[Coin-standards] An argument for public domain modeling infrastructure

[Irv Lustig]

Leo:

At 12:42 PM 4/12/02 -0500, Leonardo B. Lopes wrote:

>I don't think so. I could be wrong, but I don't think that a modeling
>standard will happen. In addition to the technical aspects, which I've
>talked about earlier, there is a strategic aspect. Modeling environments
>add real, immediate value, which low level standards don't, by themselves.
>In addition, they are hard to design and implement. So they fit the
>proprietary business model very well, and are not good candidates for open
>source or similar development models like this one.

This is an interesting argument, and you very well may be right.

>Maybe I'm interpreting the Java case incorrectly, but I think it
>strengthens the argument *against* an open source language. As I
>understand it, the Java license allows licensees to reimplement the JVM,
>which is basically an OS-abstraction layer, and not the language itself.
>Without that, Java would make no sense at all. In fact, that was in rough
>terms what their fight with MS was all about. MS was adding all sorts of
>windows-specific extensions to the language, and Sun didn't like it. In
>addition, Sun has thrown a nice chunk of change down the drain with java.
>The only reason they did it was that it suited their strategic interest.
>Good luck finding someone with that much to gain, and that much cash to
>shell out, in our industry.

But the industry could decide to do something similar.  Let's say a new 
modeling language called "LEO" (Language for Enterprise Optimization) was 
designed.  Let's further say that there is a LEO Board, that has 
representatives from the vendors, industry, and academia.  The Board 
decides what the language looks like.  The academics create the 
implementation prototype, and put it out in open source. The vendors take 
that prototype and have the right to improve it.  They have the option to 
put back their contributions into open source.  However, if the vendors 
want to call their language "LEO", it must conform to the standard agreed 
to by the LEO Board. Why couldn't this process work?

Now, I'm not saying that ILOG is interested or that any of the other 
vendors are interested.  But if someone would drive the concept, it could 
help advance the field.


>Yes, it is. I'd actually argue it can't be done. Or let me weaken that a
>little: If it were done, the benefit from the standard would not dominate
>the tradeoffs in the design.

Maybe so.  But if the tradeoffs allowed the language to be used for the 
problems people are really interested in solving out in industry, that 
would be a good thing.

         -Irv