jdm@cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (James D Mooney) (03/13/91)
I appreciate the great service being provided by Dr. David Kahaner through his many reports on computer research in Japan. Thanks also to Rick Schlichting for distributing these reports. I would like to follow up and comment on some of the points made by the Kahaner Report on the TRON project. Dr. Kahaner cited me (with some justification) as a "lonely exception" to the lack of participation by Western researchers, especially academics, in the TRON project. He also observed that the project is controversial, and the follow-up comments certainly illustrated this: They all suggested that TRON was uninteresting and should not be taken seriously, although none of the posters had significant first-hand knowledge about the project. I will speak as one who does have some first-hand knowledge. Dr. Sakamura first contacted me in 1985 because of my work on the IEEE "MOSI" standard (an operating system interface standard for small computer systems). I have participated in discussions about TRON since that time, and I have been an active participant in the CTRON subproject of TRON since 1988. For the record, I do receive research funds in connection with this project. I was an invited speaker at two TRON Symposia in Tokyo, and a TRON researcher spent a year working with me at West Virginia University. I am not an apologist for TRON or for the Japanese, but I am often amazed by the *uninformed* negative reactions to this project. A discussion which I initiated about TRON on USENET two years ago led to a wide range of criticisms, many based on inaccurate knowledge (and a few on outright anti-Japanese bias). I later summarized this discussion in the TRON special issue of Microprocessors and Microsystems (October 1989). There was no interest in establishing a TRON newsgroup to continue the discussion. I would like to propose a more balanced view. The TRON projects are not a panacea, but with all respect to Professor Tanenbaum, it is foolish and shortsighted to call TRON "dead as a doornail." First of all, it is important to remember that the TRON "project" is actually a large collection of subprojects motivated by a common vision. That vision is one of open, global networking, supporting everything from worldwide communication to local networks of "intelligent objects" in the home. It is fair to be skeptical or opposed to parts of this vision; Americans, especially, do not want to live in an environment where computers seem to have the upper hand. The total TRON vision may never come to pass, or may be far in the future. But the TRON subprojects do not depend on the vision, and are not waiting for it. Some of them are already technically complete, and are quietly finding their way into commercial products. The TRON goals depend fundamentally on open participation. TRON subprojects are aimed at developing *standards*, not products. Many commercial interests are participating, and each standard is intended to enable products of many vendors, although reasonably differentiated, to work together. Western companies with no present involvement in TRON may find advantage in offering products compatible with these standards. TRON is, of course, of Japanese origin; in the U.S. view it will forever be "not-invented-here." There are obvious cultural and language barriers to foreign participation. But participants from any country have always been welcome, and specifications for the TRON subprojects, although still under development, are being openly published. A few TRON presentations and workshops have been held outside Japan, and the TRON Association is willing to help organize such events wherever there is sufficient interest. The text of Dr. Kahaner's report suggests that only a handful of Western companies have joined the TRON Association, but a detailed scan of the list he provides shows a lot of familiar names. These companies may not all be actively participating in development, but they will not ignore potentially significant markets. The TRON standards are not developed in a vaccuum. They do not conflict with existing international standards, and they interface to these standards where appropriate (e.g. the OSI model, the Ada Language). TRON representatives participate in international standards activities, and the various TRON specifications are likely to be proposed for ISO/IEC JTC-1 standardization when completed. TRON is funded purely by an industrial consortium; it receives no government support (is there a surer recipe for success? :-). TRON is also not a trade barrier; nothing in its nature suggests that it could be anything but a trade facilitator. In May 1989 the U.S. government *proposed* TRON for possible inclusion on a list of sanctioned products. There was a clear misunderstanding of the nature of the TRON project. Part of the concern centered on the rumor that MITI would mandate use of TRON-based products in schools, creating a supposed obstacle to U.S. suppliers. This did not happen, although the U.S. government certainly mandates widespread use of many American standards. This misunderstanding was soon resolved, and TRON was never listed, but the bad press continues. The TRON project was conceived from the start to include five principal subprojects. It is not correct to say that the project has "branched" due to growth. It is also misleading to confuse the name TRON with a particular subproject, or to form opinions or draw conclusions about the TRON Project as a whole based on views about only one subproject. Four of these subprojects have been well developed to date: ITRON, BTRON, CTRON, and the TRON CPU (or CHIP). Each of these has already led to both detailed specifications and products. ITRON, BTRON, and CTRON are each families of operating system interface specifications. The TRON CPU is a family of microprocessor architecture specifications. The fifth subproject, MTRON (for Macro TRON), is aimed at developing an intelligent distributed control for a complete network. It is in a much earlier stage of development. These specifications were designed to work together; the TRON CPU is envisioned as the usual processor for ITRON-based embedded systems and for BTRON-based workstations. However, they surely do not depend on one another. In practice, most ITRON and BTRON products to date have used other processors (Intel, Motorola, etc.) while TRON CPU systems often run other types of OSs, including UNIX. The TRON CPU has received the most criticism. I will not try to defend this architecture, but even if it is not admired it will soon be found in many Japanese products. Moreover, the OS specifications are being used without the CPU. ITRON is the basis for embedded systems in applications such as robotics, mobile communication, and consumer products -- not to mention the TRON house, which does exist and apparently works. BTRON workstations to date have been specialized for Japanese input, which may limit their usefulness in the West. However, I have seen (in 1988) BTRON systems that include effective multilingual processing, high-level data management, multimedia output and *input*, and (a special concern of Dr. Sakamura's) integrated support for disabled users. This could be effective competition for some existing workstations. CTRON is in a special class, designed for larger environments and optimized especially for communications and information processing applications. It is likely to find application in telephone and communication systems, in Japan and elsewhere. The TRON projects are not only feasible; they are developed and maturing. Annual international conferences have been held since 1987, with presentations in both Japanese and English and simultaneous translation. Papers in the first conference focused on TRON concepts and development of the specifications. In 1988 and 1989 increasing numbers of implementation reports were presented. The 1990 conference was concerned with topics such as performance, reliability, and validation. The CTRON committee has begun a series of formal portability experiments involving CTRON products of a number of companies, to validate the ease of porting software in CTRON environments. This project was launched with a symposium on Software Portability in September 1990. My paper in the 1990 TRON Symposium Proceedings, to which the Kahaner Report refers, emphasizes portability because it was originally presented at the portability symposium. A slightly revised version was then reprinted in the later proceedings. In summary, I strongly agree with the conclusion drawn by Dr. Kahaner in his very objective report, that TRON is indeed a force to be reckoned with. You may like or hate the project, but each TRON specification deserves to be evaluated on its own technical merits. Many companies are doing this, and some are adopting TRON elements. Like it or not, these elements are already appearing in Japanese products and systems, and understanding them will be important for international commerce. Following these comments I am posting a copy of my TRON information summary, which I try to keep reasonably up to date. This document includes brief technical project summaries, an English bibliography, and relevant names and addresses. I will be glad to assist anyone interested in contacting the TRON Association or obtaining more information about any aspect of the TRON Project. -- Jim Mooney Dept. of Stat. & Computer Science (304) 293-3607 West Virginia University Morgantown, WV 26506 INTERNET: jdm@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu