ACM Stand.最新文献

{"title":"The National Standards Systems Network","authors":"Ronald W. Walker","doi":"10.1145/230871.230881","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/230871.230881","url":null,"abstract":"The National Standards System Network (NSSN) is an electronic network that will link the standards systems of hundreds of organizations involved in the development, production, distribution, and use of technical standards. NSSN is the gateway into this network and provides a highly effective search capability that will allow users to find information on technical standards quickly and efficiently. NSSN provides cataloging, indexing, searching, and routing capabilities to the entire range of national, regional, and international standards and standards-related information. he American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the coordinator of the U.S. private sector voluntary standards systems, formed the Standards and Data Services Committee (SDSC) to address the everchanging information needs of its members and customers. In 1992, the SDSC developed a strategic plan for the electronic development, production, and delivery of standards and standards-related information. This plan became the basis for the NSSN project, development work for which is being jointly funded by the ANSI Federation and a $2 million grant from the Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP). TRP is the federal government’s multiagency program that provides funds for dual-use (military and civilian) technology development, deployment and utilization, and is managed by the Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA). The NSSN grant is being locally managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The award was made in July of 1994 to support the project for the first two years of operation. ANSI support for the project is through inkind contributions of services and material donated by volunteers associated with the project. In today’s fast-paced electronic world, networking has become an important means of connecting thousands of personal and business computers. Since the basic goal of NSSN is to bring the far-flung members of the standards community together electronically, understanding the concept of global networking is important. In the “pre-dawn” age of computers, the early 1980s, businesses began to fill their offices with personal computers (PCs) to exploit word-processing, spreadsheet, and database software. In the midto late 80s, Local Area Networks (LANs) became the vogue as business tried to connect its various departments. Today, for businesses large and small, computers and networking technology are quickly becoming an absolute necessity. In the 90s, networking has become a global endeavor as technology has become more robust and cost-effective. Documents and messages can be sent electronically to remote locations more quickly and cheaply than by sending a fax. Global networks like the Internet have helped to expand this type of service at accelerated rates. The National Standards Systems Network","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"97 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1996-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116205328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The future for ANSI","authors":"S. Mazza","doi":"10.1145/219596.219600","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/219596.219600","url":null,"abstract":"s \" Integrity \" is the single most important word in ANSI's mission to \" enhance both the global competitiveness of U.S. business and the U.S. quality of life by promoting and facilitating voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment systems and safeguarding their integrity. \" Integrity takes many forms in the ANSI community, but it starts with a sense of community based on a shared desire to fulfill the ANSI's mission. This common cause enlightens the self-interest that drives the actions of the participants and allows the community to build the consensus it requires to function. The participants' desire to protect their investment of time and resources in the process provides them with a pragmatic motive for defending the integrity of the system. NSI's new strategic plan has five goals, all of which contribute to the integrity of the ANSI process and output. The first goal seeks greater cohesion among participants in order to create an effective, integrated, and cooperative standards community which is private, sector-led, and government supported. However, the integrity of this community must be built on more than political consensus and compromise; it must rest on a solid foundation of value. Because there must be value in the processes and value in their output, the ANSI community must ensure that funding mechanisms do not undermine the cohesion and therefore the integrity of the Institute. The second goal seeks to increase (a) diversified participation in ANSI, (b) the use of American National Standards in the private and public sectors, and (c) awareness of the meaning and value of American National Standards and ANSI's role in the national and international standards community. In order to widen support for its mission, it is essential that the community reach out and communicate the value of its activities to a broader audience. ANSI's third goal, the timely provision of relevant products and services that meet the needs of the voluntary standards community and the general public, focuses on value. ANSI will provide value in three ways: as a national policy forum on standardization issues, as a national accreditor of standards developers and conformity assessment systems, and as a source of information and education on standardization for the country and our trading partners. The importance of ANSI as an information provider is increased by the enormous influence that public notice of standards