Re: DoD and NIST undermining commercial CASE industry

Re: DoD and NIST undermining commercial CASE industry

[saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!new]

In article <ByM75t.2s6@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
 writes:

>    A major CASE standards effort became rancorous in recent weeks as vendors,
>government officials and commercial users leveled charges of favoritism and
>commercial bias at one another.  At stake, both size said, is the long term
>viability of the US computer aided software engineering (CASE) industry.

No, the US CASE industry is showing the same insularity and xenophobia
that destroyed the US automobile industry.

PCTE will be the CASE standard everywhere in the world except the US,
and none of US industry's paid lobbyists and trained seals can change
that.  The effect of the US adopting an incompatible standard will be
to shut US companies off from a large, fast-growing global market,
and give them a small, slower-growing local market as their private
oligopoly.  It will be the equivalent of a tariff wall blocking the
import of software.

And the result will be the same as always: higher prices, lower quality,
and the inexorable decay of another industry artificially shielded from
competition.  If anyone in the US software industry believes that they
can get away with thinking locally rather than globally, they are in
the wrong business.  They should move to France and grow artichokes.

Re: DoD and NIST undermining commercial CASE industry

[dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!linus!linus.mitre.org!kjmiller.mitr]

In article <1992Dec2.075323.3315@sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert
Firth) wrote:
> 
> In article <ByM75t.2s6@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonia
n) writes:
> 
> >    A major CASE standards effort became rancorous in recent weeks as vendor
s,
> >government officials and commercial users leveled charges of favoritism and
> >commercial bias at one another.  At stake, both size said, is the long term
> >viability of the US computer aided software engineering (CASE) industry.
> 
> No, the US CASE industry is showing the same insularity and xenophobia
> that destroyed the US automobile industry.
> 
> PCTE will be the CASE standard everywhere in the world except the US,
> and none of US industry's paid lobbyists and trained seals can change
> that.  The effect of the US adopting an incompatible standard will be
> to shut US companies off from a large, fast-growing global market,
> and give them a small, slower-growing local market as their private
> oligopoly.  It will be the equivalent of a tariff wall blocking the
> import of software.
> 
> And the result will be the same as always: higher prices, lower quality,
> and the inexorable decay of another industry artificially shielded from
> competition.  If anyone in the US software industry believes that they
> can get away with thinking locally rather than globally, they are in
> the wrong business.  They should move to France and grow artichokes.

I'm not sure I agree with Mr. Firth's assertion here.  PCTE strikes me as a
standard in search of usable implementations, whereas ATIS appears to be a
standard evolving from an implementation.

If PCTE continues to lack for usable products, then the US market MIGHT
have products that can actually work togather for which the rest of the
industry would still be waiting.

I do agree that it would be better for everyone to work to the same or
compatible standards.

-----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Miller       | MITRE's lawyers can't moan,    |
MITRE Corporation  | 'Cause what's stated up there, |
Bedford, MA        | Is my opinion alone,           |
(617) 271-4520     | And not MITRE's to bear.       |
kjmiller@mitre.org |                                |
-----------------------------------------------------

Re: DoD and NIST undermining commercial CASE industry

[Ed White]

In article <ByM75t.2s6@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
  
writes:
>  
>      The November 30, 1992 issue of Computerworld, page 73, contains the
> following article on how the DoD and the NIST are undermining the commercial
> CASE industry in America.  Another example of socialist bureacrats trying to

The article in Computerworld was based on the following letter from Ed White of
  
Atherton to Bill Wong at NIST. 

November 14, 1992

Mr. William Wong
Senior Computer Scientist
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Technology Building, Room B266
Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Dear Bill:

The User Forum of the Integrated Software Engineering Environments held on  
November 9, 1992 at NIST was informative, but raised the following concerns by 
 
Atherton and its customers who are developing ISEE's.

1.  Although more development is being done in the U.S. on ISEE's based on ATIS
  
than PCTE, the leadership and User Forum agendas of NIST ISEE are dominated by 
 
PCTE interests.  In the U.S. the major ISEE builders utilizing ATIS are Loral  
(CORCASE), Verdix (VADS APSE), GTE (PSE), and Boeing (CAPE).  

In Europe, CRI, with Life*Cycle, an ISEE based on ATIS technology from  
Atherton, has been the leading ISEE supplier for two consecutive years.  

These ATIS ISEE's were not represented in the agenda of the November 9, 1992  
ISEE User Forum.  

2.  Based on presentations by PCTE supporters at the ISEE User Forum, it is  
clear that implementations of PCTE do not have the maturity of ATIS  
implementations.  The time required to produce mature PCTE implementations and 
 
to build industrial strength ISEE's based on PCTE is estimated to be 3-5 years.
 

