标准化——机会还是限制?(小组会话)

David B. Arnold, J. Bresenham, K. Brodlie, G. Carson, Jan Hardenbergh, P. V. Binst, A. V. Dam
{"title":"标准化——机会还是限制?(小组会话)","authors":"David B. Arnold, J. Bresenham, K. Brodlie, G. Carson, Jan Hardenbergh, P. V. Binst, A. V. Dam","doi":"10.1145/218380.218534","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Panel Summary Who and what are standards for? Are standards there to protect users' investments and ease the design of working, integrated solutions or are they there to generate product opportunities for suppliers? Given enough confusion in the market place the effect is to turn standards into supplier's opportunity, at the expense of users' protection. Extensions, registrations, revisions, profiles, and levels of certification all conspire to confuse the situation. The pressure to adopt Publicly Available Specifications and the perceived advantages of \"de facto\" standards can undermine the protective intent of \"de jure\" standards. This panel debates different attitudes to standards, often associated with different sides of the Atlantic, but also between standardiser, politician, supplier and user. Concern over slow progress in ISO growing, but even concern is slow to take effect! Political pressure for change has never been stronger (for example at the recent CEC workshop on choosing standardisation policy attended by 350+ delegates. Proposed methods of standardisation often assume that fasttracking PASs will produce a better result, more speedily, but ignore the lack of success of fast-tracking to date in the graphics area. Related topics for discussion include: 1) Is conformance certification worth the cost? 2) Portability v Extensibility? 3) Upwards compatibilityhow is/should existing investment in products be protected. 4) Should registered items be allowed as a way of bypassing standards? 5) How should profiling be used. 6) De facto v de jure standardisation. 7) Can/should fast-tracking PASs be made to work?","PeriodicalId":447770,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Standardisation—opportunity or constraint? (panel session)\",\"authors\":\"David B. Arnold, J. Bresenham, K. Brodlie, G. Carson, Jan Hardenbergh, P. V. Binst, A. V. Dam\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/218380.218534\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Panel Summary Who and what are standards for? Are standards there to protect users' investments and ease the design of working, integrated solutions or are they there to generate product opportunities for suppliers? Given enough confusion in the market place the effect is to turn standards into supplier's opportunity, at the expense of users' protection. Extensions, registrations, revisions, profiles, and levels of certification all conspire to confuse the situation. The pressure to adopt Publicly Available Specifications and the perceived advantages of \\\"de facto\\\" standards can undermine the protective intent of \\\"de jure\\\" standards. This panel debates different attitudes to standards, often associated with different sides of the Atlantic, but also between standardiser, politician, supplier and user. Concern over slow progress in ISO growing, but even concern is slow to take effect! Political pressure for change has never been stronger (for example at the recent CEC workshop on choosing standardisation policy attended by 350+ delegates. Proposed methods of standardisation often assume that fasttracking PASs will produce a better result, more speedily, but ignore the lack of success of fast-tracking to date in the graphics area. Related topics for discussion include: 1) Is conformance certification worth the cost? 2) Portability v Extensibility? 3) Upwards compatibilityhow is/should existing investment in products be protected. 4) Should registered items be allowed as a way of bypassing standards? 5) How should profiling be used. 6) De facto v de jure standardisation. 7) Can/should fast-tracking PASs be made to work?\",\"PeriodicalId\":447770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques\",\"volume\":\"81 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1995-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/218380.218534\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/218380.218534","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

小组总结:标准适用于谁,适用于什么?标准的存在是为了保护用户的投资,简化工作、集成解决方案的设计,还是为了为供应商创造产品机会?如果市场上存在足够的混乱,其结果就是把标准变成了供应商的机会,而牺牲了对用户的保护。扩展、注册、修订、概要文件和认证级别都会混淆这种情况。采用公开可用规范的压力和“事实”标准的感知优势可能会破坏“法律”标准的保护意图。这个小组讨论对标准的不同态度,通常涉及大西洋的不同方面,但也涉及标准化者、政治家、供应商和用户。担心ISO增长缓慢,但即使是担心也见效缓慢!要求变革的政治压力从未如此强大(例如,最近有350多名代表参加了CEC关于选择标准化政策的研讨会。提出的标准化方法通常假设快速跟踪PASs将产生更好的结果,更快,但忽略了快速跟踪迄今为止在图形领域缺乏成功。相关的讨论主题包括:1)一致性认证值得花费吗?2)可移植性还是可扩展性?3)向上兼容性:如何/应该保护现有的产品投资。4)是否应该允许注册物品作为一种绕过标准的方式?5)应该如何使用分析。6)事实上的和法律上的标准化。7)快速通道能/应该起作用吗?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Standardisation—opportunity or constraint? (panel session)
Panel Summary Who and what are standards for? Are standards there to protect users' investments and ease the design of working, integrated solutions or are they there to generate product opportunities for suppliers? Given enough confusion in the market place the effect is to turn standards into supplier's opportunity, at the expense of users' protection. Extensions, registrations, revisions, profiles, and levels of certification all conspire to confuse the situation. The pressure to adopt Publicly Available Specifications and the perceived advantages of "de facto" standards can undermine the protective intent of "de jure" standards. This panel debates different attitudes to standards, often associated with different sides of the Atlantic, but also between standardiser, politician, supplier and user. Concern over slow progress in ISO growing, but even concern is slow to take effect! Political pressure for change has never been stronger (for example at the recent CEC workshop on choosing standardisation policy attended by 350+ delegates. Proposed methods of standardisation often assume that fasttracking PASs will produce a better result, more speedily, but ignore the lack of success of fast-tracking to date in the graphics area. Related topics for discussion include: 1) Is conformance certification worth the cost? 2) Portability v Extensibility? 3) Upwards compatibilityhow is/should existing investment in products be protected. 4) Should registered items be allowed as a way of bypassing standards? 5) How should profiling be used. 6) De facto v de jure standardisation. 7) Can/should fast-tracking PASs be made to work?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Steven A. Coons award for outstanding creative contributions to computer graphics 3D graphics through the Internet—a “shoot-out” (panel session) Feature-based volume metamorphosis A signal processing approach to fair surface design Integrating interactive graphics techniques with future technologies (panel session)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1