Ed, thanks for your contribution to this discussion and thanks again for all the work you and Kate and many others contributed over the years to the MDC and to making the MUMPS language enduringly useful.
I strongly agree with your remarks on the necessity of having a core group of implementors committed to timely implementation of the standards. I also agree with the idea that the lack of implementation of the most recent standards is an indication that the MDC has outlived its usefulness. Given that there are now several Open Source implementations of MUMPS, I could see a new and decidedly different MDC built around them - if there were a group of developers committed to actively developing and implementing the new standards. Ed de Moel wrote: >I intended to be present at the discussions in Boston, however, >a more pressing matter involves that I'll be in Odessa (Ukraine) >that week, so I had to cancel travel plans to Boston. > >To all who are there: all the best and enjoy the festif\vities around >the eve of $Horolog=60,000. > >Here's what this message is about: > >Every now and then I get contacted with questions about the >current status of the MDC. And every now and then there is >a suggestion to "revive" the committee. > >The current status of the committee is: > - it still exists > - the most recent meeting was in September 1999 > (during this meeting only organizational issues were discussed) > - the most recent meeting where there was a discussion > of any techinical issues was in September 1998 > - depending on the criteria to determine membership, > current membership is any number of institutions > (not individuals) between 6 and 23. > >My personal opinion about the MDC is: > - The committee "as we know it" has served its purpose > and currently has no purpose anymore. > - If a roster of work could be defined for a new organization > that would build upon the work of the MDC, it is better > to shut down the MDC and start a new organization with > its own mission and its own bylaws. > - Converting the MDC into a new organization without > violating any of the bylaws of the MDC is close to > impossible. > >Further background: > >There are many models on which a Standards Developing >Organization (SDO) can be based. We are familiar with the models >of ANSI and ISO, and we are aware of the models used by IEEE, w3c >and DICOM. However, there is one aspect that is common to all >standards and models of operation: there is a group of >implementors who are committed (either voluntarily as in ANSI and >ISO, or by contract as in DICOM and some subgroups of IEEE) to >implement any changes to the standard within a certain amount of >time after the publication of a new standard. > >The MDC published its last official standard in 1995. This >standard has been implemented fully in only one implementation >(DSM), which is currently no longer supported. All >implementations that are currently on the market did not >implement one or more details from this standard. Since the >commercial success of all of these implementations is sufficient >for the needs of their users and implementors, there are are not >even plans to implement the remaining details. > >As fas as the other MUMPS related standards is concerned >(OMI, GKS Binding, X-Window binding, MWAPI): OMI is still >supported by some vendors, but I am not aware that any of the >other standards is still actively supported by any vendor. > >After the 1995 MDC standard became official, well over 100 >modifications to that standard were approved by the MDC, and >almost none of these have been implemented by any implementor. >Clearly, there is no group of implementors who are committed to >implementing any of the MDC's standards, and therefore it is my >opinion that the MDC as a committee has outlived its usefulness >and ought to be formally dissolved. > >Note that, whether or not an MDC exists, the ISO standards will >continue to exist, until ISO votes them out of existence. In the >fall of 2005, ISO will review the status of the MDC documents, >and, as far as I know, the recommendations from the various >member countries are to re-affirm the documents (Language Standard, >OMI and MWAPI) with the intent to stabilize them, in other words, >it looks like ISO will retain the standards for the forseeable >future. Also, as long as these documents are ISO standards, >the copyrights for the documents will remain at ISO. > >Of course, if the MDC decides to dissolve itself, appropriate >notice should be given to ISO, and a decision should be made >as to who would become (or remain) responsible for the maintance >the new documents. The current MDC liaison and project editor >is Kate Schell. > >Aside note: the current document editor for the draft MDC Standards >is Ed de Moel. > > >Respectfully submitted, >Ed de Moel >Secretary of the MDC. --------------------------------------- Jim Self Systems Architect, Lead Developer VMTH Computer Services, UC Davis (http://www.vmth.ucdavis.edu/us/jaself) ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by Microsoft Mobile & Embedded DevCon 2005 Attend MEDC 2005 May 9-12 in Vegas. Learn more about the latest Windows Embedded(r) & Windows Mobile(tm) platforms, applications & content. Register by 3/29 & save $300 http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6883&alloc_id=15149&op=click _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