actions has on the integrity of the system as a whole. …","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1995-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131974309","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The consortium in the evolving information industry","authors":"G. Morris","doi":"10.1145/219596.219604","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/219596.219604","url":null,"abstract":"■ Before setting up X/Open in the late ’80s, I was not a fan of the consortium as a means of doing business. I considered it, as I am sure many of you did, to be an unnecessary interference in the competitive workings of the marketplace. At that time, long ago, we had all seen consortia in many industries come and go as companies jostled for supremacy, and it was not clear to me how much difference a consortium would really make in the market.","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1995-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122512898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"ASC X3-A: strategic directions","authors":"R. Dawson","doi":"10.1145/219596.219603","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/219596.219603","url":null,"abstract":"■ Commitment to the development and advancement of the use of voluntary consensus standards is an integral part of the Information Technology Industry Council’s (ITI) mission. Our members and staff devote considerable resources to the development of standards for voluntary use and regulations affecting both producers and users. e have sponsored the Accredited Standards Committee on Information Technology (ASC X3) since its founding in 1960. Our goal is to develop market-driven standards for media, programming languages, documentation, systems, intercommunication among computing devices and systems, and office products. We also serve as Administrator for the U.S. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for the International Standards Organization’s and International Electrotechnical Commission’s Joint Technical Committee 1 (JTC 1) on Information Technology, and for a number of its subcommittee and working group TAGs. Each TAG is responsible for developing and advocating U.S. information technology (IT) positions in the international standards arena. Both X3 and the JTC 1 TAG are accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).1 Ten staff members support the X3 and JTC 1 TAG activities and function as the administrative body, or secretariat, to the X3 enterprise. They monitor the activities of 76 X3 and JTC 1 TAG subgroups—nearly 3000 engineers working on over 1100 projects simultaneously. Today, nearly 70 percent of our work is directed at creating the global standards that will enable further development of IT applications, products, and services. There’s no question that these numbers indicate a clear and demonstrable need for IT standards and standards development activities. But X3’s continued success as a standards developing organization is by no means guaranteed. The IT industry is dynamic and marked by an ever-accelerating pace of technological innovation. Since 1960, X3 and our international standards activities have evolved almost constantly to meet these business and technological changes. As this evolution continues, we will use the following broad objectives to guide X3’s, JTC 1’s, and ITI’s other standards development activities: W ASC X3–A: Strategic Directions","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"139 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1995-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128389102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Book Preview: Information technology standards: quest for the common byte, by Martin Libicki","authors":"Éric Jaeger","doi":"10.1145/219596.371845","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/219596.371845","url":null,"abstract":"Cities catches the essence of Martin Libicki's book, where he demonstrates rather convincingly that continuing upheaval in information technology is, and will remain, \" standard \" fare. The underlying message revolves around a paradox that is central to the in-dustry's providers—the impulse to achieve common-ality is unquenchable, but the drive to innovate and achieve a proprietary franchise is just as strong. The constant dynamic between these two is the story of standards efforts, and the history that Libicki's survey describes. What are these things called standards? Simply speaking, an IT standard is an attempt to define some component of an information technology system in such a way that many users can use that component on offerings from multiple vendors and multiple sources to do something they want to have done. The rub, of course, is that there is no concurrence on what this definition means. To compound the problem , there is growing and increasingly acrimonious debate about what the nature and purpose of standards and standardization efforts really are. Should standards be driven by the end-users, by the designers , by the vendors of IT product, or by transient combinations of all three? Libicki introduces an interesting point when he analogizes standards with a common language. This goes to the core of the drive behind standards—it is a means to let users and their IT creations communicate meaningfully with each other. This is a truly laudable, ecumenical goal. Why would anyone oppose it? As Libicki describes it, however, not only do organizations and individuals oppose it, they do so for many reasons, nearly all of which are rooted in the tension mentioned earlier: the need for standardization and the drive for a proprietary franchise. Here is the heart of Libicki's book, which can be seen as a travelogue through the world of standardization efforts. This is a story so complex that it defies a simple analysis. In standardization every activity seems, somehow, to