Source for ISA standard

Sounds good to me.

Some people keep saying they can't believe that people are asking why they have to pay for "standards", yet the idea of "free" source to software is well understood. Linux and many other pieces of software have been created by volunteers and the output from their work finds a place on the net for all to have at.

Look at this mailing list. It is free to use thanks to Mr. Control himself Ken Crater. In the October issue of "Industrial Computing" Mr Crater has an article about Linux, GPL and the need for this "industry to open itself" up. Maybe Mr.
Crater will provide the web space for the standards to be placed on. This will save ISA the cost of housing the standards and everything will be groovy.
 
Archived email reflector, 20 MB storage per group, privacy, moderation if desired, calendar, chat:
http://www.egroups.com/

25 MB per user:
http://www.driveway.com/

Collaborative software development:
http://sourceforge.net/


These are advertiser supported, free registration required, and not real scaleable. But I've been working on several related standards efforts using
egroups--the email reflector is the main thing.

Mechanism is available--credibility is missing. Supply-Push works if you're Microsoft. Demand-Pull is working (if not very efficiently) for Echelon. CEN and ISO end up being the "law" in the European Union. But other than that, I'm not sure how standards get widely implemented. Ad hoc, I guess. I think that was an earlier thread on this list.

And about that GPL, I'm not sure I want people extending the standard, even if they return it to the wild. I'm afraid of another fiasco like
Manufacturing Automation Protocol 3.x totally incompatible with MAP 2.x. Perhaps some constraints about backward compatibility could be added. Or maybe the cultural disapproval of the Fork may be all it takes.

Best,
B.O. Nov. 7, 2000
--
Robert Old, System Architecture, [email protected]
Siemens Building Technologies, Inc., HVAC Division
1000 Deerfield Pkwy., Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-4513 USA
Phone: +1(847)941-5623, Fax: +1(847)419-2401
 
R
> I've been watching this discussion for some time now, and
> cannot remain silent any longer. I'm having a tough time
> understanding _why_ so many on this board are getting heartburn
> over paying the few bucks necessary here and there to obtain
> a copy of a standard. The cost is minimal, and the need is often
> plenty justifiable on nearly any size of project.

Actually, a major problem is that publishing (source) code that implements standards invariably gives away the standards itself, so standards bodies fight this so they can sell the standard. That means you cannot share code snippets and a lot of people waste time re-writing the same code. We pay for it all in the run times we pay.

> If one needs an API reference, for example, one goes to Amazon.COM,
> etc. to buy the reference, with no guarantee that the required API or
> other info is specifically listed in the purchased document. Why should
> reference standards be any different?

Many open standards groups do work like that. They publish the standards, but as reading formal standards is pretty heavy going, most people also want to buy handbooks, tutorials, and buy tech support. So the people who create and maintain
the standards write books and set up consultencies, natrually they need very
little marketing, who better to consult than the person who developed the damm thing.
 
A

Adolfo Jimmy Saldivias

Walt:
I personally work and live in a third world company.
I am a member of the ISA.
I do NOT consider your price for standards high. And I consider them less after all the explanations you have given in this forum, which I personally thank you.
I consider the prices for the publications very reasonable taking into account the high quality of the technical material included.
I do NOT believe in having things for free, as much as I sometimes feel the need for having things. I guess I am a believer that you must earn things.
I just wanted to give a word of support and thanks for your work.
Regards
Jimmy Saldivias
TECSIM
Bolivia
 
R

R A Peterson

Hi Walt. After reading your reply to my post, and rereading my post, I think you missed the attempt I was making at subtlety. I understand there are expensives associated with creating standards, and somehow those expenses have to be covered.

You have mentioned some of the expenses involved but have carefully avoided mentioning the magnitude of the expenses for each area (such as printing, meetings, web hosting, etc.). This tends to make me (and apparently others judging from the responses) wonder if maybe ISA's practices are a part of the problem. Perhaps you would care to layout the ISA's budget for standards making and distribution.
 
W
Joe, I am not going to release confidential financial information about ISA. Not in this forum. If you want to see ISA's confidential financial data, you must be a member, and you must ask your District Vice President to show
you the numbers.

Are you a member, Joe? If you aren't, we'd love to have you join. Currently, your District Vice President is John Feldhausen of Appleton
Paper. You can reach him at mailto:[email protected].

Now, to try to answer the question.

ISA's standards revenue brings in about 50% of what ISA spends for standards activity. That includes staff support and some overhead, and some costs for warehouse and printing and manufacturing of CDs and providing meeting rooms,
coordinating physical meetings, administering email mailing lists like this one (there are over 80 email lists devoted to standards functions that ISA administers) and other assorted expenses.

