Search Results

Search found 2081 results on 84 pages for 'standards compliance'.

Page 2/84 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How to negotiate with software vendors who do not follow HL7 standards

    - by Peter Turner
    Take, for instance the "", I'd hope that anyone who has spent any time in dealing with HL7 messages knows that the "" signifies that something should be deleted. "" is not an empty string, it's not a filler etc... But occasionally, one may meet a vendor who persists in sending "" instead of just sending nothing at all. Since, I work for a small business and have an extremely flexible HL7 interface, I can ignore ""'s in received messages. But these things are adding up. Some vendors like to send custom formatted fields with psuedo-components that they leave others to interpret themselves. Some vendors send all their information in note segments and assume you're going to only show users the information they send in a monospace font. Some vendors even have the audacity to send Carriage Return Line Feeds at the end of each line of a file interface. Some vendors absolutely refuse to send decimal numbers and in-so-doing refuse to send any numbers. So, with all this crippling humanity against the simple plastic software man, how does one bend without breaking*? Or better yet, how does one fight back and still make money? *my answer is usually to create an interface for the interface and keep the HL7 processing pure, but I don't think this is the best solution

    Read the article

  • Hidden web standards behind Google "custom searchEngines"?

    - by Hoàng Long
    Today while playing with Google Chrome Omnibox, I notice a strange behavior. I guess there's some "hidden" web standard behind it, but can't figure it out. Here's how to reproduce: Go to http://edition.cnn.com/ Use the search function at the higher right corner, Search a random keyword, for example: "abc" Close the tabs. Open a new tab, type until Chrome reminds you about http://edition.cnn.com/, then press "Tab" The Omnibox now shows "Search CNN.com"! And when you type "abc" and press Enter, it uses the CNN search function to do the job, not Google! I also tried it for several different sites. To some it won't work. But to some sites, like CNN, vnexpress.net, it works after I use the search function of that site once. I also learnt about chrome://settings/searchEngines (type it in your chrome box and you will see), and learnt about you can add custom search engine in chrome. But the question is, why Chrome can realize the search URL automatically to some pages, and not others? It's not because some site subscribe to Google service, because I can do the same method for my site (http://ledohoanglong.wordpress.com), and I'm sure that there's no subscription. So I guess there's a method to "expose" the search function of a site, so that Google Chrome can catch it (after I call the search function of that site once, of courses). Does anyone know about how it works behind the scene?

    Read the article

  • The standards that fail us and the intellectual bubble

    - by Jeff
    There has been a great deal of noise in the techie community about standards, and a sudden and unexplainable hate for Flash. This noise isn't coming from consumers... the countless soccer moms, teens and your weird uncle Bob, it's coming from the people who build (or at least claim to build) the stuff those consumers consume. If you could survey the position of consumers on the topic, they'd likely tell you that they just want stuff on the Web to work.The noise goes something like this: Web standards are the correct and right thing to use across the Intertubes, and anything not a part of those standards (Flash) is bad. Furthermore, the more recent noise is centered around the idea that HTML 5, along with Javascript, is the right thing to use. The arguments against Flash are, well, the truth is I haven't seen a good argument. I see anecdotal nonsense about high CPU usage and things I'd never think to check when I'm watching Piano Cat on YouTube, but these aren't arguments to me. Sure, I've seen it crash a browser a few times, but it's totally rare.But let's go back to standards. Yes, standards have played an important role in establishing the ubiquity of the Web. The protocols themselves, TCP/IP and HTTP, have been critical. HTML, which has served us well for a very long time, established an incredible foundation. Javascript did an OK job, and thanks to clever programmers writing great frameworks like JQuery, is becoming more and more useful. CSS is awful (there, I said it, I feel SO much better), and I'll never understand why it's so disconnected and different from anything else. It doesn't help that it's so widely misinterpreted by different browsers. Still, there's no question that standards are a good thing, and they've been good for the Web, consumers and publishers alike.HTML 4 has been with us for more than a decade. In Web years, that might as well be 80. HTML 5, contrary to popular belief, is not a standard, and likely won't be for many years to come. In fact, the Web hasn't really evolved at all in terms of its standards. The tools that generate the standard markup and script have, but at the end of the day, we're still living with standards that are more than ten years old. The "official" standards process has failed us.The Web evolved anyway, and did not wait for standards bodies to decide what to do next. It evolved in part because Macromedia, then Adobe, kept evolving Flash. In the earlier days, it mostly just did obnoxious splash pages, but then it started doing animation, and then rich apps as they added form input. Eventually it found its killer app: video. Now more than 95% of browsers have Flash installed. Consumers are better for it.But I'll do it one better... I'll go out on a limb and say that Flash is a standard. If it's that pervasive, I don't care what you tell me, it's a standard. Just because a company owns it doesn't mean that it's evil or not a standard. And hey, it pains me to say that as a developer, because I think the dev tools are the suck (more on that in a minute). But again, consumers don't care. They don't even pay for Flash. The bottom line is that if I put something Flash based on the Internet, it's likely that my audience will see it.And what about the speed of standards owned by a company? Look no further than Silverlight. Silverlight 2 (which I consider the "real" start to the story) came out about a year and a half ago. Now version 4 is out, and it has come a very long way in its capabilities. If you believe Riastats.com, more than half of browsers have it now. It didn't have to wait for standards bodies and nerds drafting documents, it's out today. At this rate, Silverlight will be on version 6 or 7 by the time HTML 5 is a ratified standard.Back to the noise, one of the things that has continually disappointed me about this profession is the number of people who get stuck in an intellectual bubble, color it with dogmatic principles, and completely ignore the actual marketplace where this stuff all has to live. We aren't machines; Binary thinking that forces us to choose between "open standards" and "proprietary lock-in" (the most loaded b.s. FUD term evar) isn't smart at all. The truth is that the <object> tag has allowed us to build incredible stuff on top of the old standards, and consumers have benefitted greatly. Consumer desire, capitalism, and yes, standards ratified by nerds who think about this stuff for years have all played a role in the broad adoption of the Interwebs.We could all do without the noise. At the end of the day, I'm going to build stuff for the Web that's good for my users, and I'm not going to base my decisions on a techie bubble religion. Imagine what the brilliant minds behind the noise could do for the Web if they joined me in that pursuit.

    Read the article

  • Conflict Minerals - Design to Compliance

    - by C. Chadwick
    Dr. Christina  Schröder - Principal PLM Consultant, Enterprise PLM Solutions EMEA What does the Conflict Minerals regulation mean? Conflict Minerals has recently become a new buzz word in the manufacturing industry, particularly in electronics and medical devices. Known as the "Dodd-Frank Section 1502", this regulation requires SEC listed companies to declare the origin of certain minerals by 2014. The intention is to reduce the use of tantalum, tungsten, tin, and gold which originate from mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and adjoining countries that are controlled by violent armed militia abusing human rights. Manufacturers now request information from their suppliers to see if their raw materials are sourced from this region and which smelters are used to extract the metals from the minerals. A standardized questionnaire has been developed for this purpose (download and further information). Soon, even companies which are not directly affected by the Conflict Minerals legislation will have to collect and maintain this information since their customers will request the data from their suppliers. Furthermore, it is expected that the public opinion and consumer interests will force manufacturers to avoid the use of metals with questionable origin. Impact for existing products Several departments are involved in the process of collecting data and providing conflict minerals compliance information. For already marketed products, purchasing typically requests Conflict Minerals declarations from the suppliers. In order to address requests from customers, technical operations or product management are usually responsible for keeping track of all parts, raw materials and their suppliers so that the required information can be provided. For complex BOMs, it is very tedious to maintain complete, accurate, up-to-date, and traceable data. Any product change or new supplier can, in addition to all other implications, have an effect on the Conflict Minerals compliance status. Influence on product development  It makes sense to consider compliance early in the planning and design of new products. Companies should evaluate which metals are needed or contained in supplier parts and if these could originate from problematic sources. The answer influences the cost and risk analysis during the development. If it is known early on that a part could be non-compliant with respect to Conflict Minerals, alternatives can be evaluated and thus costly changes at a later stage can be avoided. Integrated compliance management  Ideally, compliance data for Conflict Minerals, but also for other regulations like REACH and RoHS, should be managed in an integrated supply chain system. The compliance status is directly visible across the entire BOM at any part level and for the finished product. If data is missing, a request to the supplier can be triggered right away without having to switch to another system. The entire process, from identification of the relevant parts, requesting information, handling responses, data entry, to compliance calculation is fully covered end-to-end while being transparent for all stakeholders. Agile PLM Product Governance and Compliance (PG&C) The PG&C module extends Agile PLM with exactly this integrated functionality. As with the entire Agile product suite, PG&C can be configured according to customer requirements: data fields, attributes, workflows, routing, notifications, and permissions, etc… can be quickly and easily tailored to a customer’s needs. Optionally, external databases can be interfaced to query commercially available sources of Conflict Minerals declarations which obviates the need for a separate supplier request in many cases. Suppliers can access the system directly for data entry through a special portal. The responses to the standard EICC-GeSI questionnaire can be imported by the supplier or internally. Manual data entry is also supported. A set of compliance-specific dashboards and reports complement the functionality Conclusion  The increasing number of product compliance regulations, for which Conflict Minerals is just one example, requires companies to implement an efficient data and process management in this area. Consumer awareness in this matter increases as well so that an integrated system from development to production also provides a competitive advantage. Follow this link to learn more about Agile's PG&C solution

