Re: Organize a chat on account/ledger capabilities?

> On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Erik Anderson <eanders@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> On 2015-09-03 08:19, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
>> Hi Evert,
>> Good points but I think fundamentally the W3C has evolved in a world
>> where developer-centric processes are favoured and ISO favours large
>> organisations and governments.
> 
> Adrian, you are not correct here.
> 
> W3C has fast track status with ISO. W3C standards are dual and triple published depending on the target audience. If financial services adoption is required it will be dual/triple published. This process isnt broken, it works for the intended targeted audiences.

But there is no reciprocal membership. Many organizations here (Adrian’s included) cannot join ISO, but can join W3C. Making a W3C standard be beholden to an ISO one limits representation and participation. Furthermore, there are some stakeholder groups participating here that have zero representation on ISO. The playing field is clearly not level.

> 
> As for ISO 20022, it is a 98% open standard. The purchased ISO 20022 has far less usable content. IMO, the published ISO 20022 chapters is pure filler and business process content. Everything required to implement ISO 20022 is open and free to all.

98% of free is still not free, and I think you’ll have a very hard time selling that position to some members here.

> 
> ISO serves a very valuable role.

I don’t think anyone would disagree with that, the question is whether that role is compatible with the spirit of these efforts. I believe that if ISO standards are incorporated into any W3C standards then at the very least:

1. The ISO standard should be entirely free
2. The W3C group should be able to modify the standard to its needs (which seems a rather unrealistic goal to me)
3. The ISO standard should not be mandatory to implement the W3C standard. There should always be an alternative option.

> 
> Erik Anderson
> Bloomberg
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 3 September 2015 15:50:57 UTC