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.

http://www.controlglobal.com/whitepapers/2008/189.html

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.

Walt