Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site iddic.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!iddic!dhs From: dhs@iddic.UUCP (David H. Straayer) Newsgroups: net.bio,net.std Subject: Re: Sequence analysis software standards committee forming Message-ID: <2024@iddic.UUCP> Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 12:01:21 EDT Article-I.D.: iddic.2024 Posted: Wed Jun 5 12:01:21 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Jun-85 01:52:44 EDT References: <247@phri.UUCP> Reply-To: dhs@iddic.UUCP (David H. Straayer) Distribution: net Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 91 Xref: watmath net.bio:211 net.std:48 Summary: To: orca!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!timeinc!phri!roy Subject: Re: Sequence analysis software standards committee forming Newsgroups: net.bio,net.std In-Reply-To: <247@phri.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Cc: Bcc: Hi, I'm Dave Straayer at Tektronix, Inc. I work on American National Standards Committee X3H3, and its International Standards Organization counterpart ISO TC97/SC21/WG2. These committees seek to write standards for the application interface for computer graphics programming. Thus, there is some similarity, if I understood your posting correctly. Both the standards I work on and the standards you propose developing have programmers as their primary intended audience. There are several different "flavors" of standards, and the route you choose on your path to "a standard" will affect the time needed, the potential political entanglements, and perhaps even the ultimate acceptance of your result by its intended audience. The route we are taking is committee development. I'm now pretty sure that this route results in standards taking a lot longer than any of us would have imagined possible. Also, it exposes the process to significant political pressure. Another route is the "canvass process", in which a group of interested parties goes off and prepares a complete draft, and then submits it to ANSI for approval as a standard. This is the route that the IGES CAD/CAM data interchange standard used. Interested parties, in this case aircraft manufacturers and CAD/CAM system vendors, went off and wrote a draft. They submitted the draft to ANSC Y14, a technical committee which operates under the rules and procedures of the American National Standards Institute, ANSI. This resulted in a pretty timely adoption of a standard which has served a lot of users. Another route to use would be to utilize an independent organization which does not label itself as associated directly with ANSI. IEEE, for example, has written many standards which receive wide use, and many of them have subsequently become ANSI standards. ACM is establishing itself as this kind of standards-making body. One good reference on standards is: Standards and Standardization 1983 Charles D. Sullivan Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York and Basel Chuck worked at Tek until his untimely passing a couple of years ago. This book gives you a good overview of how standards are formulated and used. On the topic of software standardization in particular, another reference is: Programming Language Standardisation 1980 I.D. Hill and B.L. Meek Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester a division of John Wiley & Sons Finally a GREAT information source is the ANSC X3 Secretariat. X3 coordinates development of standards relating to computers. The secretariat and the folks in it constitute a fantastic information source and support mechanism. The "main person" there is: Ms. Catherine A. Kachurik CBEMA - X3 Secretariat 311 First Street NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 737-8888 The computer industry is changing, and I believe that standards will play an increasing role in the maturation of the industry. Users of computers are growing less tolerant of incompatible hardware and software. Defacto standards based on market dominance constitute a valid and useful part of the solution. Formally adopted standards constitute another important part of the solution. If you are undertaking to standardize an aspect of computing, I urge you to begin by gathering some information about the process. Don't be dismayed by the seeming complexity and confusion. Understand the value and cost of your work, make a plan, and execute it. Don't be timid! It is easy to conclude the project isn't worth the pain (and so it may be). I would like to encourage everybody out there (here) on the net to support and participate in the general effort to standardize our computer industry. There are lots of benefits for all of us.