What Steve and many others fail to make clear (I'm not suggesting that they
don't actually understand it, as I presume they wouldn't be writing about
XML at all if they didn't) is that what they are talking about is NOT XML
ITSELF, but is a particular set of standardization activities that are using
XML as a technological building block. The failure of the entire set of
standardization activities that can be grouped under the XML/EDI banner
would, of course, be a serious blow to XML and would be an even more serious
blow to e-commerce, but please don't forget that there are a zillion other
business activities out there that similarly are built on XML and a lot of
them are already successful and will be largely unaffected by what goes on
in the XML/EDI world. I'm not trying to down-play the importance of XML/EDI,
I'm just trying to reassure you that the fundamental technology of XML will
stick around regardless. Yes, OK, XML/EDI is potentially bigger than the
rest of them put together, but those other activities still represent a
sizeable amount of business activity, sufficient to keep XML in the picture.
Francis Cave
Chairman, XML UK
Francis Cave Digital Publishing
The Old Bakery
Felday Glade
Holmbury St Mary
Dorking
Surrey RH5 6PG
United Kingdom
Tel/Fax: +44 1306 731655
Mobile: +44 7714 246215
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web URL: http://www.franciscave.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve L. Bollinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 26 February 2001 22:24
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
Here is an interesting piece:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010226/tc/why_90_percent_of_xml_standards_
will_fail_1.html
Full text below.
Enjoy,
Steve
Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
By John R. Rymer, president and founder of Upstream Consulting, Special to
ZDNet
XML standards are the latest in a series of great hopes in IT. Too bad it's
all marketing and not the reality.
Those who are making XML standards are reliving the mistakes of past
standards bodies. I can see what's coming and it is a whole lot less than
any of us would like or need. I think 90 percent of the current activities
will not produce meaningful technology. In my view, that's failure.
Pardon my skepticism, but I've lived through too many can't-miss,
can't-live-without-it standards efforts. There was the gargantuan effort to
create an alternative to TCP/IP by the International Standards Organization
(ISO), the tortured efforts to standardize the Unix operating system, the
Open Software Foundation's DCE debacle, and the gun-to-the-head tactics of
the Object Management Group (OMG). Of these, only the OMG's CORBA can be
called a commercial success.
Each of these efforts suffered from one or two mistakes that doomed it to
failure.
Mistake #1: Nonalignment
A key benefit of standards is vendor-neutrality. Standards organizations
will tell you that vendors are responsible for implementing neutral
standards in products that are fast, reliable, and scalable. Experience says
you can't assume vendors that matter will get the job done unless the
standard is aligned with their competitive needs. A standards organization
has to align with the real strategic imperatives of major companies if it
hopes to see useful implementations of its work. I see very little of this
in the XML efforts underway.
Mistake #2: Over-promise
XML standards are the latest in a series of great hopes in IT. XML standards
will provide users with vendor independence. XML standards will strip all of
the latency out of intercompany operations at a low cost. XML standards will
create a single global electronic market enabling all parties irrespective
of size to engage in Internet-based electronic business. XML standards will
provide for plug-and-play software.
Does any of this sound familiar to you? It should because we've heard
promises just like these for standards in Unix, objects, and various network
protocols. These promises are the marketing, not the reality, of XML standar
ds. Early experience with RosettaNet and Microsoft's SOAP indicates that XML
standards provide some leverage for some problems in small-scale systems.
The backlash is inevitable, and can be fatal even to well-considered
standards efforts.
Mistake #3: Overdo it
XML standards-making is at a fever pitch, with continual announcements by a
range of standards groups of intentions, specs, proposed specs, selections
of specs, and so on. There are now dozens of XML standards efforts
underway--far too many to be practical for user organizations to consider,
much less adopt. A winnowing process will ensue, eliminating most of the
wanna-be standards announced during last year. Even big organizations, such
as the United Nations' Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business
(UN/CEFACT), the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information
Standards (OASIS), RosettaNet, and the Open Applications Group (OAG) face a
struggle for relevance and survival.
There are only two abiding sources of XML standards. The first is the World
Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which is responsible for defining the base
technology of XML. The second source is credible vendor that creates
publicly available XML formats and protocols as part of meaningful products.
Ariba and Microsoft are in this category at the moment.
Mistake #4: Overreach
Many XML standards efforts aim to standardize business processes. RosettaNet
is the leading example. I can't think of too many efforts to standardize
business processes that have worked. Business processes are too specific to
individual companies to standardize them. The most successful IT standards
address protocols and formats. Some of the XML standards groups are
following RosettaNet down this path. They may as well not. RosettaNet is
operating in a unique industry context (electronics/high tech supply chain),
which does not resemble other industry categories.
Pardon me for being cranky about this, but the net effect of XML standards
has been to slow adoption of XML products and technology. There's too much
noise, too much hype, too many promises--too much risk. Shouldn't we know
better by now? Let me know what you think about XML standards in the
TalkBack below.
John R. Rymer is principal consultant and founder of Upstream Consulting, a
strategy-consulting group in Emeryville, Calif. Upstream has developing
business strategies for several XML technology companies.
------ XML/edi Group Discussion List ------
Homepage = http://www.XMLedi-Group.org
Unsubscribe = send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leave the subject and body of the message blank
Questions/requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To receive only one message per day (digest format)
send the following message to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
(leave the subject line blank)
digest xmledi-group your-email-address
To join the XML/edi Group complete the form located at:
http://www.xmledi-group.org/xmledigroup/mail1.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan on attending the upcoming meeting during DISA's conference:
http://www.disa.org/conference/annual_conf/index.htm
------ XML/edi Group Discussion List ------
Homepage = http://www.XMLedi-Group.org
Unsubscribe = send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leave the subject and body of the message blank
Questions/requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To receive only one message per day (digest format)
send the following message to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
(leave the subject line blank)
digest xmledi-group your-email-address
To join the XML/edi Group complete the form located at:
http://www.xmledi-group.org/xmledigroup/mail1.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan on attending the upcoming meeting during DISA's conference:
http://www.disa.org/conference/annual_conf/index.htm
