[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: FW: OASIS DITA-SIDSC value proposition
SIDSC members; The email thread below is put forward as recommendation that we refine our Business Justification (http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita-sidsc/download.php/24 148/DITA_Semiconductor_Specialization_Business_Case.pdf) and link to the bizcase from the charter (perhaps as a sub-head of Goals @ http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/Semiconductor/Charter). then, as Don Day has suggested, we might provide it as fodder for other subcommittees' business case justification. Please review my thinking-out loud comments to Matteo of OASIS and reply with your thoughts. I suggest reading the thread from the bottom up to get the context in which the comments were written. I've redacted most non-OASIS member names to protect their anonymity. Regards, Bob -----Original Message----- From: Don Day Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:22 AM To: Beims Bob-RWBC70 Thanks, Bob. If you rewrite the business arguments, it would be nice if we could provide links to it from the DITA TC's home page near the list of existing Subcommittees. DITA specialization-related SCs have a very specific value proposition for their participants, and I believe these are fairly universal concerns and benefits. <snip> -----Original Message----- From: Beims Bob-RWBC70 Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:35 AM To: Don Day Don; I didn't include you on the cc list, but thought you might be interested in the thread below. I don't think this discussion belongs in the SIDSC email archive, although I might repurpose some of it to strengthen the business case documents. But you might file it away somewhere as a source of thinking to help other nascent SCs to draw from. Regards, Bob -----Original Message----- From: Beims Bob-RWBC70 Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:32 AM To: Matteo Pederzoli (OASIS) Cc: Mary McRae (OASIS); Patrick Gannon (OASIS) <snip> Matteo; This is great news, as the DITA-SIDSC is beginning to get some important work done. As the membership page (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/membership.php?wg_abbrev=dita-sids c) shows, we've got active participation from four major semiconductor companies (Alex Bejan is with ST Microelectronics, although he's joined as an individual while they work through the OASIS corporate membership). I believe Infineon is working through the process of joining OASIS, as is Qualcomm. I've had discussions this week with LSI Logic, and they're starting the process of joining OASIS in order to participate in the SIDSC. That last sentence regarding LSI is directly related to <snip>'s concern regarding alignment with SPIRIT's IP-XACT. The reason LSI is joining is because of my continued communication with folks in the SPIRIT consortium regarding such an alignment. In fact, the first work that the SIDSC has been doing (identifying register documentation elements) has been borrowing heavily from the IP-XACT 1.2 standard because one of our top goals is to enable data interchange between the two standards. Another member of the SIDSC, Jeremy Ralph of PDTi, is an EDA tool vendor who has implemented IP-XACT compliant tools, and is thus very interested in making sure we create interoperable standards. (For those at OASIS who may not be familiar with the SPIRIT governance, Gary Delp of LSI is the Technical Director, and I've had many face-to-face, email, phone and webinar conversations with him. And, ... Freescale now has a directors seat. So I'm maintaining fairly close ties with SPIRIT as I lead the SIDSC efforts, and I see those ties strengthening as we move forward.) So, I believe this answers <snip>'s first concern in the affirmative. The second issue should be addressed by several of the public documents produced by the subcommittee: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/24148/DITA_Semiconduct or_Specialization_Business_Case.pdf http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/Semiconductor/Charter http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/Semiconductor/RoadMap All of these documents refer not only to specializing DITA for content creation and delivery purposes, but also to SPIRIT and IP-XACT as important sources of "foreign" information to be merged with a DITA information set for delivery. Such an information flow presupposes that a company is using *both* IP-XACT and DITA within various parts of the organization in order to leverage the capability to transform information between the domains in an automated manner. The market value of such interoperability falls into two categories: internal and external. INTERNAL MARKET VALUE If we assume that all a company does with the deliverables from the SIDSC is to make their internal processes more efficient, the benefit of participating in the subcommittee is, I believe, clear: to leverage the collective experience and resources of people across the industry to create the specializations needed to enable the cross-domain information flow between various parts of their company. If a company doesn't participate in the SIDSC, they'll either have to create their own specializations, or wait until the SIDSC is done with our work and then adopt the open standard once it is published. By participating in the SIDSC, a company will reduce their own in-house work *and* be able to leverage the work of the subcommittee much earlier in the development cycle. EXTERNAL MARKET VALUE While the internal market value might be sufficient justification for a company to participate in the SIDSC, I believe the stronger ROI will come from information interchange with external partners. As the semiconductor industry continues its move toward "coopetition" where each company develops intellectual property (IP) within their particular sphere of expertise and then licenses that IP to others, the need for a standard technical documentation interchange model becomes much more critical. Imagine five years from now when two partner/competitor companies are cross-licensing IP blocks to each other. If both companies have implemented an IP-XACT design environment *and* DITA-SIDSC information development flows, they'll be able to interchange both the IP implementation package and the functional description of the IP in an automated fashion. The IP-XACT package(s) will fit right into each company's design environment, while the DITA information libraries will fit right into each company's information development environment. With no human intervention, and with full revision and configuration traceability *between the companies*! The alternative scenario where one (or both) of the companies is not using an open standard for the DE and ID files is pretty ugly and requires significant human intervention, with its attendant loss of quality, to execute the exchange. Which is exactly the situation we're all in now, and what we're trying to solve with SPIRIT and the SIDSC. Hopefully my rambling addresses <snip>'s second concern sufficiently. Respectfully, Bob Beims Applications Engineer, Staff Principal Microcontroller Solutions Group Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. 6501 William Cannon Drive West, MD: OE49 Austin, TX 78735-8598 This e-mail, and any associated attachments have been classified as: [X]Public [ ]Freescale Semiconductor Internal Use Only [ ]Freescale Semiconductor Confidential Proprietary -----Original Message----- From: Matteo Pederzoli Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 4:50 AM To: Beims Bob Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org Hi Bob, I spoke with <snip>. He and <snip> would like to have <snip> join OASIS as long as (1) the work of dita-sidsc parallels that of SPIRIT (?) and (if 1, then 2) would need to better understand the market applicability of 1 from the end-user standpoint. Please advise, Thank you, Matteo <snip>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]