mss+@andrew.cmu.edu (Mark Sherman) (09/26/90)
See fourth paragraph below. -Mark ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 17:37:16 CDT From: fdawson@dalhqic2.iinus1.ibm.com To: info-oda@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: NIST ODA SIG Update The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) hosts quarterly meeting of the OSI Implementors Workshop (OIW). The Workshop is segmented into Special Interest Groups (SIG) for each of an OSI related set of standards. Implementation agreements for the ISO 8613, Open Document Architecture (ODA) and Interchange Format, base standard are addressed by the ODA SIG. These agreements take the form of document application profiles (DAP), as defined in part 1 of the base standard. The NIST OIW maintains two sets of implementation agreements. The developing agreements are maintained as OIW Working Agreements. The completed agreements are maintained as OIW Stable Agreements. The Stable Agreements are often found to be the basis for Government OSI Profile statements. The ODA SIG is involved in the development and international harmonization of three ODA DAPs. The NIST Level 2 DAP (NIST36) is intended to address the ODA requirements for advanced word processors supporting enhanced document structure with mixed content. The NIST Level 3 DAP (NIST26) is intended to address the ODA requirements for personal publishing applications supporting extended document structure with mixed content. The NIST Raster DAP is based on the CCITT Recommendation T.503 for facsimile documents, but takes into account the ODA extensions for tiled raster images. This DAP is also expected to referenced by the MILSTD 28002. The ODA SIG recently meet in conjunction with the September 10-14, 1990 NIST OIW Workshop in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Several significant decisions were taken by the NIST ODA SIG and endorsed by the Workshop Plenary. The Working Agreements for all three DAPs have been modified to support in one specification both the ODIF (binary encoding based on ISO 8824/8825, ASN.1) and the ODL/SDIF (clear text encoding based on ISO 8879, SGML) interchange formats. Support for the SGML encoding of ODA is perceived as a requirement in North America for acceptance of ODA documents. The recent NIST sponsored Electronic Document Processing Confererence on July 30, 1990 explicitly emphasized this requirement. The NIST Level 2 DAP is the final stages of international alignment with European (i.e., European Workshop on Open Systems) and pacific rim (i.e, Asian Oceania Workshop) ODA experts within their respective regional OSI workshops. This effort is complemented by the recent CCITT Study Group VIII Plenary decision to process an equivalent text for this DAP as a CCITT Recommendation. This proposed international standardized profile is called FOD26. It is expected to be submitted at the end of October to ISO for processing as an International Standardized Profile. This is a registration process for international profiles. It is expected that the NIST Level 2 DAP will be included in the OIW Stable Agreements published as a result of the December 1990 OIW. The NIST ODA SIG recommended to NIST that the NIST Level 2 DAP be the basis for GOSIP Version 2 support for ODA. EWOS has processed an equivalent form of this DAP in Europe as a European Temporary Norm (ENV), Q112. It is understood that support for this DAP became mandatory in the CEC in August 1990. For three years, the Piloting of ODA Project within ESPRIT has sponsored ODA interworking demonstrations at the CeBIT MESSE in Hannover, Germany. Q112 was the basis for the March 1990 demonstration. The NIST Level 3 DAP is maturing about six to nine months behind the NIST Level 2 DAP. The international alignment for this DAP is expected to be completed in March 1991. The NIST Raster DAP is be developed in response to a requirement from the technical document community for an agreement for scanned technical drawings of numerous page sizes. This DAP is also being shared with the EWOS ODA experts. The final draft text of the DAP is being circulated to the CALS community by NIST. The next meeting of the NIST ODA SIG is schedule for December 11- 13, 1990 in conjunction with the next NIST OIW, in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Contact Brenda Gray, 301-975-3664, at NIST for more details concerning this SIG and other OIW activities. ODA SIG Chair Frank Dawson IBM, 03-03-50, 5 W. Kirkwood Blvd., Roanoke, Texas 76299-0001 (tel) +1-817-962-3828 (fax) +1-817-962-3464
morris@uninet.dec.com (Tom Morris) (09/27/90)