    Read the article

  • Evaluating Solutions to Manage Product Compliance? Don't Wait Much Longer

    - by Kerrie Foy
    Depending on severity, product compliance issues can cause all sorts of problems from run-away budgets to business closures. But effective policies and safeguards can create a strong foundation for innovation, productivity, market penetration and competitive advantage. If you’ve been putting off a systematic approach to product compliance, it is time to reconsider that decision, or indecision. Why now?  No matter what industry, companies face a litany of worldwide and regional regulations that require proof of product compliance and environmental friendliness for market access.  For example, Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) is a regulation that restricts the use of six dangerous materials used in the manufacture of electronic and electrical equipment.  ROHS was originally adopted by the European Union in 2003 for implementation in 2006, and it has evolved over time through various regional versions for North America, China, Japan, Korea, Norway and Turkey.  In addition, the RoHS directive allowed for material exemptions used in Medical Devices, but that exemption ends in 2014.   Additional regulations worth watching are the Battery Directive, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), and Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) directives.  Additional evolving regulations are coming from governing bodies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Corporate sustainability initiatives are also gaining urgency and influencing product design. In a survey of 405 corporations in the Global 500 by Carbon Disclosure Project, co-written by PwC (CDP Global 500 Climate Change Report 2012 entitled Business Resilience in an Uncertain, Resource-Constrained World), 48% of the respondents indicated they saw potential to create new products and business services as a response to climate change. Just 21% reported a dedicated budget for the research. However, the report goes on to explain that those few companies are winning over new customers and driving additional profits by exploiting their abilities to adapt to environmental needs. The article cites Dell as an example – Dell has invested in research to develop new products designed to reduce its customers’ emissions by more than 10 million metric tons of CO2e per year. This reduction in emissions should save Dell’s customers over $1billion per year as a result! Over time we expect to see many additional companies prove that eco-design provides marketplace benefits through differentiation and direct customer value. How do you meet compliance requirements and also successfully invest in eco-friendly designs? No doubt companies struggle to answer this question. After all, the journey to get there may involve transforming business models, go-to-market strategies, supply networks, quality assurance policies and compliance processes per the rapidly evolving global and regional directives. There may be limited executive focus on the initiative, inability to quantify noncompliance, or not enough resources to justify investment. To make things even more difficult to address, compliance responsibility can be a passionate topic within an organization, making the prospect of change on an enterprise scale problematic and time-consuming. Without a single source of truth for product data and without proper processes in place, ensuring product compliance burgeons into a crushing task that is cost-prohibitive and overwhelming to an organization. With all the overhead, certain markets or demographics become simply inaccessible. Therefore, the risk to consumer goodwill and satisfaction, revenue, business continuity, and market potential is too great not to solve the compliance challenge. Companies are beginning to adapt and even thrive in today’s highly regulated and transparent environment by implementing systematic approaches to product compliance that are more than functional bandages but revenue-generating engines. Consider partnering with Oracle to help you address your compliance needs. Many of the world’s most innovative leaders and pioneers are leveraging Oracle’s Agile Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) portfolio of enterprise applications to manage the product value chain, centralize product data, automate processes, and launch more eco-friendly products to market faster.   Particularly, the Agile Product Governance & Compliance (PG&C) solution provides out-of-the-box functionality to integrate actionable regulatory information into the enterprise product record from the ideation to the disposal/recycling phase. Agile PG&C makes it possible to efficiently manage compliance per corporate green initiatives as well as regional and global directives. Options are critical, but so is ease-of-use. Anyone who’s grappled with compliance policy knows legal interpretation plays a major role in determining how an organization responds to regulation. Agile PG&C gives you the freedom to configure product compliance per your needs, while maintaining rigorous control over the product record in an easy-to-use interface that facilitates adoption efforts. It allows you to assign regulations as specifications for a part or BOM roll-up. Each specification has a threshold value that alerts you to a non-compliance issue if the threshold value is exceeded. Set however many regulations as specifications you need to make sure a product can be sold in your target countries. Another option is to implement like one of our leading consumer electronics customers and define your own “catch-all” specification to ensure compliance in all markets. You can give your suppliers secure access to enter their component data or integrate a third party’s data. With Agile PG&C you are able to design compliance earlier into your products to reduce cost and improve quality downstream when stakes are higher. Agile PG&C is a comprehensive solution that makes product compliance more reliable and efficient. Throughout product lifecycles, use the solution to support full material disclosures, efficiently manage declarations with your suppliers, feed compliance data into a corrective action if a product must be changed, and swiftly satisfy audits by showing all due diligence tracked in one solution. Given the compounding regulation and consumer focus on urgent environmental issues, now is the time to act. Implementing an enterprise, systematic approach to product compliance is a competitive investment. From the start, Agile Product Governance & Compliance enables companies to confidently design for compliance and sustainability, reduce the cost of compliance, minimize the risk of business interruption, deliver responsible products, and inspire new innovation.  Don’t wait any longer! To find out more about Agile Product Governance & Compliance download the data sheet, contact your sales representative, or call Oracle at 1-800-633-0738. Many thanks to Shane Goodwin, Senior Manager, Oracle Agile PLM Product Management, for contributions to this article. 

