100]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA11939 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 19:22:35 +0200 Received: from study.huntleigh.com (carson@siggraph.org) by siggraph.cgrg.ohio-state.edu (8.8.5/941010.52) with SMTP id NAA08078 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 13:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970828112310.008ddc04@siggraph.cgrg.ohio-state.edu> X-Sender: carson@siggraph.cgrg.ohio-state.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:26:56 -0600 To: SC24@dkuug.dk From: Steve Carson Subject: Proposed statement to JTC 1 about OMG Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by siggraph.cgrg.ohio-state.edu id NAA08078 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 not changes so as to allow our experts individually or our SC as a whole to participate in the work of OMG without all of us individually joining and paying exorbitant fees, we feel that we must speak out. The goal is not t= o block the OMG application, but rather to force them to change their way o= f working on those projects that might be submitted to ISO as PAS submissio= ns.=20 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 J= TC 1 on Friday 5 September. - - - SC 24 N xxxx Statement from SC 24 to JTC 1 on the Application of OMG for Recognition a= s a PAS Submitter Introduction The following comments are submitted by JTC 1/ SC 24 (Computer Graphics a= nd 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 experi= ence in working with OMG as a Class C liaison. We have attached as important 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 Management Group 3) ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 N 1285 Difficulties of Category C Liaison with Som= e Consortia=20 These documents describe the difficulties encountered while working with 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 corporat= e 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 the standards. 1. The ISO standardization process is an open consensus based process which provides for input by various types of experts (through JTC1 ballot= s and public reviews). ISO subcommittees are required to coordinate standards development efforts with other subcommittees as well as outside technical experts and other standards developing organizations in order t= o ensure that the standards are of the highest quality and usability. =20 2. The ISO process requires that a mature well founded body of work with market relevance and national body participation be established prior to originating a new ISO project. However, when a new project is establishe= d, 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. =20 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 consensus based process.=20 4. When work is submitted to ISO for publication, typically ISO retains the copyright to the material.=20 History of SC 24's Relationship with the OMG In the 1991, 1992 time frame, a research effort was started by a few of t= he ISO/IEC JTC1 SC 24 participating national body members to ascertain the feasibility of developing an object oriented multimedia standard. The ne= ed 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 presentatio= n 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 o= f the material and believed that the material would provide an excellent architecture/methodology upon which to develop a multimedia object orient= ed standard. Even though the body of work was still in the early phases of development, the key concepts and principles were fairly well established 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 specifications. 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 (IDL= ) and would be well suited to be implemented on top of OMG=92s Common Objec= t Request Broker Architecture (CORBA). In order to meet the needs of the standard and with OMG=92s knowledge, SC24 worked to develop modifications= to IDL and submitted suggested revisions to the OMG. It was determined that OMG was not very willing to alter the IDL specification and that SC24=92s liaison status had little or no bearing in SC24=92s ability to participat= e in the OMG process. In fact, even though SC24 held a Class C Liaison with t= he OMG, SC24 did not receive OMG documents and was not invited to attend or participate in OMG meetings. In addition, SC24 was requested to remove a= ll OMG text from their standards, even though OMG did not hold the copyright to the material, only a limited license. Due to these problems, SC24 wa= s finally forced to drop the usage of IDL and the CORBA object paradigm fro= m its work. This decision did not affect the overall usability of the standard, rather it delayed the development effort and caused embarrassme= nt to the US national body who strongly urged cooperation OMG with and utilization of their architecture. It is important to note here that SC2= 4 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 Atlant= ic Treaty Organization, and the Imagery Standards Management Committee) SC24 is also aware of the cooperation which has occurred between the OMG and SC21/WG7. The primary reason for the success of this liaison is due = to the fact that there is significant overlap between the two organizations with respect to the work which is being standardized and in individual members. Thus, the typical liaison relationship which requires negotiatio= n 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 compromise in order to ideally benefit both parties. Based on this fact, we believe that the scenario encountered by SC24 is more typical of what future coordinating standards development efforts will most likely encounter and what should be protected against by JTC1. =20 SC24 believes that a relationship with the OMG and standardization of its 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 having input to the development/finalization of the standard or in the resolutio= n of defects and maintenance of the standard. It is important for JTC1 to make sure that the OMG will accept input from its subcommittees in order = to harmonize the transposed standards with the current JTC1 body of work (bo= th established and developmental). If this does not occur, certain conflict= s will most likely arise which will be hard to resolve due to the drastical= ly varying standards development approaches. With the PREMO experience stil= l fresh in our minds, SC24 cautions JTC1 to coordinate the interaction of t= he 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 satisfie= d: 1. The OMG process must be revised, with respect to PAS submissions, such that JTC1 organizations holding Category C Liaisons with the OMG can participate effectively in the OMG process. At a minimum, representative= s must be able to attend OMG meetings, be granted the right to speak at suc= h meetings, and to submit items for inclusion on the agenda. Also, the OMG 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 allow participation by all interested parties. In particular and at a minimum:= =20 (a) any organization or individual must be able to submit technology to a= n OMG RTF;=20 (b) public comment must be solicited, accepted, seriously considered and properly resolved during all OMG development projects; and=20 (c) there must be provisions so that any organization or individual who c= an make a contribution to the work of the OMG and requests to participate ca= n participate in its working groups without being required to join the OMG. This is due to the fact that as it stands today, contributing experts wou= ld be required to pay very high fees to gain the level of membership require= d within the OMG to participate in the adoption and maintenance of OMG PAS submissions. =20 --------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------