Down with standards
Published: 28 Apr 2004 16:35 BST
We did not know that at the time we started ebXML. But when they came out with SOAP, they said, "Well, we don’t want to join ebXML because you do not do SOAP." We said, "Look, we will make ebXML messaging compatible with SOAP; please join ebXML." We practically begged them.
We ended up making ebXML messaging compatible with SOAP, but they did not join anyway. So, it was clear that it was already starting to be some kind of unraveling of the big tent and the happy community.
So what is the net result right now? IBM and Microsoft have taken the lead on developing a lot of Web services standards beyond SOAP, including others for electronic business.
[Web services are] proprietary specifications, please.
Why do you call them proprietary specifications?
Because they are proprietary. Look at the IP (intellectual property) policies that are published on the WS-I. There are all sorts of licensing of IP. They're not royalty-free. There is a lot which is completely unclear from an IP (perspective), which means you cannot afford to implement if you're a vendor.
IBM and Microsoft have submitted to the W3C and OASIS for development many specifications that involve other companies. How is that exclusionary?
Look, the whole issue of openness is really a red herring. I can say that my process is completely open and anyone in the world can participate. But let's schedule my meetings every quarter and once in Tokyo and once in Berlin and once in Vienna and once in Vancouver and once in Washington. Effectively only the biggest players in the world can play. So, making it open, but making it infeasible to participate means it is, in effect, not open.
In some sense, even if the IP policy of WS-I and ultimately the other bodies were completely open and royalty-free, this would still be a problem. By having a rival organisation to the OASIS which is where (these XML e-commerce standards) started, you are raising the stakes for the participant because now (smaller) companies like mine would have to play in two places rather than one. And you quickly price the smaller player out of the standards game.
Previous
Did you find this article useful?
218 out of 418 people found this useful
Digg
Slashdot
Del.ici.ous
Stumble
Reddit