3.  At the User Forum, organizations implementing PCTE and PCTE ISEE's  
expressed a desire for PCTE to support: (1) objects types with methods and  
method inheritance to improve ISEE development productivity, and (2)  
fine-grained objects types - enabling PCTE to store records as well as files.  
 
Performance is not acceptable for applications like metrics or change  
management if every record is a file.  ATIS has these object-oriented features 
 
today.  There are no ECMA PCTE plans to support these features. 

Based on the above information, Atherton recommends support by NIST and NAPI  
for a merger of ATIS and PCTE interests and technologies in the U.S. with the  
following actions:

	a. Change the name of NAPI to NAISEE.

	b. Include ATIS representatives in the management and agendas of  
	your programs.  

	c. Sponsor a merger of PCTE and ATIS specifications into an object- 
	oriented specification.  ATIS has the specifications for object types  
	which includes fine grained and coarse grained object types, methods  
	in object types, inheritance of methods in object types, and a 	message
  
	interface to the methods in object types.  ATIS ISEE's have 	 
	complete integrations for IDE's, Cadre's, McCabe's, CenterLine's, HP's,
  
	Interleaf's, Verilog's, Frame's and many other vendors' products as  
	well as processes like 2167A that are based on real objects with  
	inherited methods and messages.  	

	d. Support the activities of ANSI X3H4 and X3H6 committees, which  
	are establishing advanced U.S. standards for ISEE repositories and  
	Tool Integration Services.    

Bill, we appreciate the work of NIST and NAPI in advancing ISEE technology in  
the U.S. and look forward to working with both organizations to implement the  
above recommendations.  To do otherwise will result in a 3-5 year program to  
implement PCTE followed by another 3-5 year program to change it to an  
object-oriented technology like ATIS.      

Sincerely,



W. Edward White
Vice President 
--
					

Re: DoD and NIST undermining commercial CASE industry

[Paul Jasper]

In article <ByM75t.2s6@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
 writes:
> 
>     The November 30, 1992 issue of Computerworld, page 73, contains the
>following article on how the DoD and the NIST are undermining the commercial
>CASE industry in America.  [opinions deleted]
> 
>Greg Aharonian
>Source Translation & Optimization
> 
> [extract from article:]
> 
>    The dispute became public with a letter sent November 18 by Edward White,
>a vice president at Atherton Technology in Sunnyvale, CA.  In the letter,
>addressed to a senior official at the National Institute of Standards and
>Technology (NIST) and sent by White to members of the press, White charged
>that NIST and the US Department of Defense (DOD) are supporting a CASE
>standard that will "undermine American National Standards Institute efforts
>to establish a standard which will better serve the interests of the US".

Funny... I thought Atherton had recently been purchased by Thomson,
a major French industrial group.  Thomson also has substantial interests
in companies developing PCTE, including co-ownership with Bull of French
software house Emeraude, vendor of the first commercial implementation
of PCTE.
--
-- Paul Jasper
-- RATIONAL
-- Object-Oriented Products
--

Re: DoD and NIST undermining commercial CASE industry

[saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost]

In article <1992Dec2.075323.3315@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) 
writes:
>In article <ByM75t.2s6@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian
) writes:
>
>>    A major CASE standards effort became rancorous in recent weeks as vendors
,
>>government officials and commercial users leveled charges of favoritism and
>>commercial bias at one another.  At stake, both size said, is the long term
>>viability of the US computer aided software engineering (CASE) industry.
>
>No, the US CASE industry is showing the same insularity and xenophobia
>that destroyed the US automobile industry.

Unfortunately, I think this is really self-aggrandizement on both
sides. The CASE market is far larger than IPSE/Frameworks business,
which is really what the debate between PCTE and ATIS is limited to.
In fact, there are profitable CASE markets and companies, in
structured analysis and design, in compilers, and in documentation
tools. But there is, as of yet, no profitable IPSE/Framework provider,
and the submarket is probably the smallest of the CASE submarkets. The
other markets will probably prosper independently of whether ATIS or
PCTE is selected, or even if neither becomes important.

It is also oversimplifying to look at this issue as having only two possible
results: ATIS or PCTE.  There is a substantial likelihood that neither
will be important and solutions like HP Broadcast Message Service, or
Sun Tool talk, or Apple's messages, or OMG's message systems could
turn out to be more important. In the end, the NAME might be PCTE or
ATIS, but it may bear as much relationship to those today as the
current Ford Mustang does to the original one.  (Granfather's Ax
syndrome: changed the handle 3 times, and blade twice, but it is still
Grandfather's ax!)  

Also keep in mind that being a standard doesn't make something
important. HP-IB, aka. IEEE 433 is a standard for connecting
peripherals to computers. But even HP no longer pushes it as an important
interfaces for connecting disks, etc. Manufacturers support interfaces
like SCSI which comes in multiple variants!  The marketplace decides
what is important, not standards organizations.  (The great thing
about software standards is that there are so many to chose from!)

