hali, > Standardization efforts could concentrate on the middleware and its > interfaces (to the smartcard side and the application side). No need to > standardize every bit on the cards. These interfaces could even be > service independant such that new services could be introduced easily, > without any standardization effort. first should be better to draw a map about existing systems, and i'd like very much to see the place of OpenCard Framework and smartX (XML based smart card system) on this map... (www.opencard.org, www.thinkpulse.com - i hope these are the correct addresses) the existing systems are spreaded, so _one_ standard is really hard to introduce, but in _every_ standard it is possible to plan-implement compatibility, and in the future i believe in a general reference architecture built with cubes (nice 3D models - you can hear/see about first time at Eurosmart Security Conference and on the following week at Gemplus Developers Conference) with well-defined contact types/rules, insertion and merging algorithms...and the end user or even the developer or the manufacturer will sit and use a SW: checks the required features, and the system will generate the technical sheet and a little bit more... i hope it is not a stupid idea, and with a description language through the use of ontology and building taxonomies the compatible-user_friendly world become closer :-) zoli -- Zoltán Kincses - Security and ISO manager Giro Bankcard Ltd. - http://www.gbc.hu 1205 Budapest, Mártonffy u. 25-27. HUNGARY Phone: (36-1) 421-2296, Fax: (36-1) 421-2240 *************************************************************** Linux Smart Card Developers - M.U.S.C.L.E. (Movement for the Use of Smart Cards in a Linux Environment) http://www.linuxnet.com/smartcard/index.html ***************************************************************
