[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I can
understand the frustration of the early VEO days and the standards armies.
I sit
today in the other extreme; a company that has only recently admitted that
work
going on at the Department of Justice and OASIS might actually show up
in an
RFP, and now that it does, is caught napping. My frustration is every
bit as
deep as yours, but my bank account is likely not as deep.
:-)
The
problem with the 'let's just get smart guys together and figure out what
works'
is believing anyone believes them, but really, that they will cite that in
an RFP
so one can sell that. Some bits get implemented in say a
Microsoft
or Sun
application and no one has to worry about the RFP because the
work
is actually sold as part of the framework. The W3C is very good at
doing
that kind of standard. But we don't cite and sell those. We
build
on
them.
XML
as a requirement is a single checkbox in an RFP. Global
Justice XML
isn't. It is a large and expensive box to check. It is
also is a commoditizer
and
some will resist that while others will realize that a commodity market
isn't
a bad market if the commodities actually work and one can add value
without breaking the standard. For example, the database messages
or
web
service methods may be standard, but the presentations may be
an
area of competition, the analysis tools may be competitive.
Where VEO went off the rails was conflating standardization and
technical innovation. I am all for the 'chaos is the engine of
evolution' strategy when innovating. I am for standards when
procuring innovative products that have tested well and now
should
be standardized. I have no problem working with
proprietary XML vocabularies.
I
wrote the Enterprise Engineering papers and Beyond the
Book
Metaphor before Veo existed or Matt wrote those
papers
for school and Disney. That's vision work; it is not
standards work. Think how frustrated I got when
because
the
Air Force locked up BTBM and EE languished in a CALS publication, I had to
sit and watch some of my
best
work die on the vine while others claimed "invention".
That's
the price of real pioneering, not the stuff the news guys
notice: obscurity. Well, that's the gig. Life in the
crow's nest.
We did
know that enterprises and agencies
would
integrate across the networks. We did not have the
detailed designs because we did not yet have the standards
for
addressing and the GE network honchos adamantly
opposed using the Internet when and if it was
commercialized.
So we
proposed what was there. HyTime went too far but at that time, it
was
what we had. HTTP did not go far enough and now
we
have SOAP. But understand this: those who do have
to
procure need a way to trust what they procure without
having
to go find those smart guys and ask them. That's
business. Standards are created for many reasons but
the
business reasons don't go away just because someone
says,
'this standard isn't ready or this product won't pass
the
conformance suite.' We have to meet in the middle
and
that is how we get standards that work and more
importantly
are
provably workable.
I
sympathize with the dismay, but I think it is the cost of doing
business.
Would
you like to be Intel producing something so complicated
that
no matter what they do, they will always trip on someone's
patents so now, lawsuits are a cost of doing business. No
free
lunch and all the smart guys in the world can't fix that.
len
I was at first
amused by all this discussion as a follow up to my interview about
standards.
I don't have any special insights. The only reason I
was called by the reporter was that I was apparently the only person willing
to be quoted by name in John Markoff's NY Times article about Microsoft and
CEFACT...and that's because I no longer work for a commercial concern that
could suffer because of anything I said.
And as I
said to the CNET reporter, you can't be surprised that companies want to
influence the process, but you can be surprised that they'd try to do it in
ways that don't look good with the lights turned on. I always tried to
make sure that the work I personally did or directed at Veo and Commerce One
would pass the "lights on" test . But now that I look back at it,
I have to conclude that we vastly overinvested in standards activities,
spending gobs of money to participate in the W3C or OASIS or ebxml or UBL to
do "good work" whose direct ROI for us was minuscule. We might
have been better off investing our time and talent in products rather than
standards because a lot of them got co-opted or undermined. Matt Fuchs,
Alex Milowski, Terry Allen, Arofan Gregory, Sue Probert, David Burdett,
Brian Hayes, Lisa Seaburg-- we had armies fighting the standards
battles.. I approved a lot of travel expenses for a long time.
Anyone remember the eco framework? Take a look at http://eco.commerce.net/.
In 1998-1999 that group proposed most of the web services stack in a more open
way (Murray Maloney was hired by CommerceNet to run this) and it is in the
dustbin of history. To follow up on something in this thread -- where
the press focuses on personalities rather than events -- it annoys me
immensely every time I read about the history of web services because I know
they started in eco and some of the companies that were in eco simply took the
best ideas from it and repackaged worse versions of them as the first web
services "STANDARDS."
So the more I read in this follow up discussion,
the more I'm feeling dismayed rather than amused.
=Even though
good process has emerged by dint
of experience,
I think the processes of creating
recommendations / specifications / standards are getting worse. The W3C seems
to be working, but OASIS has devolved from the place where interoperability
was job 1 (remember the SGML catalog, the table model efforts) to a
place where redundant and incompatible splinter vocabularies are
encouraged because it helps the business model -- "democratically," of
course -- but I'd prefer to have the less democratic process of the SGML Open
days when the smartest people in the world just got together to fix things
that really needed fixing. We don't need standards... what we need
are things that work. And we need to organizations that claim to be
helping that happen to actually do it.
|