Web Services On The Move:  WS-I Update

We believe Web Services are an important new way to develop applications.  Many in the industry agree.  Most software vendors have products (or at least product announcements) in this space.  Customers are moving to this new technology much more quickly than usually occurs.

In our February 14 issues (Volume 2, Issue 7) we wrote about the beginning of WS-I, the Web Services’ Initiative for Interoperability, under the title, Web Services Seek Interoperability.  In that story we noted that nine vendors, led by founders IBM and Microsoft, would form a governing board and that nearly every prominent web services vendor – except Sun – seemed to be involved.

We’ve been trying to schedule follow-up interviews with Sun and with IBM’s Dr. Robert Sutor, one of the WS-I’s organizers, ever since.  This week we caught up with them and we have lots to report.

SUN is Big On Interoperability But It Wants A Seat On The WS-I Board

Ed Julson, the Group Marketing Manager for Java and XML at Sun Microsystems started off by saying that Sun thinks WS-I is a good thing for the industry.  “Sun,” Julson said, “is big on interoperability.”

Sun wants to join WS-I but seems focused on the issue of joining as a “founder.”  (This seems to mean they want to be on the governing board.)  Robert Sutor noted that (1) founders are, well, founders, and Sun wasn’t one and (2) a dozen companies have asked to be added to the governing board of WS-I and at least six of them can make reasonable cases for being on the board.

The original board was selected around the idea of balance.  “We were trying to cover all the bases,” Dr. Robert Sutor said.  We looked at issues like the company’s role in Web Services, e.g., were they a developer of products, a systems integrator, or a customer; where they were located; and so forth.  We also were looking for a group that could work well together and be neutral enough on issues like platforms and testing software.  Companies that had strongly supported the underlying Web Services standards were favored.

“You have to start somewhere to form a new organization,” said Sutor.  Someone has to propose what the documents are going to look like and then get the others to agree to sign them.  If you try to have three companies instead of two writing the original draft documents, it will take many times as long, he implied.  In WS-I’s case, Microsoft and IBM, who had been working together in various related web services standards groups for some time, put together the initial idea and documents, then informed others in the founding group and got them to sign on. The first part took months; the second was done in less than a week.     

The WS-I was created by the signing of these legal documents, including bylaws, by its founding members.  WS-I will now need to develop a set of criteria as to how additional members might join its board.

Noting all that needed to be done – and quickly, Sutor predicted that enlarging the board wouldn’t be the priority for WS-I, so it would be unlikely to happen immediately.

Operational Issues For Starting An Initiative

There is a lot to do.  The first priority is getting set up and preparing for the first meeting in mid-April. 

A small paid staff or outsourced resources will ultimately do the administrative work of WS-I, design and manage its web site and mailing list, and so forth.  Member volunteers who come and go, largely on a project basis will staff technical jobs.  For example, Sutor explained, testing suites for web services software within each profile will be worked on by IBM development people, used by IBMer’s to test IBM’s sw and eventually incorporated in IBM products so that developers who use these products can also be WS-I compliant.

The basis of the real activities will be the Working Groups.  Leading these Working Groups, rather than sitting on the Board, Sutor believes, will be where the real power to influence the future of Web Services interoperability lies.  Companies who join now, rather than later (and pay their dues:  $3,000 for members, much more — undisclosed - for board members) will have the opportunity to chair these working groups, to help determine which projects get addressed first, and to shape early events.  

Lots Of Interest In Interoperability 

The big news is the reception WS-I has received in the industry.  Over 500 firms have indicated they want to join the new organization.  Sutor thinks this means that membership is likely to settle in at about the 150 mark, based on other groups (OASIS and ECLIPSE are both somewhat over 150 and UDDI is at 300).  He notes that similar groups typically have about 30-50 actively participating companies (some with multiple members).  The tasks to be done will need lots of people with many different skills.

But WS-I is About Facilitating Interoperability Not Writing Standards

And what will they do?  WS-I is clear that it’s all about Interoperability based on standards created elsewhere.  Sutor admits this is tricky and can be a political as well as a practical problem.

WS-I intends to be a standards integrator, using existing standards, but not creating any new ones.  They will rely on existing standards groups for the creation and refinement of standards.

Sutor suggests looking at some specific examples:

It’s easy to see that WS-I is a standards integrator rather than a standards creation group when it’s talking about how multiple standards are used together.  That’s the main focus of its work.

If WS-I recommends that you use only a portion of an existing standard like SOAP, it could be claimed that they were creating SOAP-Lite.  But they won’t write a standard.  It would just be a recommended practice within a particular profile.

Where WS-I sees the need for changes in Standards it would make requests to the appropriate Standards groups.  These would generally be in the form of notes, rather than formal submissions – keep in mind that, in many cases, the same people who will be involved in WS-I are also involved in the standards activities.

This emphasis on being a standards integrator and NOT a new standards body is important to WS-I members and potential members and is probably part of its appeal.  Sun’s Julson expressed concern about creating a new standards organization, noting that we already have plenty of those.  He noted that if WS-I can stay focused on its goal – interoperability between applications, built on established standards, but not try to write the next generation of standards, that would be best.  That seems to be consistent with WS-I plans.

Julson was also concerned about the move from setting standards within established standards organizations (where a company proposed a new standard to the organization and took it through their process) versus the new process where a group of companies form a new standards body around the new standard.  We’re not sure this is very different, except for the emphasis on a single standard or topic rather than on a broad set of standards – in both cases, proposals for new standards are usually based on what one or a few vendors are doing or want to do in an emerging market.

Of course, there are some guidelines and operational procedures that need to be developed.  WS-I will need to consider:

	What is the best place to do a particular type of work?  WS-I?  A Standards group?  Which one?
	Which group has the best resources?

What are the politics?

Which companies are involved in which groups?

In some sense, WS-I needs to create a map of the whole Web Services Standards and Interoperability space and then map onto it a notion of who does what.  They will then be able to create a roadmap for the Profiles and identify pieces which need more work or new work.  At that point they will need to negotiate with the Standards groups as to who might do that work  

Sutor mentioned that WS-I founders briefed W3C and OASIS about their plans and they while they were nervous (presumably about the potential for overlapping activities) they were generally okay with WS-I’s intended mission.

We are certain that, in this case, unfolding events may prove to be more fascinating and closely watched than usual – Standards bodies are usually so slow-moving that it’s hard to maintain press interest and attention.  Here we have several dramas to watch:

	Will Sun join and take its place at the table, influencing how the Web Services market will move forward?
	How big is this organization going to be?  We suspect that it may get bigger than the 150 member original goal, with 500 potential new members waiting in the wings.  At 300, for example, they’d have a substantially larger budget and bigger bandwidth (as well as more hands) to get to their goals.
	Will WS-I be able to maintain the discipline to be a standards integrator rather than a standards maker?  What happens when they make a recommendation to a Standards body and it gets turned down?  What if they and an important standard seem to be moving in different directions?

We will be watching with eyes wide open – and we’re hoping that WS-I figures out a way to let representative press and analysts play some role as outside advisors or commentators – at least to inject a sense of perspective into the process.

(back to top)