The rise of the API as a means to deliver services and other business capabilties from the Internet isn't a new development. However, it is a safe prediction for 2009 that the number and variety of APIs for accessing business services will continue to proliferate. In theory, industry standards should benefit as more service providers look for proven models to put up new APIs. You'd also imagine that customers would be demanding adherence to industry standards in the hope that standards would be of help should customers want to get their data back from "the cloud" (see Vinnie Mirchandani's related advice for customers as they move into the cloud).

The reality regarding the role of industry standards as the basis for APIs is messy. In the next several posts, I'll take a look at some of the opportunities and challenges for industry standards. First, I'll take a look at how the licenses under which standards are offered by different standards organizations help and hinder standards adoption and convergence.

Derivations and Modifications

I'm not an IP attorney, but you don't need to be an IP attorney to realize that the lack of a standard license for business language standards adds costs, complexity, and poses a barrier to opportunistic use and convergence of industry standards. The matrix below isn't intended as anything like an in-depth analysis of the IP policies of different standards organizations. But then again, most developers and implementers don't do much research into these licenses anyway. They simply assume freely available standards are available for use without restriction - which isn't always a good assumption. While not wildly divergent, the licenses described below do illustrate a few common differences among licenses.

In some of my recent presentations, I've talked about where HR-XML has enjoyed uptake within the broader HR services ecosphere and where it hasn't. See slides 11 and 12 from the deck embedded below (or if the embed is giving you problems, view here). Simply stated, HR-XML has had some success as a starting point for B2B integrations, such as those between applicant tracking systems and screening service providers. This is good. There is a lot of value in such connections. Where HR-XML hasn't proved as useful is for those stakeholders that need a data model that works in a consistent way across HR business processes. I've mentioned in prior posts, the forthcoming 3.0 library goes a long way towards providing the uniform model that has been lacking.

On slide 12, I cover support by "tool and platform" providers. There are a few success stories here, but these are fairly specialized offerings. For example, in one of our recent Webinars, Pilotfish Technology demonstrated an HR-XML-2_5-Enrollment to ASC-X12-834 transformation offered with their XCS eiConsole platform.

With the version 3.0 release, HR standards are much better positioned for some level of support by enterprise application integration (EAI) vendors. This is mainly because the version 3.0 release fits into an architecture that is bigger than just HR. As I've written elsewhere, the version 3.0 library will be the first industry standard to be designed as a plug-in to the Open Applications Group Integration Specification (OAGIS).

This is news way after the fact, but is "news to me" since I just came across this morning! I had heard that ARTS XML, the standards organization for retail industry was considering closer alignment with the OAGIS architecture. I looks like this conversation has begun in earnest:
http://tinyurl.com/5dz6md

At the recently concluded HR-XML Partnering and Integration Summit there was a presentation by a company that had opportunistically borrowed from HR-XML and ARTs in putting together a time-card integration. It will be nice when this can be done through having a common OAGIS architecture.

If you've worked in standards development for any time, you've likely seen skirmishes as well as major battles. Some prove to be worthy fights, while some have proven to be an absolute waste of everyone's time. Few produce absolute, bright-line resolution, but many do influence the directions of all parties - often for the better. Some are civil, while some involve behavior that we probably wouldn't want our children to emulate. However, this post isn't a rant about manners.

I'd be curious about what others who have worked in the area of business language and messaging standards would consider the most unruly standards battle of the past decade? "WS-*" web services versus ebXML? OAGIS vs. UBL? UN/CEFACT CCTS vs. ASC X12 CICA? While "REST" isn't so much a standard or specification, some of the "WS-*" web services vs REST debates have approached the same decibal levels. Even the "un-standards body," Microformats community, has had a bitter debate or two within its ranks.

While avoiding acrimony is desirable, the level of rancor within a discussion isn't by itself an indicator of progress or a lack of it. You can certainly find examples of individuals and organizations who were opposite sides of some of the aforementioned battles who have found enough common ground to be working actively and constructively on standards projects today. Really, this is the very essences of standards making -- going from the divergent to the common -- so those who have managed to reconcile differences to work with former competitors truly are the unsung heroes within their standards-making communities.

Some news from Open Application Group CEO, David Connelly:

I am pleased to announce that the Chemical Industry Data Exchange (CIDX), announced earlier this week a plan to transition the organization’s operational and governance roles to the Open Applications Group (OAGi) by year-end pending an affirmative vote by CIDX members in November.

The plan was developed in response to the chemical industry’s need to more fully develop cross-industry standards to facilitate eBusiness with its customers outside the chemical sector. The plan calls for CIDX to transfer operational control to OAGi and governance to the ChemITC beginning January 2009. Under the proposal, the Chem eStandards® will remain free, and new cross-industry standards from OAGi will also be free.

I was there at the CIDX meeting this week working with the CIDX team and members to develop a transition plan. The OAGi Board of Directors is fully behind this initiative, and we hope to share more details with you soon.

You can read the full press release here.