Mark Sherman forwarded a message from Frank Dawson about a recent NIST ODA SIG meeting where among other things they did the following: |> The Working Agreements for all three DAPs have been modified to support |> in one specification both the ODIF (binary encoding based on ISO |> 8824/8825, ASN.1) and the ODL/SDIF (clear text encoding based on ISO |> 8879, SGML) interchange formats. Support for the SGML encoding of |> ODA is perceived as a requirement in North America for acceptance of |> ODA documents. The recent NIST sponsored Electronic Document |> Processing Confererence on July 30, 1990 explicitly emphasized this |> requirement. This seems to raise the possibility that instead of having just two document interchange "standards", we'll have four when you take into account the various combinations of low level encodings and high level document formats. This isn't even taking into account the arguments put forward by those who say that SGML is really more of a meta-standard then something which will actually allow effective document interchange which would imply that the number of "standards" is going to grow even more. Does NIST really think this is in the users' best interest, or even the vendors' best interest for that matter? How many "standards" does it take in a single problem space before they are no longer really standards? Tom -- Tom Morris morris@casee.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment, Centre Technique Europe S.A.R.L DTN 828-5729 B.P. 129 - Sophia Antipolis Tel. +33 92 95 57 29 06561 Valbonne Cedex - France Fax +33 93 65 41 58 My opinions, not my employer's
hrs1@cbnewsi.att.com (herman.r.silbiger) (09/28/90)
> > The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) hosts quarterly > meeting of the OSI Implementors Workshop (OIW). The Workshop is > segmented into Special Interest Groups (SIG) for each of an OSI related > set of standards. Implementation agreements for the ISO 8613, Open > Document Architecture (ODA) and Interchange Format, base standard are > addressed by the ODA SIG. These agreements take the form of > document application profiles (DAP), as defined in part 1 of the base > standard. The NIST OIW maintains two sets of implementation > agreements. The developing agreements are maintained as OIW Working > Agreements. The completed agreements are maintained as OIW Stable > Agreements. The Stable Agreements are often found to be the basis for > Government OSI Profile statements. > > The ODA SIG is involved in the development and international > harmonization of three ODA DAPs. The NIST Level 2 DAP (NIST36) is > intended to address the ODA requirements for advanced word processors > supporting enhanced document structure with mixed content. The NIST > Level 3 DAP (NIST26) is intended to address the ODA requirements for > personal publishing applications supporting extended document structure > with mixed content. The NIST Raster DAP is based on the CCITT > Recommendation T.503 for facsimile documents, but takes into account the > ODA extensions for tiled raster images. This DAP is also expected to > referenced by the MILSTD 28002. > > The ODA SIG recently meet in conjunction with the September 10-14, > 1990 NIST OIW Workshop in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Several significant > decisions were taken by the NIST ODA SIG and endorsed by the > Workshop Plenary. > > The Working Agreements for all three DAPs have been modified to support > in one specification both the ODIF (binary encoding based on ISO > 8824/8825, ASN.1) and the ODL/SDIF (clear text encoding based on ISO > 8879, SGML) interchange formats. Support for the SGML encoding of > ODA is perceived as a requirement in North America for acceptance of > ODA documents. > > The NIST Level 2 DAP is the final stages of international alignment with > European (i.e., European Workshop on Open Systems) and pacific rim (i.e, > Asian Oceania Workshop) ODA experts within their respective regional OSI > workshops. This effort is complemented by the recent CCITT Study Group > VIII Plenary decision to process an equivalent text for this DAP as a > CCITT Recommendation. This proposed international standardized profile > is called FOD26. On September 14, 1990 CCITT Study Group VIII approved to invoke Resolution 2 procedures for Recommendation T.505, Document Application Profile PM-26. A ballot is being sent to all members of SG VIII, which, if postive, will ratify this Recommendation. Rec. T.505 is fully aligned with the NIST Level 2 DAP. The text of Rec. T.505 is in TD 361 of the September meeting of SG VIII. I have that document here, and there is not a trace of ODL in it. Since the text of the Rec. is supposed to be identical to that of the FOD26, I find it hard to believe that the FOD will have ODL included. I believe that if there is a demand for ODL, then certainly there should be a standardized profile that includes it. I would feel a lot better about this when it is shown that the ODL text in ISO 8613 actually translates to the ASN.1 and back without loss of information. Open interchange of SGML is possible when ODL is used, since ISO 8613 then acts as a standardized DTD, and I welcome the