>PCTE will be the CASE standard everywhere in the world except the US,
>and none of US industry's paid lobbyists and trained seals can change
>that.  The effect of the US adopting an incompatible standard will be
>to shut US companies off from a large, fast-growing global market,
>and give them a small, slower-growing local market as their private
>oligopoly.  It will be the equivalent of a tariff wall blocking the
>import of software.

A possible future, but still too cloudy to predict.  As I stated
above, equating PCTE to CASE is overblowing PCTE's importance in the
CASE market. Equating ATIS to CASE would also be overblown.  At
present PCTE and ATIS are not end user solutions, but only technologies.  The
market is neither large nor fast growing by looking at the financial
results of the competitors so far.   Only the promise (when they are
tamed for end users) is big.  But I think it may be illusory. I'll
explain why by analogy: 

If CASE were the automobile business, Operating Systems like  Unix and
DOS would be the internal combustion engine that most of us use to
drive around today. ATIS might be like the U.S.'s lead in battery  car
engines, PCTE like Europe/Japan's lead in flexible solar cell technology
for cars. Lower polution cars are probably in our (distant) future--but
will they be battery driven, or solar augmented? Maybe they won't even
be electric--maybe they'll be alternative fuels driven (BMS,
Tooltalk...). In any case consumers aren't likely to scrap the
existing engine in their Chevy, Toyota, or Peugot to put in a new
electric engine.  They'll wait until the auto manufacturers change
engines  in new cars(continuing the analogy: HW vendors like Sun, HP, IBM,
Bull, Fujitsu).  But those manufacturers have investments in plants
that already make combustion engines, they won't be eager to switch
until consumers really prefer one solution over the other--and that's
not likely to happen until they are tamed for the end user. Typical
chicken and the egg situation which will probably take years for the
auto industry to resolve (and also for the software industry to
resolve for the same reasons).

I respect both Greg and Robert's opinions but I think that they may
be overly concerned by the hype. I've been involved in this particular
part of the industry for six years, both at HP and Atherton, before
starting Prescient Software, Inc.  I suppose I stand to gain as an Atherton
shareholder if the hype works and Atherton becomes profitable as a
result, but in the past it has seemed like the hype hurt more than it
helped (my personal opinion).

Ironic little known fact about this controversy: Thomson CSF, a French
firm owns SYSECA. (Thomson gained notoriety when American DOD contractors
like Lochkheed opposed, successfully it turns out, Thomson's attempt
to recently acquire control of LTV). SYSECA is a major owner of
Emeraude, currently the only shipping producer of PCTE.  SYSECA also
sells Enterprise II, one of the few shipping PCTE based IPSE Framework
alternatives to Atherton's ATIS based Software BackPlane IPSE
Framework.  A few years ago Thomson CSF acquired an interest in
Atherton Technology. About two years ago Thomson acquired majority
ownership in Atherton Technology. Several press statements have told of
a "harmonization" effort between PCTE and ATIS. But neither Atherton
nor SYSECA currently offer any shipping products that are compliant to
both standards.  What tangled webs we weave...

If French  owned Thomson fully acquired Atherton and ATIS was to
become the US standard, would this be a victory for the American CASE
industry? What is the impact of "brand competition" between various
Proctor & Gamble soaps or toothpastes?  What could we expect in a
brand war between two Thomson owned entities?  (Note: I'm not claiming
Thomson will or won't fully acquire Atherton--I know of no public
statements either way, I'm just asking the what if question).  With
multinational investments common in software, I'm not sure if this
polarization into xenophobia makes any sense.  It is as confusing as
asking which car is more American, the Honda Civic manufactured in Ohio, or
the Dodge Colt imported from Japan!

Atherton Technology is not connected with Jayson Addam's company which
was formerly known as Atherton Software Works.

I don't speak for Atherton Technology. I'm merely a shareholder. I
think that Ed White is taking needed steps to improve the prospects
for the company. If Atherton and Thomson take steps that benefit the
shareholders, I'm all for that.  I'm not sure whether that benefits
the industry as whole, or the American and European sub-industries,
but neither organization is a charity with that as a major goal. Both
organizations are just trying to satisfy customers and make a profit
and probably should be judged on there performance to that goal alone.

