Home > Archive > Cobol > September 2005 > XML and the New COBOL
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
XML and the New COBOL
|
|
|
|
| knorth 2005-09-13, 6:55 pm |
| William M. Klein wrote:[color=darkred]
an ANSI (or INCITS) TR.
That runs counter to the ISO fast track process.
If a standard passes through INCITS to ANSI, ANSI can submit it as a
fast track candidate to ISO. ANSI did it with Forth and SQLJ. ECMA did
it with C# and CLI.
Are you aware of some change to the fast track process?
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-09-13, 6:55 pm |
| In this case the TR is starting out as an *ISO/IEC* TR, not an ANSI TR. If
approved as such it will be adopted by ANSI by virtue of its approval by
ISO/IEC. That standards adopted by international consensus are, unless
specific action is taken otherwise, adopted as US standards as well (as I
recall the matter) is indeed a change to the process since the '85 standard
and its amendments. The XML TR isn't the "fast track" adoption of an ANSI
standard, as I understand matters. INCITS/J4 is the "subcontractor"
preparing an *ISO/IEC* document.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| William M. Klein 2005-09-13, 6:55 pm |
| Chuck,
Are you certain of this? I *know* you are correct for STANDARDS, but I
thought there were different rules for TRs (which are EXPLICITLY *not*
Standards - for either ISO or ANSI).
P.S. For those who don't know, Chuck either is or soon will be the new
"convenor" for WG4, so I do consider him the "authority" on this, so if he says
it will be an ANSI TR, I certainly "stand corrected".
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:dg7g5b$15cm$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
> In this case the TR is starting out as an *ISO/IEC* TR, not an ANSI TR. If
> approved as such it will be adopted by ANSI by virtue of its approval by
> ISO/IEC. That standards adopted by international consensus are, unless
> specific action is taken otherwise, adopted as US standards as well (as I
> recall the matter) is indeed a change to the process since the '85 standard
> and its amendments. The XML TR isn't the "fast track" adoption of an ANSI
> standard, as I understand matters. INCITS/J4 is the "subcontractor"
> preparing an *ISO/IEC* document.
>
> -Chuck Stevens
>
>
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-09-13, 6:55 pm |
| The distinction between an adopted ISO/IEC TR and an adopted ISO/IEC
standard may well be important here, Bill, as you point out.
However, I took the intent of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 to be inclusive of both approved TR's and approved
standards, on the basis that the TR was arrived at as a matter of
international consensus, which seems to be the key point in that act.
-Chuck Stevens
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mAHVe.5016$1z2.2845@fe10.news.easynews.com...
> Chuck,
> Are you certain of this? I *know* you are correct for STANDARDS, but I
> thought there were different rules for TRs (which are EXPLICITLY *not*
> Standards - for either ISO or ANSI).
>
> P.S. For those who don't know, Chuck either is or soon will be the new
> "convenor" for WG4, so I do consider him the "authority" on this, so if he
says
> it will be an ANSI TR, I certainly "stand corrected".
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
> "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
> news:dg7g5b$15cm$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
If[color=darkred]
I[color=darkred]
standard[color=darkred]
ANSI[color=darkred]
>
>
| |
| William M. Klein 2005-09-13, 6:55 pm |
| For those who don't know how "pedantic" I am (that is they aren't regular
participants in comp.lang.cobol <G> ), I have just done a little research (given
Chuck's pointer).
I am now even less certain that I was before <G> . According to:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/faq/pl104113.htm
"(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection, all
Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such
technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities
determined by the agencies and departments.
<snip>
(3) EXCEPTION- If compliance with paragraph (1) of this subsection is
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical, a Federal agency or
department may elect to use technical standards that are not developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies if the head of each such agency
or department transmits to the Office of Management and Budget an explanation of
the reasons for using such standards. Each year, beginning with fiscal year
1997, the Office of Management and Budget shall transmit to Congress and its
committees a report summarizing all explanations received in the preceding year
under this paragraph.
(4) DEFINITION OF TECHNICAL STANDARDS- As used in this subsection, the term
`technical standards' means performance-based or design-specific technical
specifications and related management systems practices."
***
However, according to:
http://www.cobolportal.com/j4/files/05-0212.doc
"Technical Reports are drafted in accordance with the rules given in the ISO/IEC
Directives, Part 2."
and
"This Technical Report specifies the syntax and semantics for XML support in
COBOL. The purpose of this Technical Report is to promote a high degree of
portability in implementations, even though some elements are subject to trial
before completion of a final design suitable for standardization."
***
While according to:
http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livel...&nodeid=4230518
"NOTE 4 Prior to mid-1999, Technical Specifications were designated as
Technical Reports of type 1 or 2.
3.5
Technical Report
TR
document published by ISO or IEC containing collected data of a different kind
from that normally published as an International Standard or Technical
Specification
NOTE 1 Such data may include, for example, data obtained from a survey
carried out among the national bodies, data on work in other international
organizations or data on the "state of the art" in relation to standards of
national bodies on a particular subject."
***
and according to (from the draft of the only ISO TR so-far approved for COBOL)
http://www.cobolportal.com/j4/files/03-0046.doc
"This draft Technical Report specifies a feature for finalizing objects in
COBOL. The feature is considered to be immature and not ready for
standardization. The decision was made to publish the specification in a Type 2
Technical Report so that implementations can be undertaken on an experimental
basis. The experience gained is expected to result in an improved specification
that can progress to standardization."
***
Bottom-Line,
When/If the there is an approved ISO/IEC Technical Report for COBOL native
support of XML, the impact of this "approval" for the US is whatever it is (and
probably of ZERO interest to anyone but me <G> )
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:dg7jhh$17dm$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
> The distinction between an adopted ISO/IEC TR and an adopted ISO/IEC
> standard may well be important here, Bill, as you point out.
>
> However, I took the intent of the National Technology Transfer and
> Advancement Act of 1995 to be inclusive of both approved TR's and approved
> standards, on the basis that the TR was arrived at as a matter of
> international consensus, which seems to be the key point in that act.
>
> -Chuck Stevens
>
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:mAHVe.5016$1z2.2845@fe10.news.easynews.com...
> says
> If
> I
> standard
> ANSI
>
>
|
|
|
|
|