Java Standardization: Current Status and Future Outlook
By Dana Marks
Java Marketing Group, IBM
Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SMI), and their subsidiary JavaSoft, submitted an application
to ISO/IEC JTC1 for recognition of Sun as a submitter of a Publicly Available Standard (PAS) on
March 14, 1997. They did this in the hope that it would be adopted as an International Standard. The specification
was submitted to ISO as a PAS in order to take advantage of a "fast track" process that has only
recently become officially available.
In the past, it has taken well over two years for a submission to become an International Standard, even
if everyone is in perfect agreement over the architecture, specifications, and details of the submission. Any
disagreements cause delays and possibly several loops through the process before that consensus is
achieved that is the hallmark of the standards community. The PAS process reduces the amount of time
required to create an International Standard to about one year by eliminating several steps in the early part
of the standardization process. The eliminated steps are generally considered by the standards community
as the place where the consensus is initially established.
Consensus is typically defined for purposes of the standards process as, in the end,
more than 2/3 voting in favor of the standard and less than 1/3 voting against it, and that all
negative comments are responded to and votes changed as appropriate. Consensus is the
rule in standards activities because use of standards by their very nature are a voluntary process.
Creation of standards is an activity carried out by a large number of stakeholders from all segments
of the market; producers, consumers, government, and academia. Adoption of standards is based on
market acceptance and interest, driving the producers to voluntarily conform to a standard for the good
of the market and their position in the marketplace. Therefore, consensus is a very important aspect of
the creation process. It assures that no single segment of the market is dictating the specifications for
their own benefit, and that the public benefit is being taken into account.
The Java PAS submission was put to a vote of the member bodies of ISO/IEC JTC1 in April, with
a three-month response period. On July 24, the results of the voting were reported.
The possible responses to the ballot are:
- Approval with or without comments -- This is an unconditional
approval, although comments may be provided that the national body making this vote would like to
see considered during the ballot resolution process.
- Disapprove (comments required) -- This is a conditional disapproval. If the comments are
satisfactorily resolved then the vote will be changed to "Approval".
- Abstain -- No vote has been submitted by this member body.
Results of the voting
Twenty-four member bodies responded to the PAS ballot; the ballot closed with the following initial
results:
- 3 approval
- 5 approvals with comments
- 15 disapproval with comments
- 1 abstention with comments
While it appears on the surface that the voting result means that any hope for a
formal ISO/IEC JTC1 Java standard is dead, nothing could be farther from the truth. In reality, the
comments are very favorable with regard to the technical proposal and recognition that Java is a very important
emerging technology that would benefit and receive benefits from the international standards community. The
comments, both on the positive and negative ballots, come from the issues which the PAS application process
is supposed to bring forth for consideration. The comments on the ballots generally revolve around six major issues:
- Sun Microsystems, Inc., the applicant to be a PAS submitter, is a "for profit"
company (10 comments). The fundamental question on the ballot dealt with this issue, not the
quality of the technical submission. In the past, all standards were developed by a diverse group of concerned
volunteers and the consensus was developed along with the specification. With the advent of the PAS process, it
was recognized that a significant number of potentially valuable standards were being developed outside the traditional
standards committees. This process was intended to recognize organizations dedicated to the development of
specifications with an open and consensus building process. The process also allows for individuals to submit a
PAS applications, but this seems to be the sticking point of most of the comments. Since Sun may reap
substantial benefits from standardization of Java, the majority of the comments indicated that future PAS
submissions only be allowed from "standards committee-like" organizations,
like the OMG or a government-sponsored consortium.
- The adequacy of the PAS process itself to satisfy the need for a "fast path" but prevent
subversion of the standards process (6 comments). Several member bodies
used this forum to indict the PAS process for allowing individual company submissions.