Scott
-- 

Re: DoD and NIST undermining commercial CASE industry

[Ed White]

In article <ByM75t.2s6@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
  
writes:
>  
>      The November 30, 1992 issue of Computerworld, page 73, contains the
> following article on how the DoD and the NIST are undermining the commercial
> CASE industry in America.  Another example of socialist bureacrats trying to
> preserve turf by ignoring the free markets.  After all, if the DoD was
> interested in free markets, it would stop wasting money on STARS, and start
> relying on the free markets it is defending to obtain the CASE technology it
> needs.   And they do this with our tax dollars.
>  
> Greg Aharonian
> Source Translation & Optimization
>  
>  
==============================================================================

Greg, we appreciate your support for free markets for UNIX CASE repository  
technologies in the U.S.  Without free markets that reward innovators like  
Atherton, Boeing, Loral, DEC, Verdix, GTE, General Dynamics, Lockheed and CRI  
for the creation of Software Engineering Environments based on advanced  
technologies like ATIS, we will not achieve the leadership in software  
development necessary to maintain our national security.  Consistent with this 
 
philosophy, we would like to point out that STARS has provided a free market  
position on CASE repositories. ATIS and PCTE vendors have equal opportunity in 
 
STARS to demonstrate the technology that will best support "megaprogramming" in
  
the U.S. defense community.

Ed White
Vice President
Atherton Technology     
					

Re: DoD and NIST undermining commercial CASE industry

[mcsun!uknet!yorkohm!minster!mjl-b]

In article <kjmiller-021292131142@kjmiller.mitre.org> kjmiller@mitre.org (Kevin
 Miller) writes:
>In article <1992Dec2.075323.3315@sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert
>Firth) wrote:
>> No, the US CASE industry is showing the same insularity and xenophobia
>> that destroyed the US automobile industry.
>> 
>> PCTE will be the CASE standard everywhere in the world except the US,
>> and none of US industry's paid lobbyists and trained seals can change
>> that.  The effect of the US adopting an incompatible standard will be
>> to shut US companies off from a large, fast-growing global market,
>> and give them a small, slower-growing local market as their private
>> oligopoly.  It will be the equivalent of a tariff wall blocking the
>> import of software.
>> [stuff deleted]
>
>I'm not sure I agree with Mr. Firth's assertion here.  PCTE strikes me as a
>standard in search of usable implementations, whereas ATIS appears to be a
>standard evolving from an implementation.
>
>If PCTE continues to lack for usable products, then the US market MIGHT
>have products that can actually work togather for which the rest of the
>industry would still be waiting.
>
>I do agree that it would be better for everyone to work to the same or
>compatible standards.

The one useable PCTE tool I've seen is Alsys' FreedomWorks -- they showed it
off at TRI-Ada.

>Kevin Miller       | MITRE's lawyers can't moan,    |
>kjmiller@mitre.org |                                |

Mat

| Mathew Lodge                      | "I don't care how many times they go    |
| mjl-b@minster.york.ac.uk          |  up-tiddly-up-up. They're still gits."  |
| Langwith College, Uni of York, UK |  -- Blackadder Goes Forth               |

Re: DoD and NIST undermining commercial CASE industry

[Geoffrey Clemm]

I think Scott McGregor summed up the situation rather well,
but I'll add some comments by Herm Fischer (with his permission).
Herm participates in most of the standardization efforts in this
area (at least, he's been at every one I've ever been to, and
seems to know about all the rest :-).

Cheers,

Geoff

[GMC: First a copy of a letter to Gene Forte]

From: Herm Fischer <fischer@markv.com>
Subject:   NAPI, PCTE vs (?) Atherton

Gene,

You are quoted (I hope out of context and incorrectly) in an article
which appears to be a Computerworld piece called "Vendors, Users, Officials
Wrangle over CASE Standards Dispute Escalates", which has been circulating
electronically.

The quote which I hope is out of context and wrong implies that:

(a) Atherton vs PCTE is Americans vs Europeans (it's almost the
converse, Atherton is now controlled by Thomson, a European company,
and PCTE is largely exploited by the American-owned Platform Vendors,
such as IBM, Digital, and American-owned CASE companies through their
involvement in PCTE-based trade associations such as the PCTE
Interface Management Board (PIMB) Association and the North American
PCTE Users Group (NAPUG)).  In fact the ONLY User's Group for PCTE is
in North America, the Europeans haven't even started one yet!

(b) Atherton and PCTE are opposites.  Nonsense.  Atherton is more
object oriented, and PCTE is less, and many are working on resolving
that.  Most of all, Digital and other people IN THE USA are implementing
PCTE together with non-Atherton ATISes on common environments!

I took copious notes during the NAPI meeting, and these may help clarify
things, and am forwarding as a separate message the NAPI meeting notes.

Please help separate the politics of Atherton, and the politics of NIST,
from the technological issues which are most important.  I don't want
to see the important technology issues (such as OO features from
ATIS, environments built on PCTE and ATIS) embroiled in political
quagmires, company-level alligators, or anything which detracts those
of us trying to advance this technology.

