70 likes | 146 Views
W3C’s Relationship to de jure Standards. Steve Holbrook (IBM). Sanction vs Traction. Open Process & Sanctioning helps but there are LOTS of sanctioned, open standards out there (both in W3C and ISO) …with no up-take! Market traction matters Vendors react to market pressure
E N D
W3C’s Relationship to de jure Standards Steve Holbrook (IBM)
Sanction vs Traction • Open Process & Sanctioning helps • but there are LOTS of sanctioned, open standards out there (both in W3C and ISO) …with no up-take! • Market traction matters • Vendors react to market pressure • Customer demand & competition • Ability to make money • Government Regulations * (I’ll come back to this…) • … in the end: de facto matters more than de jure
W3C in the Middle New Kids New Old(?) School Old School microFormats W3C ISO/IEC/ITU Sanction & Ratify Innovate
IBM’s (and others’?) Ideal Model • We’re all resource constrained • Need a smart approach • Do technology work once @ consortia level • Await traction in market • Pursue further sanctioning @ de jure level
2004 vs 2010? • ISO/IEC JTC-1 Web Services Study Group (WSSG) started in 2003 • Don Deutsch (chair) presentend on WSSG in May 2004 AC • 2004: Advisory Board “advised” W3C become a PAS Submitter • Team: “thanks, but no thanks” (Mike will address) • We’ll achieve int’l recognition in other ways • Other SDOs? (Eduardo will address OASIS) • OASIS was already a PAS Submitter, WS-I became one • 2010: voices again calling for W3C to be a PAS Submitter • What changed?
China & others • Struggling to fit in w/ W3C & Consortia • Prefer Top-down • Identify ideal framework & fill in holes in Int’l Stds • Caused creation of JTC-1 SC38 • Web Service WG • SOA WG • Cloud Computing Study Group