- Intellectual property rights issues (19 comments). The question of whether
ownership of intellectual property passes to ISO upon submission of a PAS was the most popular comment. In hopes of
ensuring that the standard may be freely and openly implemented, the generally-accepted approach is to turn over all
trademarks and provide an unrestricted license to any patents involved in the proposed standard. ISO members fear
that an international standard requiring royalty payments to the owning company would unduly benefit that company
and restrict the openness of the standard. To resolve these comments, Sun will have to release its trademark and
patent ownership rights and give them to ISO.
- Maintenance of the standard (16 comments). Many committee members
insist that once the PAS is accepted and approved, the future maintenance should reside with the standards
community, not with Sun, regardless of their intentions. The original submission indicated that Sun had some
very long range plans about where they wanted to go with Java. The member bodies objected to this and
indicated that future maintenance could only reside in the hands of ISO committees.
- Completeness of the submission (8 comments). Several member bodies
were concerned that since there are already future plans for Java, that the submission was not complete
enough to become an enduring standard. The process requires review and update at intervals of no more
than five years to ensure freshness and applicability of the approved standards.
- Implementation of conformance tests (7 comments). Conformance to standards is a
claim made by manufacturers or developers of products. In some cases, but not all, there are conformance
testing suites that ensure that the claims can be verified. These tests are generally administered by neutral
third parties or interested governmental agencies, but never by any organization that might be perceived
as "owners" of the standard. In this case, Sun already has specified a "100% Pure Java" test
suite to ensure conformance to the specification. The member bodies indicated that it would be inappropriate
and a conflict of interest for Sun to administer, or be involved with, conformance
testing of an international standard.
Where do we go from here?
Sun has until September 17 to respond to the comments on the ballots.
Member bodies may change their votes based on the responses that Sun provides, both positively and negatively.
Therefore, the old saying that "It's not over `til it's over" applies here. In order to change votes
and have the specification adopted as an international standard, Sun will probably have to grant a license to
ISO for all intellectual property rights, change their position on the future maintenance and conformance testing
of the standard, and resolve the "scope of work" issues regarding the completeness of the submitted
specification. If these actions are taken, then the votes would probably change to 15 approvals,
9 disapprovals -- still not enough for approval of the ballot.
If Sun were to ask an existing "standards-like" body to adopt the specification, thereby
eliminating the objections about an open, consensus-building development process, then most of
the objections on the ballot would be resolved, with a probable acceptance vote of 21 to 3. However,
this is a great deal to ask, and it may be more than Sun is willing to give in order to have Java accepted
as an international standard.
Interestingly enough, the opposition to Sun's application was led by Microsoft, primarily because they
see themselves as having the most to lose if Java becomes an International Standard. They have been
taking petty shots at this submission in the press and have referred to Java supporters
as "religious zealots" among other things. The reason for this opposition is that
they see Java as a threat to the dominance of their Windows and NT operating systems. At the
same time, Microsoft is working feverishly to implement Java technology. It is clear that they fear
the promise of Java and are willing to fight its success in the world standards arena as well as the marketplace.
Regardless of how Sun responds to these ballots, it is clear from all the member
body ballots that Java is considered to be a very important topic for consideration. It seems
that in the right environment the world standards community would be very happy to have
an International Standard on Java. The ball is now in Sun's court, and we have to wait and
see how they respond to the ballot.
About the Author:
Dana Marks is the Program Director of Java Technology for IBM’s Internet Division. He
is responsible for making sure that IBM’s commitment to Java is well known, and for showing
how Java is not just a cool technology, but rather a tool that is ready for business deployment today.
Dana has worked in the information technology industry for more than 30 years, and has
been with IBM for most of that time. He has held a variety of positions within IBM, developing system
and application software for large and small systems, managing programming and support groups, and
marketing development tools for large and small systems.
Dana spent six years working on U.S. and International Standards committees, holding
the position of editor, subcommittee chair, and International Representative. He has taught
technical and management classes in Computer Science and Network Architecture for the past
25 years and has spoken on a number of topics to interested user groups around the world. Dana
holds a BA degree in Business, an MS in Cybernetic Systems, and the designation of
Certified Computer Professional (CCP).
|