    Read the article

  • C/C++: Who uses the logical operator macros from iso646.h and why?

    - by Jaime Soto
    There has been some debate at work about using the merits of using the alternative spellings for C/C++ logical operators in iso646.h: and && and_eq &= bitand & bitor | compl ~ not ! not_eq != or || or_eq |= xor ^ xor_eq ^= According to Wikipedia, these macros facilitate typing logical operators in international (non-US English?) and non-QWERTY keyboards. All of our development team is in the same office in Orlando, FL, USA and from what I have seen we all use the US English QWERTY keyboard layout; even Dvorak provides all the necessary characters. Supporters of using the iso646.h macros claim we should them because they are part of the C and C++ standards. I think this argument is moot since digraphs and trigraphs are also part of these standards and they are not even supported by default in many compilers. My rationale for opposing these macros in our team is that we do not need them since: Everybody on our team uses the US English QWERTY keyboard layout; C and C++ programming books from the US barely mention iso646.h, if at all; and new developers may not be familiar with iso646.h (this is expected if they are from the US). /rant Finally, to my set of questions: Does anyone in this site use the iso646.h logical operator macros? Why? What is your opinion about using the iso646.h logical operator macros in code written and maintained on US English QWERTY keyboards? Is my digraph and trigraph analogy a valid argument against using iso646.h with US English QWERTY keyboard layouts? EDIT: I missed two similar questions in StackOverflow: Is anybody using the named boolean operators? Which C++ logical operators do you use: and, or, not and the ilk or C style operators? why?

    Read the article

  • ISO/IEC Website and Charging for C and C++ Standards

    - by Michael Aaron Safyan
    The ISO C Standard (ISO/IEC 9899) and the ISO C++ Standard (ISO/IEC 14882) are not published online; instead, one must purchase the PDF for each of those standards. I am wondering what the rationale is behind this... is it not detrimental to both the C and C++ programming languages that the authoritative specification for these languages is not made freely available and searchable online? Doesn't this encourage the use of possibly inaccurate, non-authoritative sources for information regarding these standards? While I understand that much time and effort has gone into developing the C and C++ standards, I am still somewhat puzzled by the choice to charge for the specification. The OpenGroup Base Specification, for example, is available for free online; they make money buy charging for certification. Does anyone know why the ISO standards committees don't make their revenue in certifying standards compliance, instead of charging for these documents? Also, does anyone know if the ISO standards committee's atrociously looking website is intentionally made to look that way? It's as if they don't want people visiting and buying the spec. One last thing... the C and C++ standards are generally described as "open standards"... while I realize that this means that anyone is permitted to implement the standard, should that definition of "open" be revised? Charging for the standard rather than making it openly available seems contrary to the spirit of openness. P.S. I do have a copy of the ISO/IEC 9899:1999 and ISO/IEC 14882:2003, so please no remarks about being cheap or anything... although if you are tempted to say such things, you might want to consider the high school, undergraduate, and graduate students who might not have all that much extra cash. Also, you might want to consider the fact that the ISO website is really sketchy and they don't even tell you the cost until you proceed to the checkout... doesn't really encourage one to go and get a copy, now does it?

    Read the article

  • The Benefits of Oracle's Compliance Architecture

    Fred chats with Deborah Hamilton, Senior Compliance Product Marketing Director at Oracle about what the Oracle Compliance Architecture is, how customers are benefiting from its integrated approach to compliance - of technology, people and processes - and how it helps with organizations meet multiple compliance mandates.

    Read the article

  • Idera Announces SQL Compliance Manager 3.6

    Perhaps the main highlight of SQL compliance manager 3.6's impressive set of features is its ability to actively track any activities of privileged users. When users of high administrative privileges access column groups in monitored tables, SQL compliance manager 3.6 issues alerts to security administrators, compliance officers, IT auditors, and the like in a proactive manner. Such functionality allows the product to provide an extra barrier against the possibility of insider threats to an organization's data. Idera developed SQL compliance manager to supply its clients with real-time audit...

