Claus von RiegenDirector, Web Services Standards, SAP AG
OASIS SymposiumMay 10 2006, San Francisco
How Standards Address Interoperability Needs: An Industry View
Challenges
Towards Standardization Guidelines
Interoperability Imperative
Role of Standards
Challenges
Towards Standardization Guidelines
Interoperability Imperative
Role of Standards
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 4
Interoperability Imperative
InternetTechnology
Digitalbroadcasting(audio/video)
(Mobile)communi-
cations
e.g.. IPTV, VoD, MP3 download
e.g. VoIP
e.g. Mobile TV
Convergence of networks and services require interoperable solutions across domains
Technology industries have their individual interoperability requirements
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 5
Application
Interoperability Layers
Technical Interoperability Messages are exchanged securely and reliably from sending to receiving infrastructure Receiving infrastructure is responsible for delivering the message payload to application
Semantic Interoperability Application knows the business context to which the payload belongs Payload is valid from an application perspective Application successfully processes payload
Organizational Interoperability Application notifies appropriate users that are responsible for verification and approval
steps and tracks deadlines
Infrastructure
ApprovePOs
Verifyinvoices
Application
Infrastructure1
2
3
1
2
3
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 6
Some Definitions1
Interoperability The ability of two or more networks, systems, devices, applications or components to
exchange information between them and to use the information so exchanged.
Standard Interface A technical description of certain generic requirements that a technical
implementation of that interface must conform to – in order to produce the desired functionality. In the case of information interoperability, today’s generic requirements broadly speaking refer to two categories of information, namely (i) data formats and (ii) protocols.
Open Standard Control: the evolution of the specification should be set in a transparent process open
to all interested contributors; Completeness: the technical requirements of the solution should be specified
completely enough to guarantee full interoperability; Compliance: there is a substantial standard-compliant offering promoted by proponents
of the standard; Cost: fair reasonable and non-discriminatory access is provided to intellectual property
unavoidably used in implementation of the standard.
1Taken from the EICTA Interoperability Whitepaper
Challenges
Towards Standardization Guidelines
Interoperability Imperative
Role of Standards
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 8
Standardization vs. Technology Development
Collaboration Com
petit
ion
Standards Development
Ex-ante
Technology Development
Ex-post
Proliferation of Standards Communities
De jure standardsDe facto standards
Communication / Coordination
Proprietary standards
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 9
Actors in Standardization
Developers Implementers Users
Standards BodyTechnical
contributions (may contain
IPR) IPR declaration
SpecificationsTest casesIPR declarations
Requirements
Product/Services
Sales
Conformance /Interoperability
issues
IP licensingPrototypes Products
Conformance Claims
Implementation feedback
Agree on commondenominator
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 10
Phases in Standardization
RequirementsIdentification
Partnering Specification Development
Initial Implement./
Testing
Incremental Enhancemnt
Final /Maint.
PreparationPhase
DevelopmentPhase
ImplementationPhase
Agreed / common design principles for reaching interoperability
Need Initiator Core Group Standards BodyNeed Initiator Core Group Standards BodyNeed Initiator Core Group Standards Body
Challenges in Standardization
Towards Standardization Guidelines
Interoperability Imperative
Role of Standards
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 12
Challenges in Standardization
Competition to create standards
Large, complex, “all or nothing” standards
Misuse of standards as a means to erect barriers to competition and trade
Lack of rigor in standards development
Lack of test specifications
Domain specific terms, concepts, etc.
Creating standards which don’t work together
Late declaration of IPR
Lack of standards clarity or awareness
Implementation cost
Unclear level of conformance
Proprietary extensions that do not observe interoperability requirements
Closed policies, processes, development groups
Intellectual property encumbrances
Challenges obtaining standards credentials
Cooperation between communities – Lack of common design rules and content reuse
CROSS-TOPICS
PREPARATORY DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Challenges in Standardization
Towards Standardization Guidelines
Interoperability Imperative
Role of Standards
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 14
Aspects of Standards Development
Standards Development
Requirements Collection and
Scoping
Openness
Prototyping & Interop Testing
Maintenance and Errata
Management
AwarenessIPR
Management
Common Design
Principles
Development Efficiency
Conformance
Extensibility
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 15
Openness
Competition to create standards
Misuse of standards as a means to erect barriers to competition and trade
Closed policies, processes, development groups CROSS-TOPICS
PREPARATORY DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION
DevelopersRec. 1: Early and clear commitment to openness
Standards BodyRec. 2: Standards bodies should provide fair and reasonable membership terms and conditions
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 16
IPR Management
Late declaration of IPR Implementation cost
Intellectual property encumbrances CROSS-TOPICS
PREPARATORY DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Standards BodyRec. 3: Standards bodies should provide clear IPR policies. Regarding IPR essential for the implementation of a (proposed) standard, standards developers need to be obligated in terms of Disclosure Licensing (either RAND or Royalty Free)
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 17
Requirements Collection and Scoping
Large, complex, “all or nothing” standards
Creating standards which don’t work together
CROSS-TOPICS
PREPARATORY DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Users / Developers / Standards Body Rec. 4: Standards development efforts should be scoped in a clear and narrow manner. Dependencies and relationships to other standards should clearly be indicated.
