m Standards for information technology (IT) play a significant, but often hidden, role in helping people to manage and use the technology effectively. The pattern of rapid change that has marked the development and use of information technology over the past few decades continues today. In many areas of technology, standards, whether developed quickly or through painful deliberations, are expected to endure for a long, useful life. But because of rapid change, it is difficult to develop information technology standards that are timely and that endure. The prospects for a National Information Infrastructure (NII) and a Global Information Infrastructure (GII) have been discussed extensively over the past few years. The envisioned GII is expected to use technology advances to seamlessly interconnect, on a global basis, existing islands of technology and information. One would expect that the anticipated global linking of telecommunications, computing, and consumer electronics technologies would inevitably lead to international standards for information technology. However, past experiences suggest that we cannot assume that international standards will always be the solution. e discuss the environment in which information technology standards are developed and how U.S. interests are served by various types of information technology standards. The observations are based on the authors’ combined experience of over forty years of trying to understand standards development for information technology in support of U.S. commerce. There are genuine differences of opinion on the question of whether U.S. national or international standards are in the best interests of the United States. In the area of information technology, we believe the answer is: it depends. It depends upon the answers to questions such as: (1) How does one define the best interests of the U.S.? (2) What is the definition of an international standard? (3) How much choice is there in whether national, regional, or international standards achieve marketplace acceptance? We believe that, for information technology, answers to these questions are key to coping with or profiting from the emerging GII.
{"title":"The quest for information technology standards for the global information infrastructure","authors":"Michael D. Hogan, S. Radack","doi":"10.1145/253452.253477","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/253452.253477","url":null,"abstract":"m Standards for information technology (IT) play a significant, but often hidden, role in helping people to manage and use the technology effectively. The pattern of rapid change that has marked the development and use of information technology over the past few decades continues today. In many areas of technology, standards, whether developed quickly or through painful deliberations, are expected to endure for a long, useful life. But because of rapid change, it is difficult to develop information technology standards that are timely and that endure. The prospects for a National Information Infrastructure (NII) and a Global Information Infrastructure (GII) have been discussed extensively over the past few years. The envisioned GII is expected to use technology advances to seamlessly interconnect, on a global basis, existing islands of technology and information. One would expect that the anticipated global linking of telecommunications, computing, and consumer electronics technologies would inevitably lead to international standards for information technology. However, past experiences suggest that we cannot assume that international standards will always be the solution. e discuss the environment in which information technology standards are developed and how U.S. interests are served by various types of information technology standards. The observations are based on the authors’ combined experience of over forty years of trying to understand standards development for information technology in support of U.S. commerce. There are genuine differences of opinion on the question of whether U.S. national or international standards are in the best interests of the United States. In the area of information technology, we believe the answer is: it depends. It depends upon the answers to questions such as: (1) How does one define the best interests of the U.S.? (2) What is the definition of an international standard? (3) How much choice is there in whether national, regional, or international standards achieve marketplace acceptance? We believe that, for information technology, answers to these questions are key to coping with or profiting from the emerging GII.","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125001015","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}
Ⅵ Information technology is undergoing rapid and constant change to an extent that cannot be matched by any other technology. For the past two decades, there have been continual, dramatic increases in performance and function-ality, accompanied by significantly decreasing prices. Rapid change and innovation have affected almost all areas of human endeavor, and has enabled the development of new industries , products, and services. nformation technology functionality provided by desktop computers is becoming embedded in network services, consumer products, household appliances, and automobiles. Embedded computers systems that integrate data collected by sensors are beginning to influence many aspects of daily life, such as climate and security controls for homes and automobiles. and received in a common form or language , and thereby enables multiple functions to come together on common platforms (Cross Industry Working Team's report on Evolving the NII: A Cross Industry Vision). Increased computational power and bandwidth are leading to new applications combining multiple functions such as electronic commerce, search and retrieval of multimedia information from digital libraries, and the integration of design, ordering, and manufacturing processes. Interfaces between the parts of information technology systems are becoming more open, thus enabling users to interconnect the hardware, software, and communications products of different vendors. In early 1996, there were an estimated 330 million personal computers in use worldwide; more than half of which had access to the Internet. People have so far been willing to upgrade and change their computers as the technology changes—an estimated million and a half computers are given away every month. Information technology systems are widely distributed throughout the world, and tens of millions of people have started to access information through computer networks. People throughout the world are closer than ever before to communications facilities. About half of the world's population is, on the average , only two hours away from a telephone. The rapidly deployed wireless technology is likely to provide accelerated growth in online services around the world, and is expected to overshadow currently dominant voice traffic.