Video conferencing is still far too expensive to replace physical meetings (we check every three months, just to make sure). New web-based
conferencing like PlaceWare and ICQ chat simply are not fast enough to reproduce the give-and-take in a standards meeting. The technology is
coming, but it is not ready for prime time.

REMEMBER, THIS STUFF COSTS MONEY TOO. In some cases it costs _more_ to do web and internet based stuff than "low tech."

Now, how much staff support does ISA have to pay for? Very small, actually, in terms of numbers. There are three people who devote much of their time to standards activities, including updating websites, moderating mailing lists, coordinating activities. They put out much more effort for the money than we could get from most private sector administrative departments. They
coordinate over 80 different committees, provide finances and financial controls, and report to the S&P Board for oversight issues. I don't think
we can squeeze any more blood from that particular rock.

We print standards just-in-time on an inhouse Xerox docutech so that the cost of storage is minimal, and we never have to throw away huge amounts of paper when we issue a revised standard. Can't save any more there, or you'd
see Kinko's using something else, too. Believe me, when _they_ go to something other than a docutech system, we sure will too. It is the
cheapest we can do.

We add some overhead to the standards operation, to assist with things like paying lawyers to defend the copyright on the ISA symbol set for ISA 5.1. We add some overhead for G&A, just like any company does. ISA serves 40,000 members with fewer than 150 people on staff worldwide. Do you think there is any fat there? If you are a member, you are very welcome to get active in leadership and help root it out.

Do you think you can operate a worldwide third-party accredited standards making body for less than we do? If you do, you're welcome to come and try it. Frankly, we'd welcome the help.

Walt Boyes
 
C

Curt Wuollet

Hi Walt

You miss my point. That's what _you_ could do to solve the situation. I am already doing my level best to provide choice and truly open software
to the industry. And before you dismiss it out of hand, eliminating cost is every bit as effective as fund raising as a solution and much better for
the consumer. This model has been shown to work. I am willing to bet that trust, utilization, and support would follow.

regards

cww
 
P
I've stood on the sidelines watching poor Walt get beat up long enough, and feel it's time to respond.

I'm a member of the ANSI/ISA S84 committee. It took us 10 years to write S84. We met 3 times a year. About 50 people showed up at each meeting, each of which took 2.5 days. There were plenty of writing assignments and discussions between meetings. We had just about every interest group
imaginable participating - a variety of users, PLC vendors, DCS vendors, TMR vendors, solid state vendors, engineering firms, consultants, regulators, etc. Lots of *heated* arguments, behind the scenes meetings, discussions over beer, etc.

Similarly, the AIChE CCPS textbook "Guidelines for Safe Automation of Chemical Processes" took 5 years to write, and that committee only consisted
of 12 users (no vendors, etc.) and they met every 6 weeks.

Writing documents like this is not a trivial task! I have difficulty envisioning how these could have been done using the internet, although I for one would be very interested in giving it a try (as the S84 committee is still meeting on various other related topics, and the standard will be up for its 5 year review soon). Some things do require face-to-face interaction.

As Walt said, ISA does not have much in the way of staff, and I for one think those overworked folks are doing a great job.

Also, I think $50 or so for a standard is a *trivial* fee. I pay over $500/yr out of my *own* pocket to be a member of multiple professional
societies, keep my P.E. license, buy a variety of books to stay current, etc. If a *company* won't even pay $50 for a standard or a training
textbook, something is *seriously* wrong!

Paul Gruhn, P.E.
Safety System Specialist
Siemens Moore Process Automation, Inc.
8924 Kirby Drive
Houston, TX 77054
[email protected]
713-666-7686 (phone)
713-666-8421 (fax)
www.smpa.siemens.com
 
W
ISA is a business. The purpose of the business is to provide funds for member benefits and standards activities. If we don't run it like a
business, there are no funds, and there are then no member benefits and no standards activities.

What would the CEO of SquareD say if you asked him to run your company the way you think ISA should run?

Come on, folk, let's get serious.

So Ken donates the webspace. Who's going to adminster the accreditations so that the standards mean something? Who's going to pay for the delegates to IEC?

Who's going to adminster the 80+ email lists? Jennifer? I think she's rather busy, don't you?

Who's going to oversee the content of the website and correct typos and make sure that the HTML and other code is correct?


Walt Boyes
 
R

Ralph Mackiewicz

There is also a very important distinction to make when comparing NEC standards to ISA standards:

Compliance with NEC standards is required by law in the U.S.

Regards,
Ralph Mackiewicz
SISCO, Inc.
 
