W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > October 2003

RE: CIO.com story on WS standards

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:55:40 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E031327C0@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

If you subtract the emotionally loaded and fundamentally meaningless --
and gratuitous -- comments, there is substance in this article.  There's
also a lot of nonsense.  I think that the substance would be easier to
deal with, and in fact the impact of the analysis greater, without the
nonsense.

Of course I agree with the thought that it is a good idea for end user
companies to be involved with the process.  It is, however, not always
an easy thing to justify the cost of this involvement to the company.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:14 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: CIO.com story on WS standards



Several members of this list were on a panel discussion at Web Services
Edge today about WS standards, led by Anne Manes.  She used this article
http://www.cio.com/archive/100103/standards.html as discussion fodder,
and others may find it interesting.

"Everyone wants Web services standards. CEOs think the technology will
create new opportunities. CFOs believe it will save millions. Vendors
see a pot of gold at the end of the Web services rainbow. And CIOs know
that linking to customers and partners over the Internet will
revolutionize both business and IT. So what's the holdup? The usual
suspects: Politics. Ego. Suspicion. Fear. Greed. "

Who, us? :-)

But seriously, while I disagree with much of it, we clearly do have to
consider it as a datapoint about the public perception of what we
(collectively, not just WSA WG or W3C) do.  

Paul Krill of InfoWorld was in the audience; it will be interesting to
see if he writes anything about the panelists' collective rebuttal.
Received on Friday, 3 October 2003 10:56:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:23 GMT