IF ISA100.11a isn't interoperable, why are we going to vote to release it?

I have become very worried, after reading the ISA100.11a proposed standard draft that is currently out for ballot.

I noted several HUNDRED points of confusion, places where extremely important parts of the standard were left to be worked out later, and a variety of contradictory comments and statements. Parts 5 and 6 do not appear to be reflected in much of the actual technical portion of the standard.

I have become convinced that the issue is not that some of us are trying to make a workable standard "more perfect" but rather the situation is that many of us are trying to make a not-ready-for-prime-time draft at least workable. We can worry about perfect later.

I am not the only one who's been finding problems with the draft. I have posted, for easy reach, a white paper written by Rick Enns, a voting member of ISA100.


If you are a voting member of ISA100, I urge you to read this document thoroughly-- as thoroughly as I know you have been reading the standard.

Here's the point. It isn't going to hurt anything to wait a few more months and get it right. It will certainly hurt to go out of the box and present a sloppy, poorly written and impossible to engineer to standard.


Join the discussion

We welcome your thoughtful comments. Please comply with our Community rules.
All comments will display your user name.

Want to participate in the discussion?

Register for free

Log in for complete access.


No one has commented on this page yet.

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments