Stephen Mitschke
August 12th, 2003, 01:38 PM
Ian,Following the messages about this whole interoperability issue, and workingfor a company that was an early adopter of FF I can certainly identify withsome of the problems clearly expressed by many of the writers (especiallythe end users) to this thread.As it stands at present, I would fully endorse Jim Reizners comments ofMarch 19 where he states"A question for the vendors and the Foundation: why can't you gettogetherand just have one DD/CFF file that works independent of what hostsystem I amusing?(I thought that was the original concept). Is there somethingwrong withthe Foundation's specification, their testing, or is itsomething else?Applying a little reasoning to the problem evident in the experiences andopinions expressed in the flurry of messages about this topic, it seems endusers are left to consider three possibilities, (or even worse a combinationof them):1. Proprietary interests are hijacking the spirit and intent of the protocol(Yes it's "open", but........?)2. The vendors don't understand or are failing to properly implement theprotocol well enough (perhaps too much hidden complexity?)3. The protocol is either flawed or inadequate to address the core issues ofinteroperability (perhaps the fundamentals are wrong?)The trouble is that each of these possibilities challenges the credibilityof the protocol. I feel this needs urgent attention, and although most ofthe discussion so far has centred on host/device interoperability, and alittle on device/device interoperability, what about host to hostinteroperability? This will no doubt soon be another area for concern whenan end user decides to try another vendors host system for a new project,but also wants transparent HSE communication down to a segment bridged to(ie effectively under the control of) the first vendors host system.Also I have doubts about which planet Ian Ramsay-Connell comes from with hiscomments about "..customers not being as smart as they used to be". Itotally disagree with the main point of his argument which is basicallysaying that "Hey, this is a minefield, and better hire a good bomb disposalsquad if you don't want to step on one". This doesn't cut it with many endusers. We want Fieldbus to deliver on its promise of robust interoperabilityand straightforward, "open" device and system integration.Regards,Wayne Gray-GarneyCHH Tasman Pulp, NZ