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 18
Common Design Principles
Domain specific terms, concepts, etc.
Cooperation between communities – Lack of common design rules and content reuse
CROSS-TOPICS
PREPARATORY DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Developers / Standards Body Rec. 5: Related standards efforts should adopt common design principles. Protocols: (e.g. Web services protocols) need to be modular and extensible so that they can easily be composed with each other Data Formats: industry-specific XML vocabularies need to adopt common naming and design rules (such as the concepts described in UN/CEFACT CCTS) in order to more easily identify semantic commonalities and differences
Rec. 6: Avoid over-specification. Specifications should observe the scope of the standards development effort and implementation details that don’t support interoperability should be kept out of the standard.
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 19
Efficiency
Lack of rigor in standards development
PREPARATORY DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Standards Body Rec. 7: Standards bodies should provide an efficient development process that ensures a high level of quality for its deliverables. Efficiency: Clear rules for issue resolution and decision-making by retaining the ability for minorities to voice their opinion. Quality: Mechanisms that promote early prototype implementations, interoperability testing, and feedback collection provide a higher probability that a standard becomes mature earlier. Evolution: Standards bodies should provide a means to enhance their development processes.
CROSS-TOPICS
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 20
Prototype Development and Interoperability Testing
Lack of test specifications
PREPARATORY DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Standards Body Rec. 8: Specify clear conformance requirements and test cases.
Rec. 9: Make prototype implementations and interoperability testing part of the standards development. Without such a commitment, standards may evolve with only limited industry adoption and implementations with lacking interoperability.
CROSS-TOPICS
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 21
Conformance
Unclear level of conformance
PREPARATORY DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Standards Body Rec. 10: Choose the One Standard - One Test, Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity (1-1SDoC) approach as the common denominator for conformance statements
Standards Implementer Rec. 11: Provide standards conformance statements by means of supplier self-declarations.
CROSS-TOPICS
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 22
Maintenance and Feedback/Errata Management
Lack of rigor in standards development
PREPARATORY DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Standards Body Rec. 12: Provide channels for implementation feedback and processes for issue resolution and errata development, particularly after ratification of a standard
CROSS-TOPICS
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 23
Extensibility
Proprietary extensions that do not observe interoperability requirements
PREPARATORY DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Standards Body Rec. 13: Standards should provide extensibility mechanisms. A standard needs to clearly differentiate between mandatory and optional features. It is the mandatory features that define the minimal set every implementation needs to implement interoperably. A standard should also provide appropriate extensibility mechanisms that implementations can use in order to employ the standard in specific contexts.
Implementers Rec. 14: Extensions need to observe interoperability requirements. Interoperability can suffer if, for example, mandatory features are added.
CROSS-TOPICS
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 24
Awareness
Lack of standards clarity or awareness
Challenges obtaining standards credentials
PREPARATORY DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Standards Body Rec. 15: A standards body should establish liaisons to other organizations that develop standards upon the standards body relies.
Rec. 16: A standards body should ensure that their deliverables are made easily available and well marketed.
CROSS-TOPICS
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 25
EICTA Activities regarding Interoperability
EICTA is the European Industry Association for Information, Communications
and Consumer Electronics Technology promotes the collective interests of the information and
communications technology and consumers electronics sector has long advocated interoperability in various contexts
EICTA Interoperability Task Force set up in September 2003 Produced generic “Interoperability White Paper” in 2004
– Need for interoperability– Open standards as the preferred means to meet this need
Activities to develop a complementary white paper on standardization started in 2005– Goal is to develop a set of guidelines that address challenges identified in
standardization– Focus on experience with standardization activities
This presentation outlines the scope of the new whitepaper– Thanks to Jochen Friedrich (IBM) for co-authoring the initial draft guidelines
SAP AG 2006, How Standards Address Interoperability Needs / C. v. Riegen / 26
Q&A