{"title":"Measurement-based standards for future information technology systems","authors":"S. Wakid, S. Radack","doi":"10.1145/253452.253479","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/253452.253479","url":null,"abstract":"Ⅵ Information technology is undergoing rapid and constant change to an extent that cannot be matched by any other technology. For the past two decades, there have been continual, dramatic increases in performance and function-ality, accompanied by significantly decreasing prices. Rapid change and innovation have affected almost all areas of human endeavor, and has enabled the development of new industries , products, and services. nformation technology functionality provided by desktop computers is becoming embedded in network services, consumer products, household appliances, and automobiles. Embedded computers systems that integrate data collected by sensors are beginning to influence many aspects of daily life, such as climate and security controls for homes and automobiles. and received in a common form or language , and thereby enables multiple functions to come together on common platforms (Cross Industry Working Team's report on Evolving the NII: A Cross Industry Vision). Increased computational power and bandwidth are leading to new applications combining multiple functions such as electronic commerce, search and retrieval of multimedia information from digital libraries, and the integration of design, ordering, and manufacturing processes. Interfaces between the parts of information technology systems are becoming more open, thus enabling users to interconnect the hardware, software, and communications products of different vendors. In early 1996, there were an estimated 330 million personal computers in use worldwide; more than half of which had access to the Internet. People have so far been willing to upgrade and change their computers as the technology changes—an estimated million and a half computers are given away every month. Information technology systems are widely distributed throughout the world, and tens of millions of people have started to access information through computer networks. People throughout the world are closer than ever before to communications facilities. About half of the world's population is, on the average , only two hours away from a telephone. The rapidly deployed wireless technology is likely to provide accelerated growth in online services around the world, and is expected to overshadow currently dominant voice traffic.","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114923702","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}
his issue of Standard View is another eclectic mix of standardization, information, and generally interesting articles. As usual, it is meant to provoke, while providing a degree of information about continuing trends in standardization. I trust that you will find some parts of it useful. Apropos of continuing trends, I’d like to examine a new development in standardization-the role of provider of the Publicly Available Specification (PAS). This is of interest because Sun Microsystems recently (March 1997) submitted a proposal to the International Organization for Standardizatiodhternational Electrotechnical Committee Joint Technical Committee 1 (ISO/IEC JTC1) for recognition as a submitter of Publicly Available Specifications. This has myriad implications for the entire standardization arena. A bit of background on the PAS process is necessary. In the early 1990s, the information technology standards developing organizations (SDOs) began to hemorrhage members. As major corporations began to downsize, participation in formal standards organizations began to drop, resulting in fewer members, smaller dues payments, and a decline in startup projects. While the SDOs viewed this trend with concern, they were even more concerned and interested in the spectacular growth of consortia. There were object consortia, open consortia, alphabetic consortia, numeric consortia, and so on and so forth. All these consortia charged large fees to their members-usually the same members who composed the SDOs and were dropping participation in them. At first SDOs took the growth of consortia lightly and treated them as a passing fancy. Over time, however, consortia became firmly established, eclipsing formal SDOs in the most critical area of allmarket acceptance of public specifications, the consortia equivalent of standards. The SDOs needed to reassert their hegemony, and after much thought came up with the idea of the Publicly Available Specification (PAS). A PAS is a product of a consortium, created in