  Herm Fischer

[GMC: and now a letter about the Computerworld article]

From: Herm Fischer <fischer@markv.com>
Subject:   PCTE Political Alligators

I am really upset at the following Computerworld article which has
been circulating on the email circuits because it has a number of
inaccuracies which disparage a great deal of ongoing excellent
technical work with the politics of Atherton and NIST.

My comments are intersperced into the article.

  -- Herm Fischer

Compterworld-authored article:

> SUBJECT:  VENDORS, USERS, OFFICIALS WRANGLE AS CASE STANDARDS DISPUTE
>           ESCALATES
> AUTHOR:   Garry N. Ray,  Computerworld
> SOURCE:   International Data Group via First! by INDIVIDUAL, Inc.
> DATE:     November 24, 1992
> 
>   FRAMINGHAM, Mass.  -  Computerworld via First! : A major CASE standards
> effort became rancorous in recent weeks as vendors, government officials and
> commercial users leveled charges of favoritism and commercial bias at one
> another. At stake, according to both sides, is the long-term viability of
> the American computer-aided software engineering (CASE) industry.

This is hogwash.  The American CASE industry has been highly supportive
of several standards, including PCTE, CASE-Communique, X3H6, and CDIF.  It
has not taken sides with or against the Atherton corporation, as implied
below.  Atherton is just a single company.  These other efforts are multi-
company standards efforts.  NIST has only begun to feel out its directions
and political influences in this area, and is not an antagonist.  It is only
trying to get started, and by immediately involving all parties, politicians,
technologists, and vendors, has been the first to stir the pot.

>   More than a technical dispute, it involves ``proposals to put substantial
> amounts of money'' into software standards, said Gene Forte, executive
> editor of ``CASE Outlook,'' a Seattle-based CASE newsletter. ``It's about
> the competitive advantage of American software companies vs. Europeans,'' he
> added.

I know Gene Forte, and I hope he didn't really mean this.  I wrote him
an email asking if this is an out of context misquote.  I noted to Gene
that I hope he didn't mean to imply that:
 
 >> 
 >> (a) Atherton vs PCTE is Americans vs Europeans (it's almost the
 >> converse, Atherton is now controlled by Thomson, a European company,
 >> and PCTE is largely exploited by the American-owned Platform Vendors,
 >> such as IBM, Digital, and American-owned CASE companies through their
 >> involvement in PCTE-based trade associations such as the PCTE
 >> Interface Management Board (PIMB) Association and the North American
 >> PCTE Users Group (NAPUG)).  In fact the ONLY User's Group for PCTE is
 >> in North America, the Europeans haven't even started one yet!
 >>
 >> (b) Atherton and PCTE are opposites.  Nonsense.  Atherton is more
 >> object oriented, and PCTE is less, and many are working on resolving
 >> that.  Most of all, Digital and other people IN THE USA are implementing
 >> PCTE together with non-Atherton ATISes on common environments!

The Computerworld article continues...

>   The dispute came to public notice with a widely distributed letter sent on
> Nov. 18 by Edward White, a vice president at Atherton Technology in
> Sunnyvale, Calif. In the letter, addressed to a senior official at the
> National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and sent by White to
> members of the press, White charged that NIST and the U.S. Department of
> Defense are supporting a CASE standard that will ``undermine American
> National Standards Institute efforts to establish a standard which will
> better serve the interests of the U.S.''

NIST has done the U.S. a very great service by starting with a
reference model and catalyzing the U.S. CASE industry to support
evolution of the reference model.  The reference model came from the
UK, but from an American company in the UK.  The reference model is a
valuable contribution, and NIST should be recognized for it in the
article.  NIST's ventures into the PCTE initiative are their attempt
to go one step further, and whether one agrees or disagrees with all
of what they propose, politically or technically, they have done a
valuable great job (so far) and have publicly come to the industry
with their proposal for the next step.  They are not anti-american
communist bed-wetting perverts, but instead willing to risk political
alligators as they discover what industry does and doesn't want.

However, Garry Ray implies that PCTE is a CASE standard which is anti-
American.  As I note above, PCTE is much more American than Atherton,
but this is McCarthyism to invoke.  American CASE and Platform vendors
have been backing PCTE and OO enhancements to PCTE because that is a
vendor-neutral standard.  It is the ONLY accredited standard in this
area (even if accreditation is currently only European).  Atherton's
standard is ONLY backed by Atherton, though Digital implements its variant
of Atherton's interface side-by-side with PCTE.  The other platform vendors
so far have only supported PCTE.  Why wave the flag incorrectly?