    Read the article

  • My Doors - Why Standards Matter to Business

    - by [email protected]
    By Brian Dayton on April 8, 2010 9:27 PM "Standards save money." "Standards accelerate projects." "Standards make better solutions." What do these statements mean to you? You buy technology solutions like Oracle Applications but you're a business person--trying to close the quarter, get performance reviews processed, negotiate a new sourcing contract, etc. When "standards" come up in presentations and discussions do you: - Nod your head politely - Tune out and check your smart phone - Turn to your IT counterpart and say "Bob's all over this standards thing, right Bob?" Here's why standards matter. My wife wants new external doors downstairs, ones that would get more light into the rooms. Am I OK with that? "Uhh, sure...it's a little dark in the kitchen." - 24 hours ago - wife calls to tell me that she's going to the hardware store and may look at doors - 20 hours ago - wife pulls into driveway, informs me that two doors are in the back of her station wagon, ready for me to carry - 19 hours ago - I re-discovered the fact that it's not fun to carry a solid wood door by myself - 5 hours ago - Local handyman, who was at our house anyway, tells me that the doors we bought will likely cost 2-3x the material cost in installation time and labor...the doors are standard but our doorways aren't We could have done more research. I could be more handy. Sure. But the fact is, my 1951 house wasn't built with me in mind. They built what worked and called it a day. The same holds true with a lot of business applications. They were designed and architected for one-time use with one use-case in mind. Today's business climate is different. If you're going to use your processes and technology to differentiate your business you should have at least a working knowledge of: - How standards can benefit your business - Your IT organization's philosophy around standards - Your vendor's track-record around standards...and watch for those who pay lip-service to standards but don't follow through The rallying cry in most IT organizations today is "learn more about the business, drop the acronyms." I'm not advocating that you go out and learn how to code in Java. But I do believe it will help your business and your decision-making process if you meet IT ½...even ¼ of the way there. Epilogue: The door project has been put on hold and yours truly has to return the doors to the hardware store tomorrow.

    Read the article

  • Standards Matter: The Battle For Interoperability Continues

    - by michael.rowell
    Great Article, although it is a little dated at this point. Information Week Article Standards Matter: The Battle for Interoperability goes on Summary If you're guilty of relegating standards support to a "nice to have" feature rather than a requirement, you're part of the problem. If you want products to interoperate, be prepared to walk away if a vendor can't prove compliance. Don't be brushed off with promises of standards support "on the road map." The alternative is vendor lock-in and higher costs, including the cost of maintaining systems that don't work together. Standards bodies are imperfect and must do better. The alternative: splintered networks and broken promises. The point: "The secret sauce to a successful 'working standard' isn't necessarily IETF or another longstanding body," says Jonathan Feldman, director of IT services for the city of Asheville, N.C., and an InformationWeek Analytics contributor. "Rather, an earnest and honest effort by a group that has governance outside of a single corporation's control is what's important." In order to have true interoperability vendors as well as customers must be actively engaged in the standards process. Vendors must be willing to truly work together and not be protecting an existing product. Customers must also be willing to truly to work together and not be demanding a solution that only meets their needs but instead meets the needs of all participants. Ultimately, customers must be willing to reward vendor compliance by requiring compliance in products and services that they purchase and deploy. Managers that deploy systems without compliance to standards are only hurting themselves. Standards do matter. When developed openly and deployed compliantly standards deliver interoperability which provides solid business value.

    Read the article

  • How can I keep up to date on the latest web development standards?

    - by Structure
    First off, I know that this question begs the other question - should the latest web development standards be followed and further will they remain relevant? That aside, I am focused on GUI development, usability, etc. Front-end web development that utilizes XHTML, CSS, JavaScript, etc. I know there are many gurus and thought leaders out there but with my projects I simply do not always have time to follow them all and keep up with the latest development standards. However, this is obviously very important. So how can I keep myself up to date on the latest web development standards while maintaining productivity? Are there any specific groups or organizations to monitor for this? Best practices that one might follow?

    Read the article

  • MySQL 5.5

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    New performance and scalability enhancements, continued Investment in MySQL (see press release). "The latest release of MySQL further exemplifies Oracle's commitment to the MySQL community and investment in delivering rapid innovation and enhancements to the MySQL platform" said Edward Screven, Oracle's Chief Corporate Architect. MySQL is integral to Oracle's complete, open and integrated strategy. The MySQL 5.5 Community Edition, which is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL), and is available for free download, includes InnoDB as the default storage engine. We cannot stress the importance of using open standards enough, whether in the context of open source or non-open source software. For more on Oracle's Open Source offering, see Oracle.com/opensource or oss.oracle.com (for developers).