accordance with the rules governing the consortium. When the consortium has completed its work and the market has accepted the specification, the consortium can submit the work to an SDOfor acceptance as a standard, if the consortium is recognized as a “Submitter of Public Specifications.” To earn this title, the consortium must answer a detailed questionnaire provided by ISO/IEC JTC1, affirming that its specifications are open, that it will support the specification, and a host of other questions concerning the consortium’s legitimacy and process. As might be expected, most consortia took one look at this process and declined to participate. Most consortia regard themselves as legitimate and do not need the “imprimatur” of IS0 to be successful in the marketplace-which was, after all, the reason that their sponsors were paying the fees. The process requirements of a consortium can be just as severe, possibly more so, as an SDO’s. Additionally, going through the steps n
{"title":"Editorial: prologue and introduction","authors":"C. Cargill","doi":"10.1145/253452.253456","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/253452.253456","url":null,"abstract":"his issue of Standard View is another eclectic mix of standardization, information, and generally interesting articles. As usual, it is meant to provoke, while providing a degree of information about continuing trends in standardization. I trust that you will find some parts of it useful. Apropos of continuing trends, I’d like to examine a new development in standardization-the role of provider of the Publicly Available Specification (PAS). This is of interest because Sun Microsystems recently (March 1997) submitted a proposal to the International Organization for Standardizatiodhternational Electrotechnical Committee Joint Technical Committee 1 (ISO/IEC JTC1) for recognition as a submitter of Publicly Available Specifications. This has myriad implications for the entire standardization arena. A bit of background on the PAS process is necessary. In the early 1990s, the information technology standards developing organizations (SDOs) began to hemorrhage members. As major corporations began to downsize, participation in formal standards organizations began to drop, resulting in fewer members, smaller dues payments, and a decline in startup projects. While the SDOs viewed this trend with concern, they were even more concerned and interested in the spectacular growth of consortia. There were object consortia, open consortia, alphabetic consortia, numeric consortia, and so on and so forth. All these consortia charged large fees to their members-usually the same members who composed the SDOs and were dropping participation in them. At first SDOs took the growth of consortia lightly and treated them as a passing fancy. Over time, however, consortia became firmly established, eclipsing formal SDOs in the most critical area of allmarket acceptance of public specifications, the consortia equivalent of standards. The SDOs needed to reassert their hegemony, and after much thought came up with the idea of the Publicly Available Specification (PAS). A PAS is a product of a consortium, created in accordance with the rules governing the consortium. When the consortium has completed its work and the market has accepted the specification, the consortium can submit the work to an SDOfor acceptance as a standard, if the consortium is recognized as a “Submitter of Public Specifications.” To earn this title, the consortium must answer a detailed questionnaire provided by ISO/IEC JTC1, affirming that its specifications are open, that it will support the specification, and a host of other questions concerning the consortium’s legitimacy and process. As might be expected, most consortia took one look at this process and declined to participate. Most consortia regard themselves as legitimate and do not need the “imprimatur” of IS0 to be successful in the marketplace-which was, after all, the reason that their sponsors were paying the fees. The process requirements of a consortium can be just as severe, possibly more so, as an SDO’s. Additionally, going through the steps n","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122808355","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}
Users and standardization worlds apart? The example of electronic mail, p. 183. NEWCOMER, E. (w/Lowe and Sekine) STDL: A route to productivity for distributed processing, p. 198. Free-ridership in the standards setting process: The case of lOBaseT, p. 205. Dec. 1996. WILLIAMS, R. (w/Jakobs and Proctor) Users and standardization Worlds apart? The example of electronic mail, p. 183.
