/
2003-03-07-standards-for-standards.html
15 lines (11 loc) · 2.85 KB
/
2003-03-07-standards-for-standards.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
---
layout: post
title: "Standards for Standards"
permalink: standards-for-standards.html
categories: [wsstar, standards]
---
<p>There are a lot of "standards" floating around the web services and business process enactment space right now, including a <a href="http://dev2dev.bea.com/technologies/webservices/standards.jsp">pile</a> of "standards" recently emitted by BEA. The <a href="http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-bpel/">BPEL4WS</a>, <a href="http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-transpec/">WS-Transaction</a>, and <a href="http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-coor/">WS-Coordination</a> specifications are also frequently and mistakenly referred to as "standards". Last time I checked, before something could honestly be referred to as a standard, it needed to be proposed to and subsequently approved by an (honest) standards body like the <a href="http://www.w3c.org/">W3C</a>, <a href="http://www.iso.org/">ISO</a>, <a href="http://www.ansi.org/">ANSI</a>, <a href="http://www.oasis-open.org/">OASIS</a>, or <a href="http://www.ietf.org/">IETF</a>.</p>
<p>For instance, I like the IETF's <a href="http://www.ietf.org/tao.html#6.3">perspective</a> on announcing compliance with a proposal or submission:</p>
<blockquote>An Internet-Draft is NOT a means of "publishing" a specification; specifications are published through the RFC mechanism — Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are subject to change or removal at any time. Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft be referenced by any paper, report, or Request-for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance with an Internet-Draft.</blockquote>
<p>Perhaps it is now necessary for the community to move to a higher level and create an open standard for opens standards. Ideally, the specification for an open standard could serve as its own reference implementation, and, if a validator were to be implemented, the difference between marketing collateral, white papers, proposals, working drafts, and standards (as well as qualifiers such as "open") could be unambiguously determined.</p>
<p>Seriously, and on the bright side, seeing large vendors jockey for position with respect to "standards" is a good thing even if some of the "standards" are not. The software marketplace has validated the importance of open standards as starting points for interoperability and collaboration, and the rush to market "standards" shows that vendors recognize this importance. On the one hand, large vendors are not eager to pursue open standards because the accompanying interoperability and collaboration also drive innovation and competition. On the other hand, large vendors should favor honest, open standards because they create markets. Where's the <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/KeynesianEconomics.html">John Maynard Keynes</a> of technology when we need him?</p>