    Read the article

  • Oracle Enterprise Manager Cloud Control 12c: Contributing to emerging Cloud standards

    - by Anand Akela
    Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Contributed by Tony Di Cenzo, Director for Standards Strategy and Architecture, and Mark Carlson, Principal Cloud Architect, for Oracle's Systems Management and Storage Products Groups . As one would expect of an industry leader, Oracle's participation in industry standards bodies is extensive. We participate in dozens of organizations that produce open standards which apply to our products, and our commitment to the success of these organizations is manifest in several way - we support them financially through our memberships; our senior engineers are active participants, often serving in leadership positions on boards, technical working groups and committees; and when it makes good business sense we contribute our intellectual property. We believe supporting the development of open standards is fundamental to Oracle meeting customer demands for product choice, seamless interoperability, and lowering the cost of ownership. Nowhere is this truer than in the area of cloud standards, and for the most recent release of our flagship management product, Oracle Enterprise Manager Cloud Control 12c (EM Cloud Control 12c). There is a fundamental rule that standards follow architecture. This was true of distributed computing, it was true of service-oriented architecture (SOA), and it's true of cloud. If you are familiar with Enterprise Manager it is likely to be no surprise that EM Cloud Control 12c is a source of technology that can be considered for adoption within cloud management standards. The reason, quite simply, is that the Oracle integrated stack architecture aligns with the cloud architecture models being adopted by the industry, and EM Cloud Control 12c has been developed to manage this architecture. EM Cloud Control 12c has facilities for managing the various underlying capabilities of the integrated stack in IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS clouds, and enables essential characteristics such as on-demand self-service provisioning, centralized policy-based resource management, integrated chargeback, and capacity planning, and complete visibility of the physical and virtual environment from applications to disk. Our most recent contribution in support of cloud management standards to come out of the EM Cloud Control 12c work was the Oracle Cloud Elemental Resource Model API. Oracle contributed the Elemental Resource Model API to the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF) in 2011 where it was assigned to DMTF's Cloud Management Working Group (CMWG). The CMWG is considering the Oracle specification and those of several other vendors in their effort to produce a best practices specification for managing IaaS clouds. DMTF's Cloud Infrastructure Management Interface specification, called CIMI for short, is currently out for public review and expected to be released by DMTF later this year. We are proud to be playing an important role in the development of what is expected to become a major cloud standard. You can find more information on DMTF CIMI at http://dmtf.org/standards/cloud. You can find the work-in-progress release of CIMI at http://dmtf.org/content/cimi-work-progress-specifications-now-available-public-comment . The Oracle Cloud API specification is available on the Oracle Technology Network. You can find more information about the Oracle Cloud Elemental Resource Model API on the Oracle Technical Network (OTN), including a webcast featuring the API engineering manager Jack Yu (see TechCast Live: Inside the Oracle Cloud Resource Model API). If you have not seen this video we recommend you take the time to view it. Simply hover your cursor over the webcast title and control+click to follow the embedded link. If you have a question about the Oracle Cloud API or want to learn more about Oracle's participation in cloud management standards efforts drop us a line. We'd love to hear from you. The Enterprise Manager Standards Blogs are written by Tony Di Cenzo, Director for Standards Strategy and Architecture, and Mark Carlson, Principal Cloud Architect, for Oracle's Systems Management and Storage Products Groups. They can be reached at Tony.DiCenzo at Oracle.com and Mark.Carlson at Oracle.com respectively. Stay Connected: Twitter |  Face book |  You Tube |  Linked in |  Newsletter

