Steve: First, there are at least three relevant DASC standard drafts, ex VSIA IP encript, ex VSIA QIP, and the SPIRIT sponsored IP-XACT. Second the IEEE flow of definitions is broken (again read all my e-mail message about SDM to find out how that is so). Before we fix that flow, discussion of common definitions could take place at the DASC level. Even if the flow would be all well set up, we will still have to synchronize our meanings for shared terms in emerging standards (when nothing is there in the IEEE repository yet). Third, the situation with IP is special due to the triple meaning, general, EDA marketing, and standards, each placing on the term a slightly different meaning, so we have to have agreement of what we mean by that at least in the DASC, don't you think so, the IEEE Board does? Enjoy the day, Alex Z P On 1/14/08, Bailey, Stephen <SBailey@model.com> wrote: > > This gets back to my question of context. The only definition that is > relevant is for ip-encrypt group for use in its PAR and within its draft > standard specification. The DASC does not maintain a glossary of terms. > The definition of IP is provided by the IEEE to the DASC as to how it > pertains to the intellectual property that it creates and the IEEE (not the > DASC) own. The definition of IP that is relevant to any standard sponsored > by DASC is defined by the working group that is responsible for developing > that standard. > > > > This discussion may have relevance in the ip-encrypt context. It > apparently has no relevance in the DASC context unless you are trying to > draw attention to something (if so, please define) that you believe the > general DASC membership needs to be aware in the context of the workings of > the ip-encrypt group. > > > > -Steve Bailey > > > > *From:* owner-stds-dasc@server.eda.org [mailto: > owner-stds-dasc@server.eda.org] *On Behalf Of *Alex Zamfirescu > *Sent:* Monday, January 14, 2008 2:42 PM > *To:* James H. Vellenga > *Cc:* Delp, Gary; stds-dasc@server.dasc.org; ip-encrypt@server.eda.org > *Subject:* Re: Definition of "IP" > > > > Jim: > > > > What we try to do is to define "Intellectual Property" in the context of > EDA, and if that > > is a hard task, in the context of just the EDA standards. Gary and I > should have the same goal (please see my reply to his e-mail). > > You are right, my first post had an incomplete definition (too general to > qualify as > > specific to EDA standards), but I asked for help to complete it (directly, > and > > with the need to draw a line between tools and IP). > > > > People should be aware that there is a general meaning for "intellectual > property" > > which is similar to "intellectual rights" (we can call that *general IP > meaning*), > > that there are established ways to use IP in the EDA community > > including marketing (we can call that *EDA IP meaning*), and that there > > might be a stricter meaning of IP for standards purposes (call it *DASC IP > meaning*). > > > > Again our purpose should just be to establish a clear meaning for IP > > to be used in the EDA standards. > > > > Thank you for reading and contributing your thoughts. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Alex Z > > > > > > On 1/14/08, *James H. Vellenga* <jvellenga@verizon.net> wrote: > > I don't know if it matters, but it looks to me like the P1735 group > and Alex are answering different questions. The P1735 group seems > to be describing direct or indirect products of human intellect > that may or may not qualify as property, and explicitly assuming > as part of the definition that the reader knows what intellectual > property is. Alex, on the other hand, seems to dealing with the > definition of intellectual property irrespective of its role in > electronic design. > > They are both good questions to ask and answer, but it's hard to > argue that answering the one also answers the other. > > Regards, > Jim > > > Delp, Gary 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<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. > -- > 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 <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 14:48:24 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 14 2008 - 14:48:32 PST