>   Atherton is the developer of the CASE A Tool Integration Standard (ATIS),
> which has been implemented by The Boeing Co., GTE Government Systems, Verdix
> Corp. and other companies in a number of government contracts. ATIS competes
> in the CASE standards arena with the Portable Common Tools Environment
> (PCTE), a 10-year effort headed by the European Computer Manufacturers
> Association at a purported cost of more than $400 million, according to a
> senior Boeing official. In addition, PCTE is currently the foundation for a
> proposal under review by the International Standards Organization (ISO).

Why not tell us the purported cost of Atherton investments too?  I really
don't care.  What I do know is that IBM, Digital, HP, and many other 
AMERICAN companies made major parts of the $400 million cited above.

>   Because of its support in Europe and within ISO, ``we want to use PCTE as
> baseline'' for a U.S. CASE standard, said NIST senior computer scientist
> William Wong, the recipient of White's letter. Wong has been overseeing a
> long-term evaluation of CASE integration frameworks for use in government
> software projects.
> 
>   But politics are also playing a part in the decision. Although he
> acknowledged that ``PCTE is not quite strong enough now,'' Wong said that by
> working on that standard, ``we have the opportunity to influence'' the ISO.
> ``We're just one nation in a group of nations,'' he added.

>   No matter. The DOD ``is pulling the trigger too fast'' by supporting PCTE,
> White later explained. Because it supports dated technology, ``PCTE is
> another AD/Cycle, another attempt to boil the ocean,'' he said.

AD/Cycle is implied to be a dated technology, which may be true.  What IS
true is that AD/Cycle is a SINGLE-VENDOR standard, as is Atherton's
proposal.  PCTE is a vendor-independent standard.  Given that it
continues the current course of being updated with OO and other
modern features (indeed, benefiting from the OO technology lessons
of Atherton), it will be an up to date vendor-independent standard.

And why does it have to be PCTE VERSUS Atherton; Digital has shown in
prototypes and now a production product under way that the two
technologies (PCTE and Digital's interpretation of Atherton's
proposal) can co-habitate the same environment!

>   A Boeing spokesman agreed: ``We support the direction and thrust of
> Atherton and are strongly committed to ATIS and the functionality underneath
> it.''
> 
>   However, beneath the immediate technical concerns is one point on which
> all parties seem to concur. According to Forte, ``If you let Europe define
> what the [CASE] standard is, then they will have a competitive advantage''
> in CASE and commercial software over the long term.

This is the statement which I most am upset about.  It's even less than
bull-excrement.  PCTE was defined hand-in-hand with the DoD's Common
Ada Support Environment Interface Set (CAIS-A), and CAIS-A and PCTE
designers sat together on the same committees during the 1980s.  I
know because I chaired the U.S. industry designer group (KITIA) for
five years.  The only advantage the Europeans had during the 1980s
designing years is much clearer funding requirement to commercialize
their product than the Americans had.  Their labors begat the initial
PCTE implementations, which begat the current American-owned platform
vendor as well as European platform vendor PCTE involvements.

>   Garry N. Ray,  Computerworld



--
geoff@bellcore.com

Re: DoD and NIST undermining commercial CASE industry

[Joshua Levy]

In article <1992Dec2.075323.3315@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) 
writes:
>
>No, the US CASE industry is showing the same insularity and xenophobia
>that destroyed the US automobile industry.

You are mixing up Atherton Technology (who sent the letter) with
``the US CASE industry''.  The two are not the same, not even close,
for two different reasons:

1. The US CASE industry is dozens, if not hundreds of companies, projects,
   etc.  Atherton Technology is little more than a footnote when compared
   with IDE, Teamwork, IBM's CASE projects, Atria, Pure, etc.

2. Atherton Technology is paritally owned by a French company (Thompson 
   CSF, but my spelling may be wrong).  I assume one reason they had a vice
   prez sign the letter was that their prez (or was it CEO?) was sent 
   over from France by Thomson to run Atherton.  It would look pretty
   funny if he signed such a letter.  Note: Atherton is a small company
   and its ownership can change at any time.  

Joshua Levy (joshua@veritas.com)

Re: DoD and NIST undermining commercial CASE industry

[ogicse!flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!m]

In article <1992Dec3.093920.19673@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
 writes:

>However, of the competitors, PCTE has the most diverse support in
>the global market; if you accept Emeraude as a realistic "proof of
>concept", then I can't see any potential competitor displacing it
>on technical grounds.

As Robert points out (with his QUERTY example)  it rarely is technical
grounds that causes displacement.  It is more likely because another
solution becomes a de facto solution.  That's likely to be because of
an important vendor making it standard (e.g. Sun's NFS), the move to a
new major platform with extant solutions (e.g. the moves from
VMS to Unix changed the importance of DECnet vs. TCP/IP.  And lastly,
sometimes these things are end runs. The engines don't matter until
you can buy an off the lot car that has one standard--then what
matters is that it is the standard engine not that there are better
alternative engines for which there are no cars. This is the grave
risk to PCTE *AND* ATIS until there are more end user environments in
place that rely on them.

