Lists Home |
Date Index |
Michael Champion wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2004, at 9:39 AM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> > You like the credit for being the
> > "co-inventor of XML" but don't accept any role in the damage done by
> > the
> > gutting of ISO and the norms of standardization that stood
> > in your way.
> I wasn't around back then, but AFAIK, ISO committed seppuku as far as
> "SGML for the Web" is concerned; Tim (Bray and/or Berners-Lee) didn't
> gut it. :-)
> > "As the twig is bent...", Tim. One has to
> > take the long view or short term gains in technical
> > specification turn into big losses in cultural cooperation.
> > Internet time is bullsh*t.
> It seems to me that one has to take the long AND the short view. Joint
> R&D is a Good Thing; Recommendations about what appears to actually
> work and would work better if the relatively small differences were
> smoothed out are a Good Thing; and real honest International Standards
> are a Good Thing, but they should not be promulgated until the
> underlying specs have matured.
> So in my very humble opinion:
> -- IBEASoft should be more honest that what they are doing with the
> WS-* specs are joint R&D projects, and should correct journalists who
> call them "standards" or "recommendations" (except in the sense that
> their marketing departments "recommend" the products built around
At the OASIS Symposium this past week, Chris Ferris of IBM gave a
presentation comparing WS-ReliableMessaging (which I refer to as a
"vendor specification" in my various talks) to OASIS WS-Reliability. I
won't provide specific comments here - rather, I'll let the following
e-mail from the OASIS WSRM TC to the OASIS TAB (Technical Advisory
Board) speak for itself:
My understanding of the outcome will be a response by the WSRM TC posted
to the OASIS Symposium Web site.
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
> -- W3C and OASIS should likewise avoid calling what they do 'standards'
> -- they are consortium recommendations, hopefully based on an analysis
> of best practice and applied theory. (The Design by Committee stuff
> like WXS or XQuery is pretty much equivalent to the joint R&D projects
> as far as I'm concerned, and should have some designation other than
> Recommendation until best practice is clear).
> -- The "real" standards organizations such as ISO, ITU, and CEFACT
> should focus on sweeping up after the parade, and not pursuing pet
> projects of key participants or pursuing essentially political goals .
> In other words, there is plenty of credit and blame to go around for
> the current state of affairs, there's been a lot of innovation but no
> organization or consortium has done all that great a job of following
> their own guidelines, and plenty of soul searching by a lot of people
> (not just stupid journalists) is needed to improve it.
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
Booz | Allen | Hamilton