{"title":"Cummulative author index, March 1996-December 1996","authors":"C. Cargill","doi":"10.1145/253452.253484","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/253452.253484","url":null,"abstract":"Users and standardization worlds apart? The example of electronic mail, p. 183. NEWCOMER, E. (w/Lowe and Sekine) STDL: A route to productivity for distributed processing, p. 198. Free-ridership in the standards setting process: The case of lOBaseT, p. 205. Dec. 1996. WILLIAMS, R. (w/Jakobs and Proctor) Users and standardization Worlds apart? The example of electronic mail, p. 183.","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126208876","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}
m We consider requirements for distributed authoring on the Web, based on experience with the BSCW Shared Workspace system. The BSCW system is an extension of a standard Web server, which provides a range of basic services for collaboration, including features for uploading documents of any type, remote editing, version management, group administration, access control and more, accessible from different platforms using unmodified Web browsers. We discuss the need for standards for Web-based distributed authoring and reveal our own application-level solutions as implemented in the BSCW system. he Web was originally intended to support a richer, more active form of information sharing than is currently the case. Early implementations at CERN allowed browsing of pages, as is common today, but also supported annotation and the addition of links between arbitrary pages, not just those on local servers, which the user could access and edit [Berners-Lee 1992]. Some of these concepts were carried through to early drafts of the standards for Web protocols, which describe features such as remote publishing of hypertext pages and check in/out support for locking documents, to ensure consistency in a multiauthor environment. To date, these aspects have largely been sidelined, while development of Web browsers, servers, and protocols has focused on the more “passive” aspects of information browsing. The emergence of tools like Netscape Composer (Gold) and America Online AOLpress suggest a return to the Web as the basis for more active information sharing. Such tools support WYSIWYG editing of Web pages and publishing to remote Web servers: a first step towards true distributed, cross-platform, collaborative authoring and annotation. These developments in turn raise questions about the support required for version management, consistency control, and the like, and how (and to what extent) this support should be provided through extension of the standard Web protocols. These questions are the focus of the work of the recently established IETF Working Group on Distributed Authoring and Versioning. To provide input to these discussions, we describe our work with the BSCW Shared Workspace system [Bentley et al. 1997a; 1997b]. Conceived as a means to support dispersed work groups, BSCW provides features for sharing documents of any type by upload to a BSCW server. Simple locking and versioning services are also provided, and a basic event service informs users of the current state of the authoring process. BSCW integrates tools like Distributed Authoring on the Web with the BSCW Shared Workspace System
m基于BSCW共享工作空间系统的经验，我们考虑在Web上进行分布式创作的需求。BSCW系统是标准Web服务器的扩展，为协作提供一系列基本服务，包括上传任何类型的文档、远程编辑、版本管理、组管理、访问控制等功能，可以使用未经修改的Web浏览器从不同平台访问。我们讨论了对基于web的分布式创作标准的需求，并揭示了在BSCW系统中实现的我们自己的应用程序级解决方案。Web最初的目的是支持比目前更丰富、更活跃的信息共享形式。CERN的早期实现允许浏览页面，就像今天一样，但也支持注释和任意页面之间的链接，而不仅仅是那些在本地服务器上的，用户可以访问和编辑[Berners-Lee 1992]。其中一些概念贯穿于Web协议标准的早期草案中，这些标准描述了诸如远程发布超文本页面和锁定文档的签入/签出支持等特性，以确保多作者环境中的一致性。到目前为止，这些方面在很大程度上被搁置了，而Web浏览器、服务器和协议的开发则集中在信息浏览的更“被动”的方面。像Netscape Composer(金牌版)和America Online AOLpress这样的工具的出现，表明了网络作为更积极的信息共享基础的回归。这些工具支持对Web页面进行所见即所得的编辑，并将其发布到远程Web服务器上:这是迈向真正的分布式、跨平台、协作创作和注释的第一步。这些发展反过来又提出了一些问题:版本管理、一致性控制等所需的支持，以及应该如何(以及在多大程度上)通过标准Web协议的扩展来提供这种支持。这些问题是最近成立的IETF分布式创作和版本控制工作组的工作重点。为了给这些讨论提供输入，我们描述了我们使用BSCW共享工作空间系统的工作[Bentley et al. 1997a;1997 b]。作为一种支持分散工作组的方法，BSCW提供了通过上传到BSCW服务器来共享任何类型文档的特性。还提供了简单的锁定和版本控制服务，并提供了一个基本的事件服务，通知用户创作过程的当前状态。BSCW将Web上的分布式创作等工具与BSCW共享工作空间系统集成在一起
{"title":"Distributed authoring on the Web with the BSCW shared workspace system","authors":"Thilo C. Horstmann, Richard Bentley","doi":"10.1145/253452.253464","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/253452.253464","url":null,"abstract":"m We consider requirements for distributed authoring on the Web, based on experience with the BSCW Shared Workspace system. The BSCW system is an extension of a standard Web server, which provides a range of basic services for collaboration, including features for uploading documents of any type, remote editing, version management, group administration, access control and more, accessible from different platforms using unmodified Web browsers. We discuss the need for standards for Web-based distributed authoring and reveal our own application-level solutions as implemented in the BSCW system. he Web was originally intended to support a richer, more active form of information sharing than is currently the case. Early implementations at CERN allowed browsing of pages, as is common today, but also supported annotation and the addition of links between arbitrary pages, not just those on local servers, which