>Again I agree - but this seems to me the critical issue.  The key problem
>is not the lack of end user solutions, but the lack of the "enabling
>technologies" that will open the door to end user solutions - solutions
>built by numerous third parties, competitively, but all with a high
>degree of compatibility and interoperability.
>
>As a poor analogy, consider PostScript (TM).  This is an enabling technology
>that alows you to buy any of a dozen machines, drawing programs, printers
>and display units, plug them together, and do useful work.  That's the
>kind of rationale behind PCTE, and I think it's the critical step in
>allowing us similarly to "mix and match" our software development tools.

Consider that there WERE and ARE today other alternatives to
PostScript.  It is an enablying technology. But it is not that it
*theoretically* can allow you to connect any of a dozen machines,
printers, programs, etc. The alternatives share this theoretical
possibility. What PostScript has going for it is that it works this
way *in practice*--i.e. that there are end user solutions to allow
useful work.  The real  risk with PCTE and ATIS is that they don't
have such an installed base of end users benefiting yet. This leaves
both vulnerable to the next solution, even one less technically
correct, but which in practices solves real end user problems for many
people.

>Well, is PCTE at the point the VHS de-facto standard reached, where any
>attempt to compete will go the way of Betamax?  In my view, yes, but as
>always feel free to disagree.

I don't think so. But primarily because PCTE and ATIS are at the level
the scarcity that VHS and Betamax were BEFORE home VCRs were common.
Note too that VHS is not the clear winner for all time--with the
growth of the handicam market the smaller formats have beat out the
larger formats. One would think that VHS-C would have an advantage due
to compatability, but Sony's 8mm is doing better (so far). When HDTV
comes around all these things could be lost in the dust.  Is the
future in computing any less uncertain? What will be the implication
of the new OO O/S's like NeXTstep, Taligent Pink, et. al.? What role
with Windows/NT successors play?  What are the implications of
massively parallel processors, palm tops, and another factor of four
increase in price performance in the next 3 years, a factor of sixteen
in six (application of Moore's Law).  It is easy to displace
technologies with installed bases in the hundreds and thousands. Much
harder to displace technologies that millions of end users rely on.

I don't mean to imply that PCTE and ATIS can't win, just that the odds
are similar to weather prediction.  I still remember when it was
ASSUMED that OS/2 would be dominant over MS-DOS by now. But those
predictions were made when OS/2 was had as few end users as PCTE and
ATIS. I think this is why CASE vendors and hardware vendors are
playing it cautiosly: verbally committing to the standards "when they
mature" (which means when they become pervasive in the market and they
can't sell their product without them), but not actively making their
products crucially dependent on either quite yet.

Markets are fascinating things, aren't they?



-- 

Scott L. McGregor		mcgregor@netcom.com
President			tel: 408-985-1824
Prescient Software, Inc.	fax: 408-985-1936
3494 Yuba Avenue
San Jose, CA 95117-2967

Prescient Software sells Merge Ahead, the tool for Merging Text or Code and
offers consulting  & training in project management and design for usability.

Re: DoD and NIST undermining commercial CASE industry

[Morris J. Zwick]

In article <1992Dec3.093920.19673@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
writes:
>
>You're right; thanks for reminding us of this.  PCTE and CASE have a
>lot of overlap, but are not the same thing.  As you also mention, it
>is not certain that PCTE-based systems will become the dominant CASE
>systems, though personally I think it highly likely.
>
>>It is also oversimplifying to look at this issue as having only two possible
>>results: ATIS or PCTE. 
>
>Well, actually, I was looking at the issue as having only one possible
>result.  This isn't really a technical issue; international standards
>aren't really decided on technical issues, which is why we have QWERTY
>keyboards.
>
>However, of the competitors, PCTE has the most diverse support in
>the global market; if you accept Emeraude as a realistic "proof of
>concept", then I can't see any potential competitor displacing it
>on technical grounds.
>
>>At present PCTE and ATIS are not end user solutions, but only technologies.
>
>Again I agree - but this seems to me the critical issue.  The key problem
>is not the lack of end user solutions, but the lack of the "enabling
>technologies" that will open the door to end user solutions - solutions
>built by numerous third parties, competitively, but all with a high
>degree of compatibility and interoperability.
>
>As a poor analogy, consider PostScript (TM).  This is an enabling technology
>that alows you to buy any of a dozen machines, drawing programs, printers
>and display units, plug them together, and do useful work.  That's the
>kind of rationale behind PCTE, and I think it's the critical step in
>allowing us similarly to "mix and match" our software development tools.
>
>Well, is PCTE at the point the VHS de-facto standard reached, where any
>attempt to compete will go the way of Betamax?  In my view, yes, but as
>always feel free to disagree.
>

If you have seen the Emeraude implementation, then you would understand the
trepidation that many of us have about standardizing on PCTE! There are several
efforts, funded by the DoD (NGCR PSESWG, PCIS, etc.) that are looking at
available standards for environments. Having participated on some of these
groups, I can tell you that there are NO definitive standards that provide the
necessary "infrastructure" for developing environments. As it stands, PCTE is
NOT able to deal well with many different environment problems, including
fine-grained data models. In fact, rumor has it that the Europeans do not
understand our fascination with PCTE; they consider it currently to be an
academic exercise. If PCTE where so complete and definitive, there would be
more implementations.