K
[email protected] said...
>Maybe Mr. Crater will provide the web space
>for the standards to be placed on. This will
>save ISA the cost of housing the standards
>and everything will be groovy.

We'd be glad to... for that matter, would be glad to host the discussion forums, archive sites, etc., that go into standards formation.

However, having said that, I think it needs to be pointed out that there are two very different forms of standards that are prevalent today. The first is the official standard, typically the subject of ANSI standards processes,
professional society sponsorship, and perhaps ulimately governmental mandate. These tend to be big, cumbersome projects with a heavy (and
intentional) political content, since they may ultimately carry the weight of legislation.

The second form, perhaps more useful for most standards needs, is a lightweight, solution-oriented process, typically the result of one person or company contributing a good design. This is sometimes literally a "design", constituting a reference implementation of the proposed standard. Lots of changes are then suggested, some of them are adopted by [typically
the original contributor] and then people start using the standard when they feel it has become useful.

The first form virtually requires an organization like ISA, since formality is needed to insure a politically "fair" process. Like legislation, this can take decades to work out.

The second form, exemplified by the RFC process (at least as it used to exist), is now needed in our industry for a range of standards that must
move more quickly that the IEC/ANSI standards tracks allow. An example of the latter might be XML schemas for industrial applications. These would typically not be the subject of regulation, but rather would be useful conventions, adopted quickly in response to changing technology.

This forum has already spawned an open source development project ( PuffinPLC.org ) -- is anyone ready to take a crack at a lightweight
standards project? We'll give it a good home :).

Ken Crater
Control.com Inc.
[email protected]
 
C

Curt Wuollet

Hi Bob

That's why I said similar, the GPL doesn't really fit literature very well but, it was the best way to convey the principles of public ownership and enforced objectivity. Obscure processes and private meetings erode trust rather badly. When companies think that their competition might be getting their way with the standards, you have immediately and emphatically lost support. It must be open, public, accountable and justifiable to get widespread acceptance. The perception that ISA is in the "Standards Business", true or not, is what limits ubiquitous acceptance. There is simply no other way to gain the trust, you have to earn it.

Regards

cww
 
M

Matthew da Silva

Walt -- this is the point. The A-list members would do that stuff. It is possible.

With Control-dot-com hosting and providing part of the admin. costs, and ISA accrediting the anonymous participants (only accredited people can do editing) all the actual editing and admin. Tasks are performed by private individuals on a volunteer basis. What is needed initially is a team of programmers to make the program. That would require some recruiting I think.

As to sharing the knowledge once it's done -- I think that it is not right for participants to receive free copies. That would cloud the motivation for joining and project and possibly endanger the project.

It can only be done on a purely volunteer basis because people _want_ to do it. The accreditation of applicants would offset any misgivings held by some subscribers to this list.

Matthew Yamatake Tokyo
 
R
At $65 a year, including the right to technical participation, ISA membership does seem very fair. Contrast this with standards groups who
charge $1000 plus a year just to see the specs, heaven forbid be involved in their generation.

And, lets face it, they are actually providing quality open standards, which is more than can be said for a lot of their higher priced cousins,
some of which appear to be leading potential standards users a gum tree.
 
(Note: the following paragraphs are not necessarily an accurate representation of the way I do business)

I can't deny that there are many costs in creating standards, distributing standards, defending standards and keeping them up to date.

But as a potential user of the standard:

<devil's advocate>
Unless the customer specifies that certain standards will be followed, or my new piece of equipment has to peacably coexist with existing equipment that is designed to a certain standard, what would compel me to BUY a set of standards to design to?

I already need to supply documentation to my customer. I could just document the design as constructed, whether or not standards were followed. ("Adhering to standards" may have other additional costs (to me) other than just the price for the "book of standards")
</devil's advocate>

I think we're looking for developer "buy-in" most of all.

How do you get "buy-in" without having to "buy"?

I fear what may happen is we may start out with a set of homemade standards (or none at all).

Then a motivated developer will modify the standards: "..to be compatible with ISA, which I already use!".
 
R
>If a *company* won't even pay $50 for a standard or a training
>textbook, something is *seriously* wrong!

I have seen this quite often when I worked for a PLC supplier. We developed modules for all sorts of industrial networks, and in our documentation we referred to the standard as we didn't want to expand our user manual in a book about freely available technologies. (with manuals it is just as with standards: nobody wants to pay for them!)

This was a serious mistake. Almost nobody had the original standard available. The price-tag for such things is not $50 but a few hundred
instead. This is a serious part of the total cost for using a certain technology, i.e. I buy a Profibus board for $500 and to this the spec adds another $500 (back in 1997).

