The Battle for Web Services Standards

It’s already a given: Your company is going to waste money on Web services.

Research company Gartner predicts American business is going to squander $1 billion on misguided Web services projects by 2007. Exactly how much of that will come out of your pocket depends in part on how many confusing, overlapping Web services standards emerge in the next few years.

Right now, it looks like there’s going to be a lot of them.

The Web services standards process began to fall apart this year. No fewer than four organizations—Liberty Alliance, Oasis, W3C and WS-I—are vying to preside over the process, each with different goals, each with differing degrees of power and influence.

And two opposing camps of vendors have emerged: an uneasy alliance of IBM and Microsoft versus nearly everyone else. Both groups are busy duplicating each other’s work.

Both are proposing Web services specifications—some proprietary, some not—with unclear patent and licensing implications for CIOs. In an arena as complex as Web services, confusion is not a good thing. But right now, that’s the situation.

The Web services vision is grand: a universal set of communications protocols to enable computer systems and business processes to seek each other out over the Internet, lonely hearts style, and have deep, meaningful interactions with no human intervention. Even in today’s rudimentary state, Web services standards such as simple object access protocol, or SOAP (see "Core Web Services Standards," Page 58, for the list of current standards), are proving to be valuable integration technologies. A Gartner survey of 110 companies found that 54 percent are already working on Web services projects or have plans to begin soon, and IDC (a sister company to CIO’s publisher) estimates that companies will do $2.2 billion worth of Web services projects in 2003 and $25 billion in 2008.

"The potential revenue impact of these standards is enormous," says Whit Andrews, research director for Gartner. But the very size of that financial prize waiting for the winners of the Web services standards competition makes it "difficult to remain involved in a standards effort that involves your competitor," he adds. Gartner goes so far as to predict that the alliance between IBM and Microsoft will break down by the end of this year, given that the companies are direct competitors in the application server and database markets that make the biggest use of Web services.

"That’s silly," responds IBM spokesman Steven Eisenstadt. Steven VanRoekel, Microsoft’s director of platform strategy, says, "I couldn’t speculate on how long things will go [between Microsoft and IBM]."

And what about the users? Where are the CIOs?

Some companies have gotten involved with the standards-setting organizations, including financial services heavyweights such as Fidelity Investments and J.P. Morgan Chase, as well as some forward-thinking manufacturers such as GM and health-care giant Kaiser Permanente. But they remain the minority in organizations that, by default, are overwhelmingly dominated by vendors.

"CIOs haven’t gotten involved because it’s a big time commitment, so they say, You vendors figure it out," says Eric Austvold, research director for AMR Research. "That’s like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse."

If CIOs continue to stand on the sidelines, they may very well end up with no chickens, forced to choose from among multiple Web services standards that may not interoperate, may have limited life spans, and may come with fees or other onerous patent and licensing requirements.

And if so, CIOs can start ticking off their shares of that wasted $1 billion right now.

Fear of Fees

Contrary to the hype that surrounds Web services, there is no guarantee that the technology will continue to follow the path it has followed so far, which is that it is free and comes with limited restrictions.

In fact, the free model for Web services already has been tested and has just barely survived. In the spring of 2002, just as standards organization Oasis was about to ratify the specification for ebXML (electronic business using extensible markup language, designed to help companies transact business across borders and languages), IBM announced that it held patents for a piece of the specification and that it would offer it under a licensing model called Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND). If that had stood, vendors would have had the right to charge fees and apply usage restrictions to individual users of the software on a case-by-case basis. But after other contributors to the specification, including the United Nations, claimed that IBM previously had pledged that its work would be royalty-free, IBM issued a statement saying it would relinquish any rights to fees. "We were happy to clarify that we did not intend to charge a fee when we realized that some of the industry was confused," says IBM spokesman Eisenstadt. "We had never proposed that we would charge a royalty; we were simply following the process as defined by the standards body."

Both Eisenstadt and Microsoft’s VanRoekel say their companies will not charge royalties for the specifications that they offer to standards bodies. But both companies will continue to use RAND licensing for their specifications, which means that other restrictions could be placed on the use of the technology.

Web services needs to be free of cost and other license restrictions if the industry and its customers are to adopt them on a broad enough scale to make interoperability a reality, say standards believers. If the vision for Web services comes true, and companies use these standards as they use HTTP and HTML—that is, constantly—then royalties on Web services could become like a tollbooth for business on the Internet, chipping money out of every transaction that crosses the wires.

Worries about intellectual property led one standards organization, W3C (the World Wide Web Consortium), to adopt a policy that all specifications it ratifies into standards must be free of fees and other restrictions. In addition, companies submitting specifications for consideration as standards must declare their licensing and patent intentions up front before the standard comes to a vote.

Critics say that has driven Microsoft and IBM into the arms of another standards organization, Oasis (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards), which has less rigorous requirements regarding patent and royalty issues. "At Oasis, we do have a policy that allows for specifications to have patent claims," says Patrick Gannon, the organization’s president and CEO. "The result is that over 90 percent of the specifications from Oasis have no royalty related to them."

But it’s that last 10 percent that has people worried. Web services standards are like pieces in a puzzle: Most are dependent on other pieces to make a whole. If just one of the necessary pieces has royalties or restrictions attached to it, the system is not free.