As far as ATIS and PCTE, it is very difficult to compare the two since in some
ways they overlap and in other ways they provide unique capabilities. I would
like to see some of the harmonization efforts that are taking place to continue
until the technology matures enough to be useful.

Which leads me to my last point; the technology for this stuff is NEW,
IMMATURE, and not ready for prime time. You cannot standardize until some
concensus (preferably in the marketplace) has taken place to establish what
should be standardized. And as far as losing our edge to Europe in software aka
automobiles, how about this analogy:

The United States was the leading producer of automobiles for most of this
century. We developed the production technology, management techniques
(including statistical quality control, which we didn't implement until it was
too late), and the basic technologies in the vehicles themselves. The Japanese
now kick our butts! Sounds to me like we should let the Europeans do the grunt
work, learn their lessons, then leave them in the dust :)
         ___________________________________________________________________
        /  Morris J. Zwick	                 Internet: mzwick@vitro.com
__     /   Vitro Corporation	             Voice:    (301) 231-2784
  \   /    14000 Georgia Ave.                ___________________________
   \ /     Silver Spring, MD 20906-2972      |"I don't want the world; |
    *                                        | I just want your half!" |
                                             |  - They Might Be Giants |

Re: DoD and NIST undermining commercial CASE industry

[Alan Brown]

I thought that some of the followers of this PCTE/ATIS/others debate may
be interested in a new book that may help with some of the *technical* aspects
of the discussion.


Alan Brown.

===========================================================================


A New Book from McGraw-Hill, Inc.

	``Software Engineering Environments: Automated Support for Software
	Engineering"

        by Alan Brown, Anthony Earl, and John McDermid.

	326 pages	ISBN 0-07-707432-7	$38.00



This book looks at a number of the problems of assembling CASE tools to form
Software Engineering Environments (SEEs). It examines the history of SEE work,
the requirements for a SEE, current experience with introducing and adopting
SEE products, and addresses the difficult problem of CASE tool integration in
a SEE.

Perhaps the most notable feature of the book, however, is an in depth
description of a reference model for analyzing and comparing SEE products and
standards. This is the work that has now beenaccepted by both the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the European Computer
Manufacturers Association (ECMA) leading to a technical report (NIST Special
Publication 500-201 and ECMA TR/55).

As well as describing the reference model in detail, a number of important
systems and standards are reviewed with respect to the reference model.
These are:

	ECMA PCTE

	DEC's CIS (a.k.a. ATIS)

	HP's SoftBench

	IBM's AD/Cycle

Hence, we believe that this is perhaps the most comprehensive book on SEEs yet
to be produced, and should have a great appeal to a wide audience who are
interested in these products and standards, and the whole SEE frameworks
debate !

About the Authors: Alan W. Brown is a member of the technical staff at the
Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University, PA, Anthony N.
Earl is a researcher at MarkV Systems, Cupertino, CA, and John A. McDermid is
Professor of Software Engineering at the University of York, UK.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mail your order to:

	McGraw-Hill Inc.
	11 West 19th Street - 4th Floor
	New York, NY 10011

Please quote the code #03TP020 on the Order Form, and ISBN 0-07-707432-7.



Telephone your order to:

	Call toll-free in the USA to 1-800-2-MCGRAW

Re: DoD and NIST undermining commercial CASE industry

[Marc S. Gibian]

A couple of quick comments:

1.  There is no difference between CASE tool integration and more general
"tool" integration.

2.  Digital has not been mentioned, but has a significant integration
effort.

3.  It has been a few years, but a while back I worked for a major government
contractor.  At that time, there was a US standard whose name I belive was
"CASE" (not to be confused with CASE tools).  Last I heard, there was a
revised "CASE II" that was quite close to PCTE.  This would indicate that
this is more a Atherton/ATIS vs. other "standards" discussion.

4.  What about Window's DDE/OLE?
--
Marc S. Gibian			email: gibian@talent.ljo.dec.com
Principal Software Engineer	phone: (508) 486-6598
Digital Equipment Corporation	fax:   (508) 486-6648  or (508) 486-6100