Steve,
I've been following this thread for a while, and I think it reflects
something that I've felt for some time. Standards are fundamentally
political in nature. They have an implicit semantics which by their very
existence will displease somebody. Moreover, it is not in the (apparent)
best interest of many corporations to agree on a standard, because it
equalizes the playing field. Programmers are typically fairly egalitarian -
the Internet itself is a very simple system, but it would never have been
created in a business context, because it would have been seen by too many
corporations as reducing advantages that they have over their competitors
(and ironically, it is doing precisely that now). Programmers working on the
basis of exploring cool ideas evolved the network and most of the standards
that are used, and business co-opted the standards because it was seen as a
way of keeping the competition from getting a leg up.
I wouldn't lay the blame of the failing economy on the doorstep of XML.
Rather, I think that what you have is a fundamental incompatibility between
the ultimately open and equalizing architecture that the Internet offers and
the competitive, gain-every-advantage-possible world of most profit-oriented
businesses. However, the other problem that I see here is that there has
been too much of an emphasis on building the inter-corporate channels by the
big software vendors because they look at the EDI model where VANs
effectively interposed themselves between companies and took a piece of the
profits. Yet I personally feel that the only way for that to succeed is for
companies to first develop solid XML infrastructures for intra-enterprise
communication; if that is in place, then making the interapplication links
become fairly simple, but without it in place (and it isn't at the moment)
then no amount of standards police will make it workable.
I should note that this philosophy is antithetical to the direction of the
largest software companies, since the manipulation of XML by developers
actually works against selling applications that do that under the sheets.
Microsoft's .NET is heavily based upon XML, for instance, but you wouldn't
know it looking at the development environment. Moreover, XML reduces their
ability to dictate proprietary formats, which in turn decouples people from
the upgrade spiral and reduces their ability to lock people into a given set
of standards that they control (politics again). Moreover, building an XML
oriented set of interfaces into any operating system makes the parts
interchangeable with competitors' products, reduces the dependency upon
features of that OS, and also cannibalizes existing products in the
intra-enterprise domain. Thus, the compelling changes from XML are not
likely to come from the big vendors that have every reason to want to keep
the status quo (even when the ship is sinking around them) but from the same
programmers and engineers that developed the Internet in the first place.
Thus, to me, XML will likely end up thriving in the dismal business sector,
because it makes it less possible for corporations to wage an effective
block against people communicating.
-- Kurt Cagle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve L. Bollinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 12:16 PM
Subject: RE: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
> At 02:20 PM 3/2/2001 +0000, Francis Cave wrote:
> >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.
>
> Yes, Francis, you are absolutely correct. XML itself is a very useful
> technology. It's usage on web pages makes the web much more searchable.
It
> gives us a smarter internet. There are many other fine uses.
>
> My criticisms are based on the false promises regarding what XML is
> supposedly going to do for the electronic exchange of Business Objects
> between companies. I do consider the work that ebXML and UDDL are doing
is
> excellent and on track and will be vitally useful as standards defining
> technical and business protocols for the exchange of such objects over the
> internet. I foresee this as an emerging standard that can be supported
> world-wide because it deals with an area that can be universal i.e. the
> transport of electronic messages.
>
> It is what is inside the package that is sent that is the problem with
> "standards" because it can't be universal. This piece inside is the
> payload, aka business object, aka transaction. Whether this payload is in
> XML, X12, EDIFACT, etc., there are business issues forcing the
> diversification of the business object standards and these are not at all
> solved with XML nor can they be. What X12 and EDIFACT failed to solve in
> this regard, XML is already failing to in an even bigger way. I am
already
> seeing this in XML/EDI projects that I am personally aware of.
>
> It is a very difficult thing to come to understand why standard business
> objects that can be universally accepted are so impossible to form, but it
> is true. I spent years believing the EDI hype that it could be done. It
> took me years of EDI work to finally come to the understanding of why it
> isn't done nor will it be done any time soon.
>
> So I know how difficult it is for some people to come to that
> understanding. It really seems like we should be able to have such
> universal business object standards. The truth is that as long as we have
> competition, there will be diverse standards because of the need to one up
> the competition. You can say, wait a minute Steve, in X12 we have a
> standard 850 Purchase Order. Oh, do we? There are so many "optional"
> segments and elements that different Trading Partners agree they must use
> in varying combinations, we are back in the non-standard soup
> again. RosettaNet tried to "solve" this by making most of their fields
> mandantory. Then when partners had no use for a field they put in
"XXXXXX"
> just to fill it. What a mess.
>
> You see, XML, X12 and EDIFACT are not tools that could fix this. It is
> like doing mechanic work on a car using a toothbrush. You see, wrong
> tool. When you are fighting cavities a toothbrush is a wonderful tool.
We
> all need to clearly see the real problem and then select the right tools.
> (P.S. don't forget to floss! :))
>
> False promises eventually cause a loss of consumer confidence which is
what
> the Nasdaq is now reflecting. IT is losing favor with Business for the
> very reason of false promises. And false promises about XML/EDI is a part
> of that confidence drop. That means you and I and the rest of IT share a
> responsibility for this.
>
> We in IT need to tell our customers (i.e. the companies that we are
> employed by or contract to) the truth. Instead we too easily jump up and
> down about the next cool thing and get our companies involved because we
> want to put this cool new stuff whatever it is on our resumes. Instead we
> need to keep in mind the ROI of the company. That company is paying your
> salary or contract. You need to ensure that there really is a long term
> payback for them. Then they can afford to keep paying you. (This is how
> money works, in case you weren't sure).
>
> So if you are looking for someone to blame why you stock options have all
> gone to hell, don't forget to peek in the mirror.
>
> Regards,
> Steve Bollinger
>
>
>
> ------ 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
>
>
------ 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