the user could access and edit [Berners-Lee 1992]. Some of these concepts were carried through to early drafts of the standards for Web protocols, which describe features such as remote publishing of hypertext pages and check in/out support for locking documents, to ensure consistency in a multiauthor environment. To date, these aspects have largely been sidelined, while development of Web browsers, servers, and protocols has focused on the more “passive” aspects of information browsing. The emergence of tools like Netscape Composer (Gold) and America Online AOLpress suggest a return to the Web as the basis for more active information sharing. Such tools support WYSIWYG editing of Web pages and publishing to remote Web servers: a first step towards true distributed, cross-platform, collaborative authoring and annotation. These developments in turn raise questions about the support required for version management, consistency control, and the like, and how (and to what extent) this support should be provided through extension of the standard Web protocols. These questions are the focus of the work of the recently established IETF Working Group on Distributed Authoring and Versioning. To provide input to these discussions, we describe our work with the BSCW Shared Workspace system [Bentley et al. 1997a; 1997b]. Conceived as a means to support dispersed work groups, BSCW provides features for sharing documents of any type by upload to a BSCW server. Simple locking and versioning services are also provided, and a basic event service informs users of the current state of the authoring process. BSCW integrates tools like Distributed Authoring on the Web with the BSCW Shared Workspace System","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128762754","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}
We introduce a view of " standards " as driven by the power of marketing. The value of any such standards is questioned , their use deplored, and the challenge is offered to computing professionals to resist such deception. Many organizations take the short-term view—throw money at a problem, make incremental changes instead of reassessing strategies, choose the cheapest solution now—the time horizon is the next quarter's bottom line. he marketing industry capitalizes on the short-term view by promoting into mass markets products that really are short-lifetime products, or quick-fix solutions, or competitor-response lookalikes, or market share placebos. Individuals do not even have a short-term bottom line to consider when making a purchasing decision. Value-for-money and return-on-investment are very rarely considered. Rather, the important factors are whether or not the product is affordable and useful. Marketing to the masses profits from this by setting prices to " what the market will bear " and by highlighting new features and ease-of-use when promoting a new product. The success of such marketing results in a popular product that can become so popular as to be considered a standard. Thus the appearance of marketing-driven standards. Marketing-driven standards are not so much what the user needs, but something that a powerful marketing campaign leads them to believe they want (often for mostly the wrong reasons). Why else would the public queue up before midnight of August 23, 1995 to try to be the first to buy a copy of a software product that was never expected to be in short supply (and in fact turned out to be in rather plentiful supply!)? This was particularly evident in New Zealand where, because of the location of the International Date Line, such customers could claim to be first in the world. We can take it as given that marketing people, successful ones anyway, are of above average intelligence (by some definition of intelligence, say creativity). So their target audience is necessarily of slightly less than average intelligence (using the same definition). This is an unfair game, which explains why marketing tends to win more than lose. One might argue that marketing includes itself in its target audience ; i.e., they start to believe their own hype, but all this means is that the target audience is of average in-telligence—so it is still an unfair game. Marketing-driven standards are not to be confused with market-driven standards. Market-driven …
{"title":"Marketing-driven standards: virtual standardization","authors":"R. Brownrigg","doi":"10.1145/253452.253481","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/253452.253481","url":null,"abstract":"We introduce a view of \" standards \" as driven by the power of marketing. The value of any such standards is questioned , their use deplored, and the challenge is offered to computing professionals to resist such deception. Many organizations take the short-term view—throw money at a problem, make incremental changes instead of reassessing strategies, choose the cheapest solution now—the time horizon is the next quarter's bottom line. he marketing industry capitalizes on the short-term view by promoting into mass markets products that really are short-lifetime products, or quick-fix solutions, or competitor-response lookalikes, or market share placebos. Individuals do not even have a short-term bottom line to consider when making a purchasing decision. Value-for-money and return-on-investment are very rarely