use of ODL. Inclusion of the ODL as well as ODIF in the FODs may be somewhat premature. > It is expected to be submitted at the end of October to > ISO for processing as an International Standardized Profile. This is a > registration process for international profiles. > Level 2 DAP will be included in the OIW Stable Agreements published as > a result of the December 1990 OIW. The NIST ODA SIG recommended > to NIST that the NIST Level 2 DAP be the basis for GOSIP Version 2 > support for ODA. > > > The NIST Level 3 DAP is maturing about six to nine months behind the > NIST Level 2 DAP. The international alignment for this DAP is expected > to be completed in March 1991. CCITT Rec. T.506, Document Application Profile PM-36, will be published by CCITT after October 12, 1990. It is intended to be aligned with the PAGODA (Profile Alignment Group on ODA) level 26 profile. NIST is a member of PAGODA. This draft will be voted on at the March, 1991 meeting og SG VIII in Geneva. > The NIST Raster DAP is be developed in response to a requirement from ilbi the technical document community for an agreement for scanned technical > drawings of numerous page sizes. This DAP is also being shared with the > EWOS ODA experts. The final draft text of the DAP is being circulated > to the CALS community by NIST. CCITT SG VIII also approved the submission of the Tiled Raster Graphics Addendum to ODA to Res. 2 procedures. > The next meeting of the NIST ODA SIG is schedule for December 11- > 13, 1990 in conjunction with the next NIST OIW, in Gaithersburg, > Maryland. Contact Brenda Gray, 301-975-3664, at NIST for more details > concerning this SIG and other OIW activities. Herman R. Silbiger Chair, CCITT Study Group VIII Working Party 4 Document Architecture This Working Party is in charge of the following: Question 27 - Open Document Architecture (ODA), Transfer and Manipulation Question 26 - Document Application Profiles Question 24 - Communication Application Profiles Question 19 - Operational Application Profiles hsilbiger@ATTMAIL.COM
tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) (09/28/90)
In <Ab0_z4200VsA00X1B1@andrew.cmu.edu> mss+@andrew.cmu.edu (Mark Sherman) writes: >The ODA SIG is involved in the development and international >harmonization of three ODA DAPs. The NIST Level 2 DAP (NIST36) is >intended to address the ODA requirements for advanced word processors >supporting enhanced document structure with mixed content. The NIST >Level 3 DAP (NIST26) is intended to address the ODA requirements for >personal publishing applications supporting extended document structure >with mixed content. The NIST Raster DAP is based on the CCITT >Recommendation T.503 for facsimile documents, but takes into account the >ODA extensions for tiled raster images. This DAP is also expected to >referenced by the MILSTD 28002. I guesss there'll have to be a new standard, to describe the stuff these standards guys spew out ... SSGMLL, maybe -- Timothy Murphy e-mail: tim@maths.tcd.ie
hrs1@cbnewsi.att.com (herman.r.silbiger) (09/29/90)
In article <1990Sep27.135115@uninet.dec.com>, morris@uninet.dec.com (Tom Morris) writes: > > |> The Working Agreements for all three DAPs have been modified to support only thus far in the US, as far as I know, > |> in one specification both the ODIF (binary encoding based on ISO > |> 8824/8825, ASN.1) and the ODL/SDIF (clear text encoding based on ISO > |> 8879, SGML) interchange formats. Support for the SGML encoding of > |> ODA is perceived as a requirement in North America for acceptance of > |> ODA documents. > > This seems to raise the possibility that instead of having just two document > interchange "standards", we'll have four when you take into account the various > combinations of low level encodings and high level document formats. This > isn't even taking into account the arguments put forward by those who say that > SGML is really more of a meta-standard then something which will actually allow > effective document interchange which would imply that the number of "standards" > is going to grow even more. > > > Tom Morris morris@casee.enet.dec.com > Digital Equipment, > Centre Technique Europe S.A.R.L DTN 828-5729 As a wag once put it: The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. In reality, SGML is a specialized language designed to express the logical structure of documents. Since it is a language, it is possible to use it in many applications, just as ASN.1. You may note that the CGM (Computer Graphics Metafile) standard can optionally be expressed in three languages. Adding ODL to the DAPs does not add or detract from its being a standard, if the purpose of a standard is the ability to communicate without loss of information. It adds to the costs to the user, since a translation capability will have to be available to either ODL or ODIF based applications. Herman Silbiger hsilbiger@att.com