Lionel, My reply was actually in response to Post # 17585. My Internet Explorer crashed at the end of my typing and I had to start all over from scratch and I accidentally replied to your post instead. I do understand the standardization angle you are coming from.
Joe --- In [email protected], "Lionel Issen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Joe: > > > > You may have misunderstood me. > > > > Standards are not straightjackets and they are constantly changing . What > they do is provide a framework for practitioners/consumers to follow. For > example while our personal computers are constantly evolving we are able to > plug in a variety of 3rd party devices because the input/output plugs and > sockets are uniform. In the case of industry groups and ticker > nomenclature there is a need for some standardization which will make using > the products easier for the consumer. > > > > Our everyday activities would be confusing if every manufacturer used their > own system of weights and measures. > > > > Thanks for your thoughtful comments. > > > > Lionel Issen > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of acadian21 > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:26 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: INDUSTRY GROUP Re: [quotes-plus] Digest Number 2431 > > > > Not that I welcome change, but at times it is difficult to > "standardize" a living breathing entity. In the beginning, IBD had > only one Computer-Software group. Yes, just one. As the industry > exploded, the need to find a more accurate way to measure this > industry growth changed. Thus "Computer-Software" evolved into a > sector which spawned a host of new sub-groups such as > Computer-Software-Enterprise, Computer-Software-Medical, > Computer-Software-Education/Entertainment, Computer-Software-Security, > etc. > > Another thing you will occasionally run across is that one company > starts out making a certain type of product, then branches off into > another product (still within the same basic industry sector). The > second product takes off, they drop the old line and as a result the > new product throws the company into another classification of industry > group. > > So, as long as companies continue to innovate I never count on the > groups remaining the same for any extended period of time. > > Joe Rogers > > --- In [email protected] <mailto:quotes-plus%40yahoogroups.com> , > "Lionel Issen" <lissen@> wrote: > > > > Joe: > > > > This is an overall malaise that affects our industry/commerce today. > Nuts > > and bolts engineers are familiar with standards and welcome them. Data, > > computer, finance reporting, and cell phone types are unaware of the > need > > for standards or don't want to be "confined" by them. They act like the > > electric industry used to when every manufacturer had a different > size bulb > > so that you had to get your electric fixtures and lights from the same > > manufacturer. (This ended in the 1920s when Herbert Hoover, then > Secretary > > of Commerce, created the American National Voluntary Standards > System that > > got around the legalities that prevented the Federal Government from > > developing standards.) > > > > > > > > In stock reporting there is no standard for indentifying by the > tickers the > > class of shares. With different data sources there is no standard > for mutual > > funds prefixes. QP use !, Reuters uses *. This can be a problem when you > > are looking at data from different sources. QP has a dictionary > module that > > allows automatic conversions , but this doesn't deal with your problem. > > Redoing all your previous work because HGS follows their own > standard is a > > slow tedious chore and you have my sympathies. > > > > >
