Steve: This discussion was aimed at pragmatically coming up with a good, shared definition of "IP." You seemed to have derailed it now, and turned it into addressing and solving "the big picture." Let's stick with the much needed definition of "IP" on this thread, and maybe start another discussion of what to do next with the big picture for definitions. Note that the big picture is not simple if we want to do it right, it requires first collaboration from our distinguished colleagues from all working groups of the DASC, some learning process to get an update on available technology, and available resources from IEEE, IEC, ISO and NIST, involvement of the consortia (like Accellera) which plan to forward their approved standards to IEEE DASC, with Asia Pacific and European participation. It will take a few steps before we decide whether we need a standard, a well managed process, web facilities or all of the above. So, again, please, please let the discussion continue on the much needed IP definition, and let-s start another discussion (maybe without requests for motivations this time) to reach some consensus on what to do next for the "big picture." Also if Victor would like to moderate this or that let him do it, otherwise let us practice our flavour of constructivism. To keep things simple I will send some simple text for the IP definition to be used in the standards which includes some of Gary's wording, in another e-mail. When all will like it we can cast it with a motion, and use it in the PARs or any new IP standards. I do not think we need a study group for that. It is just a matter of coordination of ideas. Kind regards, Alex Z P.S. It took a while, but the train is now ready to leave the station, take your seats, and avoid getting sick by looking just forward. . On 1/15/08, Bailey, Stephen <SBailey@model.com> wrote: > > Sorry, it was sent a bit prematurely. Completion: > ... > If one project wants to reuse from another, great! However, such reuse or > even a DASC glossary would not eliminate the responsibility of the project > from defining its terminology nor providing a glossary in their > standard. If a standard EDA glossary is needed, then someone step forward > and take the leadership on creating the SG to lead to a WG which will define > a standard which can then be referenced directly by other > projects. Otherwise, any work of the DASC is not directly reusable. Each > project must cut-and-paste the term and definition. (After they agree that > the definition is appropriate for their project.) > > I think we have sufficient background now. Does anyone want to volunteer > to chair such a study group and propose it to the DASC? > > ---------- > Stephen Bailey > Product Marketing Manager, Questa > stephen_bailey@mentor.com > +1 303 775 1655 > www.mentor.com > > --- original message --- > From: stephen_bailey@mentor.com > Subject: Re: Definition of "IP" > Date: 14th January 2008 > Time: 6:41:17 pm > > I'll have to claim a measure of responsibility here. At the last DASC > meeting, when we discussed the fact that the PARs for QIP and IP > Encryption were returned by NesCom, I noted that the underlying problem > was a lack of relevant definitions in a recognized dictionary of terms. > In the discussion, Alex noted several such dictionaries and our lack of > participation in maintaining the terminology. My suggested remedy was > to come up with a reasonable definition that we in DASC could agree on, > and include a paragraph with that definition in the PAR for both DASC > sponsored standards rejected for ambiguous use of the term "IP". I > think that is adequate context for Alex to initiate a thread on the > reflector. > > A DASC glossary of terms would would be a good place to collect > definitions for concepts that are used in multiple standards. The > subject of this thread is one such instance, and imagining others > doesn't require much thought. Ultimately, we have a responsibility to > get our terminology included in the standard dictionaries, or find > adequate terminology that is already there. I think DASC should be > policing the work it sponsors, instead of hoping that NesCom will not > notice. > > Steven J. Dovich > Cadence Design Systems > > > Bailey, Stephen 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 > > <mailto: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> [ > > mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] *On Behalf Of *Alex Zamfirescu > > *Sent:* Monday, January 14, 2008 5:38 AM > > *To:* stds-dasc@dasc.org <mailto: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 <mailto:alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com> > > http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue Jan 15 01:56:51 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 15 2008 - 01:58:08 PST