But it doesn't end there as one may require other specs as well in order to understand things fully. Let's continue with Profibus. Its floating-point format is described in IEEE 488. Its string format in ANSI 676 (or so). The PLC/PLC functionblocks are in a PNO profile, which in turn is based on IEC 61131/5, which in turn is based on IEC 61131/3. Etc. etc.


I worked for a company which had bought them all, and with hindsight I consider it essential for good engineering to have the appropriate documents at hand.

I have seen companies spend huge amounts of time in debugging sw that could have been written the first time right, had they bought the appropriate specs. But even when you buy one, you're not ready. Many a standard is quite unreadable, and requires quite a lot of effort to comprehend.

Rob Hulsebos
 
Good for you. The capitalist system is alive and well and works much more effectively than any economic model that dispenses knowledge with no
expectation of return.

Bob Pawley
 
H

Heavner, Lou [FRS/AUS]

I made a point earlier that may bear repeating. In our litigious society, following standards even if not required by law is not only good engineering practise, but insurance for large corporations against claims of negligence. It is not perfect insurance, but this is not a small point, either.

Lou Heavner - not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV either...
 
R

Ralph Mackiewicz

> You miss my point. That's what _you_ could do to solve the situation. I am
> already doing my level best to provide choice and truly open software to
> the industry. And before you dismiss it out of hand, eliminating cost is
> every bit as effective as fund raising as a solution and much better for
> the consumer. This model has been shown to work. I am willing to bet that
> trust. utilization, and support would follow.

Yes, but you aren't writing a public standard so I'm not sure how this is relevant to answering the question of how a non-profit member organization whose primary responsibility is to operate for the benefit of its members can sponsor the development of "free" standards. ISA's essential predicament is that the members demand (rightly so) that membership dues be spent on other things than just standards. If the only task of ISA was writing standards, and if the members saw the only benefit of ISA membership was the availability of "free" standards then ISA would be offering "free" standards.

> Obscure processes and private meetings erode trust rather badly.

ISA standards processes are not obscure and their meetings are not private. They are only obscure to those that CHOOSE to not participate.
They only appear to be private if you CHOOOSE not to attend. I will admit that you have to actually make an attempt at understanding something before you can trust it.

> When companies think that their competition might be getting their way
> with the standards, you have immediately and emphatically lost support.
> It must be open, public, accountable and justifiable to get widespread
> acceptance.

This is exactly why you need an organization like ISA: to provide the umbrella for standards activities so that domination by companies can be
avoided.

> The perception that ISA is in the "Standards Business", true or not, is
> what limits ubiquitous acceptance. There is simply no other way to gain
> the trust, you have to earn it.

The fact that ISA operates as a business will only limit acceptance and trust from people who don't understand what that means. For those that
don't understand it means that ISA operates for the benefit of its customers: its members. The members are individual professionals, not
companies. Most people are perceptive enough to recognize that this is the only proper way for ISA to operate. As a result, ISA standards are widely respected and utilized across the globe even though you might actually have to pay a few bucks for them.

Regards,
Ralph Mackiewicz
SISCO, Inc.

Ralph Mackiewicz
SISCO, Inc.
6605 19-1/2 Mile Road
Sterling Heights, MI 48314-1408 USA
T: +810-254-0020 F: +810-254-0053
mailto:[email protected] http://www.sisconet.com
 
D

David W. Spitzer

Dear List,

I just returned from the main ASME MFC (flowmeter standards) committee and was amused by requests for free standards. Do people recognize that their costs have to be covered somehow? Also, volunteerism and timeliness do not go hand in hand.

How many have served on a standards committee? How many would devote adequate time and efforts to standards? How many people are competent to
serve in an expert capacity (and know when to abstain where they lack competence in an area)? Not everyone can do the work (and most are not
interested). It seems that most want something for nothing.

Standards are about technical correctness and concensus. Getting everyone slightly involved in an undisciplined forum will likely create chaos.

The above committee (that many readers may not have known existed) was attended by about 15 people at various times during its 3-day duration. I do not recall the presence of any instrument users except myself (now a
consultant) and another individual who previously worked as a flowmeter user and now works for a manufacturer. The remainder of the attendees were
flowmeter manufacturers and members of standards organizations. There was not even a quorum at the main committee meeting.

Quite frankly, given the above "enthusiasm" for standards generation, the instrumentation community should be thankful that standards exist. Even an approximate US$1000 price tag every few years for entire sets of standards is
a bargain when compared to the cost of an engineer's salary and/or the added cost of re-inventing the wheel.

Regards,

David W Spitzer
845.623.1830
www.icu.com/spitzer
 
Top