From puk@multi10.netcomi.com Mon Sep 1 13:01:48 1997 Received: from multi10.netcomi.com (puk@multi10.netcomi.com [204.58.155.210]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA22992 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 13:01:38 +0200 Received: (from puk@localhost) by multi10.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id GAA10947; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 06:01:25 -0500 Received: from dkuug.dk (dkuug.dk [193.88.44.89]) by multi10.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA10939 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 06:01:21 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA22386 for SC24-list; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 12:33:37 +0200 Message-Id: <199709011033.MAA22386@dkuug.dk> Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 11:33:16 +0100 From: dad@inf.rl.ac.uk (David Duce) X-Sequence: SC24@dkuug.dk 338 Errors-To: SC24-request@dkuug.dk Old-To: carson@siggraph.org Subject: (SC24.338) Proposed statement to JTC 1 about OMG Cc: sc24@dkuug.dk X-Sun-Charset: ISO-8859-1 X-Loop: puk@igraphics.com To: puk@rbc.dec.com, dick@igraphics.com Steve, I'm happy with this. David > From SC24-request@dkuug.dk Thu Aug 28 18:59 BST 1997 > X-Sender: carson@siggraph.cgrg.ohio-state.edu > Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:26:56 -0600 > To: SC24@dkuug.dk > From: Steve Carson > Subject: (SC24.335) Proposed statement to JTC 1 about OMG > Mime-Version: 1.0 > 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 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: carson@siggraph.org > Las Cruces, NM 88011 USA > --------------------------------------------------------- >