    Read the article

  • Evaluating Solutions to Manage Product Compliance? Don’t Wait Much Longer

    - by Evelyn Neumayr
    By Kerrie Foy, Director PLM Product Marketing, Oracle Depending on severity, product compliance issues can cause various problems from run-away budgets to business closures. But effective policies and safeguards can create a strong foundation for innovation, productivity, market penetration and competitive advantage. If you’ve been putting off a systematic approach to product compliance, it is time to reconsider that decision. Why now?  No matter what industry, companies face a litany of worldwide and regional regulations that require proof of product compliance and environmental friendliness for market access.  For example, Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS), a regulation that restricts the use of six dangerous materials used in the manufacture of electronic and electrical equipment, was originally adopted by the European Union in 2003 for implementation in 2006 and has evolved over time through various regional versions for North America, China, Japan, Korea, Norway and Turkey. In addition, the RoHS directive allowed for material exemptions used in Medical Devices, but that exemption ends in 2014. Additional regulations worth watching are the Battery Directive, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), and Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) directives. Additional regulations are expected from organizations such as the Food and Drug Administration in the US and similar organizations elsewhere. Meeting compliance requirements and also successfully investing in eco-friendly designs can be a major challenge. It may involve transforming business models, go-to-market strategies, supply networks, quality assurance policies and compliance processes.  Without a single source of truth for product data and without proper processes in place, ensuring product compliance burgeons into a crushing task that is cost-prohibitive and overwhelming.  However, the risk to consumer goodwill and satisfaction, revenue, business continuity, and market potential is too great not to solve the compliance challenge. Companies are beginning to adapt and thrive by implementing systematic approaches to product compliance that are more than functional bandages, they are revenue-generating engines. Consider working with Oracle to help you address your compliance needs. Many of the world’s most innovative leaders and pioneers are leveraging Oracle’s Agile Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) portfolio of enterprise applications to manage the product value chain, centralize product data, automate processes, and launch more eco-friendly products to market faster.   Particularly, the Agile Product Governance & Compliance (PG&C) solution provides out-of-the-box functionality to integrate actionable regulatory information into the enterprise product record from the ideation to the disposal/recycling phase.  Agile PG&C is a comprehensive solution that makes product compliance per corporate initiatives and regulations more reliable and efficient. Throughout product lifecycles, use the solution to support full material disclosures, gain rapid visibility into non-compliance issues, efficiently manage declarations with your suppliers, feed compliance data into a corrective action if a product must be changed, and swiftly satisfy audits by showing all due diligence tracked in one solution. Given the compounding regulation and consumer focus on urgent environmental issues, now is the time to act. Implementing an enterprise-wide systematic approach to product compliance is a competitive investment. From the start, Agile PG&C enables companies to confidently design for compliance and sustainability, reduce the cost of compliance, minimize the risk of business interruption, deliver responsible products, and inspire new innovation.  Don’t wait any longer! To find out more about Agile Product Governance & Compliance download the data sheet, contact your sales representative, or call Oracle at 1-800-633-0738.

    Read the article

  • Use of c89 in GNU software

    - by Federico Culloca
    In GNU coding standard it is said that free software developer should use C89 because C99 is not widespread yet. 1999 Standard C is not widespread yet, so please do not require its features in programs. Reference here. Are they talking about developers knowledge of C99, or about compilers supporting it? Also, is this statement plausible as of today or is it somewhat "obsolete" or at least obsolescent.

    Read the article

  • Script language native extensions - avoiding name collisions and cluttering others' namespace

    - by H2CO3
    I have developed a small scripting language and I've just started writing the very first native library bindings. This is practically the first time I'm writing a native extension to a script language, so I've run into a conceptual issue. I'd like to write glue code for popular libraries so that they can be used from this language, and because of the design of the engine I've written, this is achieved using an array of C structs describing the function name visible by the virtual machine, along with a function pointer. Thus, a native binding is really just a global array variable, and now I must obviously give it a (preferably good) name. In C, it's idiomatic to put one's own functions in a "namespace" by prepending a custom prefix to function names, as in myscript_parse_source() or myscript_run_bytecode(). The custom name shall ideally describe the name of the library which it is part of. Here arises the confusion. Let's say I'm writing a binding for libcURL. In this case, it seems reasonable to call my extension library curl_myscript_binding, like this: MYSCRIPT_API const MyScriptExtFunc curl_myscript_lib[10]; But now this collides with the curl namespace. (I have even thought about calling it curlmyscript_lib but unfortunately, libcURL does not exclusively use the curl_ prefix -- the public APIs contain macros like CURLCODE_* and CURLOPT_*, so I assume this would clutter the namespace as well.) Another option would be to declare it as myscript_curl_lib, but that's good only as long as I'm the only one who writes bindings (since I know what I am doing with my namespace). As soon as other contributors start to add their own native bindings, they now clutter the myscript namespace. (I've done some research, and it seems that for example the Perl cURL binding follows this pattern. Not sure what I should think about that...) So how do you suggest I name my variables? Are there any general guidelines that should be followed?

    Read the article

  • Forcing IE8 Standards Mode with FEATURE_BROWSER_EMULATION

    - by earls
    I'm doing this: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2009/03/10/more-ie8-extensibility-improvements.aspx But it's not working. I have "iexplore.exe" set to 8888 (decimal mode) under MACHINE, but it's still coming up documentMode = 5. I thought 8888 was suppose to force IE8 Standards Mode whether you have a doctype or not. What is going on?

