Vol.11 no.3 2019

Commentary : Contributing to the SpaceWire international standard (H. HIHARA et al.)−156−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.11 No.3 (2018) There is no restriction to the right to speak in the SpW WG, and anyone can speak freely. In fact, space agencies, universities, and companies of Europe, Japan, Russia, and USA are participating, and space-related government organizations and research institutes of Turkey, Brazil, and others participate occasionally.However, I do feel that there is a tacit understanding about whom Europe will accept as participants. That is, although there is no clear qualication, only those who are capable of actually conducting spacecraft R&D and are able to propose and discuss specications are accepted as participants.3 Development-type standardQuestion (Akira Ono)You use the terminology “development-type standard,” but how is this different from ordinary standards, and what is its definition? Please explain why the SpaceWire international standard is a “development type.” Also, if something is a development-type international standard, what is the author’s thoughts on the points that must be considered in such standardization compared to conventional standards?Answer (Hiroki Hihara)The terminology, “development-type standard,” is taken from Reference [9]. It was cited from Masami Tanaka’s Kokusai Hyojun No Kangaekata—Global Jidai He No Atarashii Shishin (Dialogues on International Standards—A Guide to the Global Age) (University of Tokyo Press, 2017). I understood the terminology, “development type,” as a situation where there is a preceding objective for development, and the discussions begin from the standard system that is necessary for achieving the objectives and the types of standards. Organizations that participate in the SpW WG are expected to present the results of their R&D, prototype evaluation, and orbital demonstrations which they conducted. Moreover, all presentations are respected. I think those situations can be expressed by the term, “development type.”In conducting the standardization proposal, although the SpaceWire itself is a communication standard, there were recommendations for connectors and semiconductor devices, there was tolerance for introducing new technology while guaranteeing the reliability required for spacecraft, and the SpW WG participants were expected to pursue advanced functionality and performances. I felt this led to tacit understanding, and this is the point to which one must pay attention.Also, there was reorganization of the range to which the standard applied, and the scheduling of standard establishment was unclear. The companies must be able to continue product development and make proposals by actively disclosing the parts where compatibility with other organizations was necessary in their product specs. The ability to make proposals even under an uncertain schedule is another point to note.4 Organizations that correspond to observer, congurator, and actorQuestion (Akira Ono)Please explain which organizations correspond to the “observer,” “configurator,” and “actor” that you mention in “Chapter 4 Comparison of behavior patterns of each country” when the case is applied to Japan. Is my understanding that follows correct: “subject” = satellite or onboard sensor and/or data and information obtained from them; “observer” = research institution, university, researchers of JAXA, and/or data users; “congurator” = JAXA; and “actor” = manufacturing companies? Does such corresponding relationship apply to overseas organizations?Normally, a standard is considered to be an agreement to which product providers and users are expected to comply in carrying out commercial trade, but in this article, to which entities do the product providers and users correspond?Answer (Hiroki Hihara)In Japan, there is a mechanism for domestic standard establishment that is overseen by JAXA, and the standard is established based on the discussions between the manufacturing companies which are the actors and JAXA which is the observer, concerning the satellite and observation data that are the subject.The universities and national research institutions often take the standpoint of observers in the standard establishment process, and take the standpoint of actors in R&D. Also, the manufacturing companies with the characteristic of system vendors may participate in standard establishment with the perspective of observers. Since standard establishment is done by the standardization committee consisting of participants that share a neutral position that keeps them independent from their respective organizations, the configurator’s place has high independence, and I think this is related to the background that the technological development of spacecraft in Japan was conducted through cooperation between public and private sectors.In cases of overseas countries, Europe does not interfere with the research institutions which they are not space agencies, as long as it is for the SpaceWire standard. I do have an impression that there is a clear division of role among the research institutions according to their standing. In the USA, universities are not involved in standard establishment, and only NASA and the companies are involved. Therefore, both Europe and USA have different response to the reference model compared to Japan.In the model referenced in the article, I think the aforementioned difference can be expressed by referring to the provider and the user as the actor and the observer. However, in the case of Europe, there is a way of thinking that the standard can be used as part of the structure of commercial trade, and I think the observer can take the standpoint of the configurator and become the provider of the structure of trade.5 Cause of difference of behavior pattern of each countryQuestion (Akira Ono)In Chapter 4, you explain the differences of the behavior patterns of Europe, USA, and Japan. What do you think is the main reason there are different behavior patterns among the countries?Answer (Hiroki Hihara)Through experiencing the process of SpaceWire standard establishment, I think the main reason that generates the difference in behavior pattern is the difference of policy for nurturing industry. Europe aims for coexistence that does not favor elimination and avoids the risk of stagnating progress by reaching an agreement through discussion that allows the presence of different values. USA consciously accepts elimination and promotes progress through selection of proposals. Japan seems to position standards as mediation means rather than a way for nurturing industry.6 Issues for JapanQuestion (Akira Ono)Compared to Europe and USA, what do you think is the issue for Japan in terms of behavior pattern?Answer (Hiroki Hihara)Compared to Europe and USA, I feel that there is no place to make use of diversity in Japan. In Europe, common sense based on tacit understanding seems to exist in each European country, and there is a place for discussion while respecting the differences in values and experiences of different countries, and this is useful

元のページ  ../index.html#49