Free and open standards [was Re: Bag of Data Anti-pattern]

On 01/05/2018 10:06 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
[ . . . ]
> It's not a use case (rather a set of them and a set of standards that
> meet the use case needs). Versions of the IEEE Biometrics Open Protocol
> (2010-2017) has existed for several years (at least 5+, I think). It's a
> pay for access standard ($72 for the PDF), and there are companies that
> are compliant with it (one of which has attended RWoT and IIW events).
> Yes, pay for access is not ideal, but $72 isn't expensive either.

As a side soap-box comment, I think the mere fact that it is a 
pay-for-access standard is reason enough to create a new standard that 
is free and open . . . and potentially compatible with the closed 
"standard".

If a company already knew for certain that it wanted to use that 
standard, then the $72 cost for the PDF would be trivial.  But the 
problem is that the cost barrier prevents people from even *looking* at 
the standard to decide whether they want to use it at all.  Furthermore, 
in the corporate world *any* expense creates a significant barrier to 
adoption, because it requires justification and approval.  Even if the 
approval process is easy, no developer wants look like a fool to his/her 
bosses by asking for approval to buy something that they later decide 
not to use.  Developers (very sensibly) want to be able to experiment 
with a technology or standard *before* making a decision to commit to it.

For these reasons, I think it is essential that we (continue to) push 
for free and open interoperability standards.  Society as a whole pays a 
heavy price for the lack of interoperability that results from closed 
standards.

David Booth

Received on Friday, 5 January 2018 17:48:33 UTC