considered. Rather, the important factors are whether or not the product is affordable and useful. Marketing to the masses profits from this by setting prices to \" what the market will bear \" and by highlighting new features and ease-of-use when promoting a new product. The success of such marketing results in a popular product that can become so popular as to be considered a standard. Thus the appearance of marketing-driven standards. Marketing-driven standards are not so much what the user needs, but something that a powerful marketing campaign leads them to believe they want (often for mostly the wrong reasons). Why else would the public queue up before midnight of August 23, 1995 to try to be the first to buy a copy of a software product that was never expected to be in short supply (and in fact turned out to be in rather plentiful supply!)? This was particularly evident in New Zealand where, because of the location of the International Date Line, such customers could claim to be first in the world. We can take it as given that marketing people, successful ones anyway, are of above average intelligence (by some definition of intelligence, say creativity). So their target audience is necessarily of slightly less than average intelligence (using the same definition). This is an unfair game, which explains why marketing tends to win more than lose. One might argue that marketing includes itself in its target audience ; i.e., they start to believe their own hype, but all this means is that the target audience is of average in-telligence—so it is still an unfair game. Marketing-driven standards are not to be confused with market-driven standards. Market-driven …","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125662334","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}
Judith A. Slein, F. Vitali, E. J. Whitehead, David G. Durand
m Current World Wide Web (WWW or Web) standards provide simple support for applications that allow remote editing of typed data. In practice, the existing capabilities of the WWW have proven inadequate to support efficient, scalable, remote editing, free of overwriting conflicts. A list of features in the form of requirements which, if implemented, would improve the efficiency of common remote editing operations, provide a locking mechanism to prevent overwrite conflicts, improve relationship management support between non-HTML data types, provide a simple attribute-value metadata facility, provide for the creation and reading of container data types, and integrate versioning into the WWW are presented in this article. unctionality which, if standardized in the context of the WWW, would allow tools for remote loading, editing and saving (publishing) of various media types on the WWW to interoperate with any compliant Web server is described here. As much as possible, this functionality is described without proposing an implementation, since there are many ways to perform the functionality within the WWW framework. It could be implemented in extensions to HTTP, in a new protocol to be layered on top of HTTP, in additional MIME types, or some combination of these and other approaches. It is also possible that a single mechanism could simultaneously satisfy several requirements. In this article we want to reflect the consensus of the WWW Distributed Authoring and Versioning working group (WebDAV) on the functionality that needs to be standardized to support distributed authoring and versioning on the Web. However, this version still has some problems and questions that are being debated in the working group:
{"title":"Requirements for distributed authoring and versioning on the World Wide Web","authors":"Judith A. Slein, F. Vitali, E. J. Whitehead, David G. Durand","doi":"10.1145/253452.253474","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/253452.253474","url":null,"abstract":"m Current World Wide Web (WWW or Web) standards provide simple support for applications that allow remote editing of typed data. In practice, the existing capabilities of the WWW have proven inadequate to support efficient, scalable, remote editing, free of overwriting conflicts. A list of features in the form of requirements which, if implemented, would improve the efficiency of common remote editing operations, provide a locking mechanism to prevent overwrite conflicts, improve relationship management support between non-HTML data types, provide a simple attribute-value metadata facility, provide for the creation and reading of container data types, and integrate versioning into the WWW are presented in this article. unctionality which, if standardized in the context of the WWW, would allow tools for remote loading, editing and saving (publishing) of various media types on the WWW to interoperate with any compliant Web server is described here. As much as possible, this functionality is described without proposing an implementation, since there are many ways to perform the functionality within the WWW framework. It could be implemented in extensions to HTTP, in a new protocol to be layered on top of HTTP, in additional MIME types, or some combination of these and other approaches. It is also possible that a single mechanism could simultaneously satisfy several requirements. In this article we want to reflect the consensus of the WWW Distributed Authoring and Versioning working group (WebDAV) on the functionality that needs to be standardized to support distributed authoring and versioning on the Web. However, this version still has some problems and questions that are being debated in the working group:","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127653905","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}