be part of an interwoven whole. This may be this book's greatest strength— that it tells a story and describes the processes of a number of standards efforts, from Ada to VHDL. Rather than attempt the futile task of a strict definition of IT standards, their processes, and effects, Li-bicki's survey defines by description and example. This approach avoids most of the arcane and endless discussions about definitions that seem to consume inordinate time and effort …","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1995-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117205195","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Preserving due process in standards work","authors":"E. Gray, D. Bodson","doi":"10.1145/219596.219598","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/219596.219598","url":null,"abstract":"■ Due process refers to a legal concept and to the practice based on that concept. We begin with a brief review of the relevant legal and historical ideas, then more fully address the ways of preserving due process when developing information-technology standards. We identify the necessary and minimum procedures for preserving due process in standards working groups and make connections between (a) the defined elements of due process and (b) the ways in which ANSI’s X3 and other standards working groups preserve due process. We also address briefly the need to balance timely standards development with due process; in the case of accelerated procedures, to accommodate rapidly developing technology and identify the advantages—to the standards user—of preserving due process in standards development. ur purpose is to identify the ways in which a lay standards worker can preserve due process in a standards working group without relying on legal counsel for a definition of “due process” in action. The discussion, which is limited to lay language and avoids legal terminology, concerns itself with standards working groups that develop information-technology (IT) standards—international standards, national standards, and military standards. De facto standards (i.e., industry standards) and consortia standards are not addressed, except by way of comparison. The discussion is aimed at answering the question, “Why should I, as a standards worker, preserve due process in my standards committee work?”","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"418 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1995-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116682449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Standard setting and consortium structures","authors":"A. Updegrove","doi":"10.1145/219596.219601","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/219596.219601","url":null,"abstract":"■ Within the formal standards bodies, the process by which consortia are formed and the rules under which they operate have been, at times, criticized as being somewhat elitist. This article examines consortia—not so much from the technical arena—but from a legal and “social” perspective, to show how they achieve the balance in interests necessary to create specifications that fill market needs. Based on a broad experience with consortia and consortia creation, the author argues that consortia are a powerful force in standardization, but require as much, if not more, care than do Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs), because they are subject to all the influences that have an impact on an SDO as well as their own influences. By looking at the X Consortium and contrasting this to the Open GIS Consortia (OGC), the article examines those factors that can make a consortia more or less likely to survive as a force in the market. oday, the sources of “standards,” broadly construed, constitute a wide spectrum indeed: from the market-power derived, vendor-imposed user environment that is MS Windows and Windows compliant applications, to international bodies such as the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) which promulgate a broad array of standards through a broad, participatory process. To the end-user (as compared to a vendor competing with other vendors), the source of a standard is of less concern than the utility of the standard offered (or even imposed). To some endusers, the quality of the standard is in fact secondary to the requirement that a standard, any standard, exist for ease of learning and using applications software (MS Windows again is the best example). Be that as it may, the market would still prefer a good, and not merely a mediocre standard. But what is a “good” standard? And what source is most likely to yield a good standard? Finally, when any group of persons or entities embark upon the task of creating a standard, how can they create a process that is most likely to create a good standard? For argument’s sake, let us say that a “good” standard must embody at least the following, very briefly stated, attributes:","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1995-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132400792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rejuvenating technical consortia","authors":"R. Alderman","doi":"10.1145/219596.219606","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/219596.219606","url":null,"abstract":"s In the high-technology markets, con-sortia seem to come and go with the seasons. This phenomenon is not unusual when you consider that the life cycles of some technologies only last from nine months to two years. Technological con-sortia are established by interested and materially affected parties to accomplish a collective strategic goal that no single member can accomplish alone: market development. Having accomplished this goal, the membership moves on to the next threat or opportunity, and the consortium, most times, fades from view. How, then, can a consortium rejuvenate itself and continue to provide value to its members? The answer lies in how the members and the market perceive the value of the consortium. usiness schools and psychologists have taught us that corporations and individuals have two basic motivations: the avoidance of failure or pain and the pursuit of success or pleasure. Successful consortia are typically established to fight a commercial threat in the marketplace and to create an environment for their membership to capitalize on business opportunities for growth and profitability. If a consortium is languishing, it is because it has defeated the commercial threat and there is no longer a common enemy, or it has failed to stem the threat, and opportunities for growth and profitability are diminished. For consortia to continue to prosper , there must always be a perceived commercial threat and there must always be a perceived stream of new business opportunities. With either of these imperatives missing, the perceived value of a consortium , to both its membership and the market, will decline rapidly. The common threat to a consortium's interest is the convergence point that bonds the membership to the organization. The target marketplace defined by a consortium becomes the divergence point for the membership to pursue their commercial interests. The primary role of consortia is to set strategic plans and goals for the membership that allow them to pursue this economic benefit. In most instances, the membership must create and execute the tactics. One, usually fatal, mistake of consortia is to undertake tactical activities in the marketplace in support of the strategic goals; in most instances, this is contrary to the interests of consortia members. However, one common tactic that can be developed by a consortium and accepted and used by its membership is the development and adoption of certain enabling standards. A consortium is always created around a technology element …","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1995-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125159039","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"European standardization policy","authors":"D. Wood","doi":"10.1145/226191.226210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/226191.226210","url":null,"abstract":"■ A workshop on Information and Communication Technology Standardization Policy was held by the European Commission in November 1994. The European Union has a policy requiring European and international standards in public procurements. There is growing realization in the Commission that many formal standards are not successful in the marketplace, and that de facto standards from consortia often provide a cheaper alternative for open systems. The workshop resulted in a series of recommendations that can be expected to lead to changes in European policy on standardization over the next year. There were many parallels between the workshop and the U.S. Federal Internetworking Requirements Panel (FIRP), which in 1994 recommended changes to U.S. Government Open System Interconnection Profile (GOSIP) policy. he workshop was motivated primarily by recommendations made to the European Council in June of 1994 on “Europe and the Global Information Society.” The recommendations are contained in the “Bangemann Report,” which was prepared by a group of prominent persons and chaired by Commissioner Martin Bangemann [Bangemann 1994]. The report sets out a vision for Europe in the Global Information Infrastructure, and in many ways is analogous to the Clinton/Gore February 1993 paper on technology for America’s economic growth [Clinton and Gore 1993] and the National Information Infrastructure (NII) Agenda for Action of September 1993 [IITF 1993]. The report, which does not favor more public money, urges the European Union to put its faith in market mechanisms, to deregulate, and to encourage a competitive market for information services. It also proposes an action plan involving ten key applications. The report makes some critical observations concerning standards: “Standards institutes have an honorable record in producing European standards, but the standardization process as it stands today raises a number of concerns about fitness for purpose, lack of interoperability, and priority setting that is not sufficiently market driven.” In line with its overall vision and on the basis of its assessment of the current organization and output, “the Bangemann Group recommends a review of the European standardization process in order to increase its speed and responsiveness to markets.”","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1995-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128448720","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Information technology: grasping at governance","authors":"G. Coupe","doi":"10.1145/226191.226208","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/226191.226208","url":null,"abstract":"■ The Shell companies1 together form one of the largest business enterprises in the world. They handle almost a tenth of the world’s oil and natural gas outside of the former centrally planned economies, exploring for and producing, purchasing, processing, and selling oil and gas. They are among the world’s leading chemical businesses, and represent the largest total investment in chemicals by any of the major oil companies. Within this context, information technology (IT) plays an important role in enabling Shell staff to pursue their business objectives. With an annual budget in the Shell Group of well over $1 billion, IT also comes in for a good deal of scrutiny by business management. This article examines a number of issues surrounding the matching of enabling technologies with business requirements, including:","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1995-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130680954","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}