    Read the article

  • PCI Compliance Book Suggestion

    - by Joel Weise
    I am always looking for good books on security, compliance and of course, PCI.  Here is one I think you will find very useful. "PCI Compliance, Third Edition: Understand and Implement Effective PCI Data Security Standard Compliance" by Branden Williams and Anton Chuvakin.  [Fair disclosure - Branden and I work together on the Information Systems Security Association Journal's editorial board.]   The primary reason I like this book is that the authors take a holistic architectural approach to PCI compliance and that to me is the most safe and sane way to approach PCI.  Using such an architectural approach to PCI is, in my humble opinion, the underlying intent of PCI.  Don't create a checklist of the PCI DSS and then map a solution to each.  That is a recipe for disaster.  Instead, look at how the different components and their configurations work together in a synergistic fashion.  In short, create a security architecture and governance framework (the ISO 27000 series is a good place to start) that begins with an evaluation of the requirements laid down in the PCI DSS, as well as your other applicable compliance, business and technical requirements.  By developing an integrated security architecture you should be able to not only address current requirements, but also be in a position to quickly address future ones as well.

    Read the article

  • Coding Standards

    - by kevchadders
    For those of us that have programmed enough I’m sure we have come across many different flavours of coding standards that you can use when it comes to programming. e.g. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms229042.aspx You might derive your coding standards for the current company you work for or from the original author of the code you’re working on. Coding styles are often used for specific program languages and some styles in one coding language might not be considered appropriate for others. Of course some coding standards can be applied across many different program languages. My question is do you have any good advice/links yourselves to a set of coding standards that you would recommend to others, or best practices to follow? Thank you for your time. EDIT: As we know there are many related articles on this subject, but C# Coding standard / Best practices in SO has some very useful links in there which is worth a visit. (Check out the 2 links on .NET/C# guidelines by ESV - Accepted Answer)

    Read the article

  • Do ASP.Net Web Forms actually produce ADA compliant HTML? Does the ASP/AJAX toolkit undermine the goal of ADA compliance?

    - by Justin984
    I'm trying to convince my employer to let us use the Microsoft ASP/AJAX toolkit since it simplifies the implementation of many controls. However they have rejected the idea on the grounds that it produces "AJAX code" which is not ADA compliant. However the same employer requires webpages to be written in ASP.NET Web Forms which, as far as I can tell from the source, is very very far from ADA compliance. I am new to both web programming and ADA compliance. My questions are: Do ASP.Net Web Forms actually produce ADA compliant HTML? Will the ASP/AJAX toolkit undermine the goal of ADA compliance?

    Read the article

  • Why Standards Place Limits on Data Transfer Rates?

    - by Mehrdad
    This is a rather general question about hardware and standards in general: Why do they place limits on data transfer rates, and disallow manufacturers from exceeding those rates? (E.g. 100 Mbit/s for Wireless G, 150 Mbit/s for Wireless N, ...) Why not allow for some sort of handshake protocol, whereby the devices being connected agree upon the maximum throughput that they each support, and use that value instead? Why does there have to be a hard-coded limit, which would require a new standard for every single improvement to a data rate?

    Read the article

  • Part 4: Development Standards or How to share

    - by volker.eckardt(at)oracle.com
    Although we usually introduce the custom development part in EBS projects as “a small piece only” and “we will avoid as best as possible”, the development effort can be enormous and should therefore be well addressed by project standards. Any additional solution or additional software tool or product shall influence the custom development rules (by adding, removing or replacing sections). It is very common in EBS projects to create a so called “MD.030 Development Standards” document and put everything what’s related to development conventions into it. This document gets approval and will be shared among all developers. Later, additional sections have to be added, and usually the development lead is responsible for doing this. However, sometimes used development techniques are not documented properly, and therefore the development solutions deviate from each other, or from the initially agreed standards. My advice would be the following: keep the MD.030 as a base document, and add a Wiki on top. The “Development Wiki” covers the following: Collect input from every developer without updating the MD.030 directly Collect additional topics that might need further specification Allow a discussion about such topics by reviewing/updating the wiki directly Add also decisions or open questions right into it. In one of my own projects we were using this “Developer Wiki” quite extensive, and my experience is very positive. We had different sections in it, good cross references, but also additional material like code templates, links to external web pages etc. By using this wiki, the development standards became “owned” by the right group of people, the developers. They recognized that information sharing can improve the overall development quality, but will also reduce the workload on individuals. Finally, the wiki was much more accurate and helpful for the daily development work than our initial MD.030, and we all decided to retire the document completely. Summary: Information sharing in the development area is very important! The usual “MD.030 Development Standards“ is a good starting point, but should be combined with a “Development Wiki”, allowing everyone to address and discuss necessary improvements. A well-structured Wiki can replace the document in some sections completely. Side Note: The corresponding task in Oracle OUM (Oracle Unified Method) is DS.050 ‘Determine Design and Build Standards’ Volker

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >