Hi Gary: There are various ways in which definitions can fail to have merit. A simple list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition contains two which might be relevant here, a) "obscurity" and b) "examples and definition in context." a) obscurity appears as ambiguity due to the use of highly polysemous word "design" (see below) b) For this the example given is: "Edentates are mammals such as voles and tenrecs," does not help the reader to decide if, say, shrews are edentates or not. We can easily deal with b) by excluding the examples for now. In fact that is what I proposed, just exclude them from the definition to be able to produce a clear definition (no need for "polarization" Alex vs. others here!). Again examples are "worthless" when crafting a definition. They can be added separately, if people think there is a need for explanations, but as part of a definition they are considered "fallacies." So, what we have left is: "Electronic Design Intellectual Property is a term used in the electronic design community. It refers to a reusable collection of design specifications which represent the behavior, properties, and/or representation of the design in various media." The term "Electronic Design Automation" deals with aspects of the roboticization of the act of creating something that is electronic. The term "design" is an *act* in that context, but in general, in the EDA, the term design is also used to mean: 1. something intended as a *guide* for making something else (series of steps to be carried, goals to be accomplished) 2. an *arrangement scheme* (arrangements of parts or elements, a plan) 3. *structure and behavior of a model* related to electronics 4. an EDA related *information model* 5. *anticipated outcome* (intent) The question is: *What meaning of the term "design" was used in * *the definition? * ** *Is it only one of the above? Which one?* ** If we admit that more than one meaning is used simultaneously, then the definition becomes obscure, but if we do not use more than one meaning we are incomplete. Anyway, it needs clarification. Minor comments: 1. "and/or" seems to be used as "non-exclusive or" which is just "or" If it means more as "under some conditions" we need to specify what conditions. 2. It seems that we define "Electronic Design Intellectual Property" instead of just "Intellectual Property" in the context of EDA. *Will we change IP into EDIP everywhere?* ** 3. I left the part with "partially derived" aside as not clear enough for a definition. 4. In my previous e-mail I considered also the use of IP as an attribute as in "the IP cores." Will such use be automatic? 5. Not much correlation emphasis exists with the general meaning of "Intellectual Property" Please enjoy the day, Alex Zamfirescu ** ** ** On 1/14/08, Delp, Gary <Gary.Delp@lsi.com> wrote: > > H i Alex, > > The P1735 group came up with this working definition: > > > Electronic Design Intellectual Property is a term used in the electronic > design community. It refers to a reusable collection of design > specifications which represent the behavior, properties, and/or > representation of the design in various media. Examples of these collections > include, but are not limited to: > > · A unit of electronic system design > > · A design verification and analysis scheme (*e.g., *test > bench) > > · A netlist indicating elements and the interconnection > thereof to implement a function > > · A set of fabrication instructions > > · A physical layout design or chip layout > > · A design intent specification > > The term is partially derived from the common practice for the collection > to be considered the intellectual property of one party. Hardware and > software descriptions are encompassed by this term. > > > The examples (but not limited to) build up a clearer view of the scope for > some readers. You may find the worthless, but others will find them useful. > > Comments? > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* owner-stds-dasc@eda.org [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] *On > Behalf Of *Alex Zamfirescu > *Sent:* Monday, January 14, 2008 5:38 AM > *To:* stds-dasc@dasc.org > *Subject:* Definition of "IP" > > > Dear Colleagues: > > A few of the DASC standards are concerned with what is currently > understood in > our industry by "IP." > > Here are a few thoughts about "IP" > > 1. In general "Intellectual property" (IP) is a controversial and often > debated term. > > At least the following definitions already exist: > > A. property from original thought protected by law: > original creative work manifested in a tangible form > > that can be legally protected, e.g. by a patent, > trademark, or copyright > > B. intangible property that is the result of creativity > (such as patents or trademarks or copyrights) > C. a product of the intellect that has commercial value, > including > copyrighted property such as literary or artistic > works, and > ideational property, such as patents, appellations > of origin, > business methods, and industrial processes. > > The already known debates are about: > > a) "intangible" implied by "intellectual" and > "tangible" implied by "property" > b) the property is not about the "entity" itself, but > about some exclusive rights to the "entity" > > 2. In the EDA we are using "intellectual property" or IP to mean either: > > EDA_DEF_1) object_1: a product of the intellect that has > commercial value > e.g. Any IP should be listed in > the library > or > EDA_DEF_2) object_2: exclusive rights to objects of kind > "object_1" > e.g. Sale of the IP occurred... > or > EDA_DEF_3) attribute_1: characteristic of an object to > be of kind object_1 > e.g. The IP core is ... > > While we should let the lawyers debate about what *they* mean by "IP" we > could limit our goal in the standards to define only the technical aspect > of > the term. > > IMHO we could limit our standards concern to just the EDA_DEF_1, and > EDA_DEF_3. > > Second, we could differentiate our "IP" in some way, like by using > "ip", *IP* or any other idea (confusion could be with the "courts > meaning", and with "Internet Protocol"). > > *Q1. Do you have anything to be added to our definitions?* > ** > *Q2. Do we need to clarify or draw the line to separate EDA tools?* > ** > *Q3. What would be a good, simple criteria to separate the EDA tools from > being * > *considered IP as of kind object_1 (EDA_DEF_1 above)?* > ** > Note that I tried to come up with concise definitions. We could > always add, (IMHO meaningless) phrases like "including but not limited > to..." > > Please comment! > > Regards, > > Alex Zamfirescu > > > > > > > -- > Alex Zamfirescu > 650-814-7514 > alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com > http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com > ========= > This communication, and its attachments, may contain > privileged, or confidential information, intended for a specific > individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the > intended recipient, you should delete this communication, and/or > shred the materials and any attachments, and are hereby notified that > any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication, or > the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. > Interception of e-mail is a crime under the Electronic Communication > Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709. If you have > received this transmission in error, please notify me by reply > e-mail at alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com and destroy the original transmission > and its attachments without reading them, or saving them to disk. > Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. > ========= > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is > believed to be clean. -- Alex Zamfirescu 650-814-7514 alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com ========= This communication, and its attachments, may contain privileged, or confidential information, intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication, and/or shred the materials and any attachments, and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Interception of e-mail is a crime under the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me by reply e-mail at alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them, or saving them to disk. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. ========= -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Jan 14 13:18:39 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 14 2008 - 13:19:04 PST