Why Standards Overlap

In June 2002, a vendor coalition led by Sun Microsystems wrote a specification called WSCI (Web Services Choreography Interface, or Whiskey, in geek-speak). A few months later, IBM, Microsoft and a few other vendors offered up BPEL4WS (Business Process Execution Language for Web Services), a specification that overlapped with WSCI. W3C formed the Web Services Choreography Working Group to consider the specifications. At the first meeting, a researcher from Microsoft showed up "to determine if he wanted to join the working group," says Microsoft’s VanRoekel.

David Chappell, Sonic Software’s chief technology evangelist and a member of the W3C working group, remembers the meeting well. He says the representative from Microsoft and one from BEA Systems "were clear that there was this other BPEL initiative, and they said, ’The wishes of both Microsoft and BEA are that the group focus on things that are complementary to BPEL and not competing,’" recalls Chappell. "The response from the group was, ’We’ll take that under advisement.’ So Microsoft said, ’We’re not going to participate.’" The Microsoft representative never returned, although BEA continued to be a part of the group. IBM does not have a representative in the group.

Microsoft’s VanRoekel says the researcher made the decision whether to join the group meeting as an individual, "independent of him being a member of the Web services group at Microsoft." But the damage had been done. Some vendors, most notably Oracle and Sun, took it as a snub and a signal that IBM and Microsoft were going to go their own way on Web services.

Indeed, Microsoft and IBM took their BPEL specification (which each had been working on for years and had embedded into their products) to Oasis and formed a committee to begin working on a standard. Responding to complaints about potential confusion and duplication, Oasis and W3C established liaisons to coordinate work between the two groups to try to avoid overlap.

As of this writing, they’re still working at it.

Oasis Versus W3C: Titans Clash by Proxy

If there’s a driving force behind the growing competition between Oasis and W3C, it’s less the organizations themselves than it is their predominantly vendor membership. They’re split into two major camps: IBM and Microsoft on one side and Sun and (usually) Oracle on the other, with smaller vendors trailing in the wake of both. IBM and Microsoft worked together to build the first major Web services specification, SOAP, that they offered to W3C for consideration in 2000 (W3C later modified and ratified it as a standard in June 2003). In April 2001, IBM and Microsoft submitted a road map to W3C of the specifications that they believed needed to be added in and around SOAP to fill out the Web services stack, as it is known.

IBM and Microsoft have followed that road map ever since, publishing 20 different specifications for Web services. Critics say the plan is both an impressive technological vision...and a rationale for excluding other vendors—and even the standards organizations—from the process. Of the 20 specifications, only two have been submitted to any standards organization for consideration. Critics charge that the others are being held back while the two companies work to perfect them and build them into their products, thereby giving them an advantage in the market.

"If you look at the pattern of behavior that’s been established by Microsoft and IBM, it’s clear that they want to create specifications in a vacuum without input and hold them close to the vest while they develop them in their products and then release them to the standards organizations," says Ed Julson, group manager of Web services standards and technology for Sun.

"We’ve worked together with industry partners to be sure that the standards process starts with a well-defined proposal," responds IBM’s Eisenstadt.

When Microsoft and IBM do offer up their specifications for input, critics say, it’s usually behind closed doors rather than in the open forum of a standards meeting. Sonic’s Chappell recalls being invited to Microsoft’s headquarters in Redmond to view two Web services specifications. "IBM and Microsoft were being hammered for going off and doing their own thing," he says, "so this was viewed as a way of opening things up." But Chappell says he had to sign an agreement saying he would not discuss the specifications with anyone else and that anything he contributed to the development would become the intellectual property of the companies writing the specifications.

Microsoft’s VanRoekel says his company does not require visiting vendors to sign nondisclosure agreements. "You’re welcome to talk about what’s going on," he says. But he says Microsoft does make them sign a feedback agreement that stipulates that "if you come and offer input on this technology, then that input must be made available royalty-free." He adds that Microsoft plans to publish results of vendor feedback sessions on a public website this fall.

Critics say Microsoft and IBM’s strategy of writing specifications outside of the standards groups limits give-and-take. "It’s turning into a proxy war where Microsoft and IBM are coming up with what they feel will be the standards and shopping them around to see who will rubber-stamp them," says an official from a standards group who requested anonymity. "If one won’t take it, they take it to the other. They’re playing W3C and Oasis off against each other."

Last January, another conflict broke out between the two vendor camps, this time within Oasis. After a coalition of vendors led by Sun, Oracle and Sonic submitted a specification to ensure reliable delivery of messages (called Web Services Reliability) and formed a committee, Microsoft and IBM published their own specification called WSReliability, which has not yet been submitted to any standards organization.

Microsoft’s VanRoekel says his company is simply following the road map it submitted to W3C. "The reason we take this approach is to make sure the specifications are well-engineered, have a fast time to market and have something we call composability, which means they work well with the other pieces out there," he says. "What has typically happened in the standards bodies where you design by committee is that the end product is so open for loosely interpreted implementation that you end up not having technology that will work with other pieces that have been developed out in the industry."

Related:
1 2 Page 1
Page 1 of 2
7 secrets of successful remote IT teams