Dear Deborah,
I think the problem, in this case at least, is not quite as you describe.
My understanding is that the issue here was around parametrically defined objects, where different CAD systems use different parametric functions to generate objects from their parametric definition. Because of the different functions, to round trip you would have to wrap the parametric description so it can be sent to the receiving system, and sent back later. Actually, I think it would be smarter just to send an identifier that told you the original object when it came back, but even that does not help you with changes that have been made to the object in the receiving system with an incompatible parametric system. The problems are just harder than you would think at a surface level.
Now this is just an inevitable stage of development. In the early stages, a thousand flowers bloom, but the vast majority fade. Eventually a few remain, and it becomes more important (now these are the survivors) that they can interoperate, than that they retain competitive advantage, so interoperation is achieved, or a standard developed that customers require them to conform to.
You can see that the state you are pointing to is in the middle of this process. Eventual completion of the process is pretty much inevitable. The bad news is that from what I have seen and experienced there is relatively little you can do to speed the process up (or slow it down) significantly and the time-scale for the process is decades (or more in some cases), not months or years.
So the smart thing to do is to recognise where you are, try to encourage progress through the process, and adopt strategies that recognise the reality of where you are in the process.
Regards
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
Somewhere in this discussion is a problem that is the essence of what has been holding up progress in the facilities domain.
There are ways to publish technical requirements or test for conformance online for free, and pay (even substantially) to participate in the working groups or have voting privileges. For example OGC, W3C.
I can even see being able to own a part name or number within a larger communication machine that could be mapped to a generic form for broader exchange purposes. For example “13-57 13 15 Dining and Drinking Spaces” versus “The Sand Bar and Grille”
Depending on the domain, or need for cross disciplinary discussion, many on the IP-protected side have no interest in supporting, or will even actively stops progress, on a common model. There is also the problem of failed common models that do not work, will not accommodate different object definitions - from software to software or industry model to industry model - without loss of data or functionality. Bentley systems has stepped forward in this white paper on the IFC model to say actually – the emperor has no clothes on. See pages 6 and 7 “Round Tripping”
For some reason I think ontologies might be a way these IP-With-Open problems might be fixed but maybe I am wrong or wishing for too much.
DEBORAH MACPHERSON
Specifications and Research
Cannon Design
3030 Clarendon Blvd.
Suite 500
Arlington, VA 22201
Phone: 703.907.2353
Direct Dial: 2353
dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cannondesign.com
Skype debmacp
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Spero
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:25 PM
To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Peter R. Benson <Peter.Benson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Deborah, IP is a real issue. We designed the eOTD to try to resolve some of
these issues. In a dictionary the IP resides in the representation but also
in the identifiers or codes as these are always copyright.
That is not entirely clear; see e.g. SOUTHCO, INC v. KANEBRIDGE CORPORATION (