Subject: Proposed statement to JTC 1 about OMG

From: Steve Carson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:26:56 -0600

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 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 submissions. 

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’s unsuccessful experience
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 Some
Consortia 

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 corporate
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 ballots
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 to
ensure that the standards are of the highest quality and usability.   
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 established,
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 consensus
based process. 
4. 	When work is submitted to ISO for publication, typically ISO retains
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 presentation
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 oriented
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’s 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’s Interface Definition Language (IDL)
and would be well suited to be implemented on top of OMG’s Common Object
Request Broker Architecture (CORBA).  In order to meet the needs of the
standard and with OMG’s 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’s
liaison status had little or no bearing in SC24’s ability to participate 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 or
participate in OMG meetings.  In addition, SC24 was requested to remove all
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 was
finally forced to drop the usage of IDL and the CORBA object paradigm from
its work.  This decision did not affect the overall usability of the
standard, rather it delayed the development effort and caused embarrassment
to the US national body who strongly urged cooperation OMG with and
utilization of their architecture.  It is important to note here that SC24
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 Atlantic
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 negotiation
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’s
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.   

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 resolution
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 (both
established and developmental).  If this does not occur, certain conflicts
will most likely arise which will be hard to resolve due to the drastically
varying standards development approaches.  With the PREMO experience still
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 satisfied:

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, representatives
must be able to attend OMG meetings, be granted the right to speak at such
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: 

(a) any organization or individual must be able to submit technology to an
OMG RTF; 

(b) public comment must be solicited, accepted, seriously considered and
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 OMG.
This is due to the fact that as it stands today, contributing experts would
be required to pay very high fees to gain the level of membership required
within the OMG to participate in the adoption and maintenance of OMG PAS
submissions.  

---------------------------------------------------------
Steve Carson                 phone:   +1-505-521-7399
GSC Associates Inc.          fax:     +1-505-521-9321
5272 Redman Road             e-mail:  [email-masked]
Las Cruces, NM 88011 USA
---------------------------------------------------------