The current trends in distributed authoring are examined not from a technical or World Wide Web point of view, but from that of an organization that will deploy and use these tools in the pursuit of business or other organizational imperatives. I believe that there are forces in organizations that militate against immediate successful adoption of the principles of distributed authoring and versioning. While there will be specific instances where this technology can be applied immediately, large-scale acceptance of the principles will have to await the creation and implementation of a new type and style of organization. But as with all complex systems, there are no clear answers, and, probably even more confusing, no clear questions. well-known sentiment in business circles regarding reengineering derives from the following statement:
{"title":"Justifying the need for distributed authoring: a compelling reason","authors":"C. Cargill","doi":"10.1145/253452.253476","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/253452.253476","url":null,"abstract":"The current trends in distributed authoring are examined not from a technical or World Wide Web point of view, but from that of an organization that will deploy and use these tools in the pursuit of business or other organizational imperatives. I believe that there are forces in organizations that militate against immediate successful adoption of the principles of distributed authoring and versioning. While there will be specific instances where this technology can be applied immediately, large-scale acceptance of the principles will have to await the creation and implementation of a new type and style of organization. But as with all complex systems, there are no clear answers, and, probably even more confusing, no clear questions. well-known sentiment in business circles regarding reengineering derives from the following statement:","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131204150","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}
The U.S. system for standardization and certification remains complex and misunderstood by Europeans, However, on the eve of the transatlantic dialogue, insight into this system is necessary since it influences the position of U.S. trade diplomacy.
{"title":"The United States: a standardized vision of international relations?","authors":"Flor R. Nicolas","doi":"10.1145/243492.243494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/243492.243494","url":null,"abstract":"The U.S. system for standardization and certification remains complex and misunderstood by Europeans, However, on the eve of the transatlantic dialogue, insight into this system is necessary since it influences the position of U.S. trade diplomacy.","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"111 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1996-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133488406","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}
In many cases, standards have public goods attributes. As a result it is important to consider how the development costs are provided. It is well known that public goods, due to their nonexclusionary nature, are subject to free riders. We consider free-ridership in standardization in general, and examine the case of one standard, IEEE 802.3i (10BaseT) in particular. We show that free-ridership existed in the development of the 10BaseT standard, and in the subsequent product market, by specifying the criteria for the existence of free-ridership and by providing the necessary data to show that such an issue actually exists. We discuss the consequences of free-ridership and consider the implications for the standards development process in general.
{"title":"Free-ridership in the standards-setting process: the case of 10BaseT","authors":"M. Weiss, Ronald T. Toyokuku","doi":"10.1145/243492.243508","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/243492.243508","url":null,"abstract":"In many cases, standards have public goods attributes. As a result it is important to consider how the development costs are provided. It is well known that public goods, due to their nonexclusionary nature, are subject to free riders. We consider free-ridership in standardization in general, and examine the case of one standard, IEEE 802.3i (10BaseT) in particular. We show that free-ridership existed in the development of the 10BaseT standard, and in the subsequent product market, by specifying the criteria for the existence of free-ridership and by providing the necessary data to show that such an issue actually exists. We discuss the consequences of free-ridership and consider the implications for the standards development process in general.","PeriodicalId":270594,"journal":{"name":"ACM Stand.","volume":"741 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1996-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132910705","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：