Is the solution open source or open standards?

About Directions

Calendar

Syndicate This Blog

RSS 0.91 feed

RSS 1.0 feed

RSS 2.0 feed

Top Referers

www.heartevents.nl (60)
www.thegisforum.com (58)
atlas.ca.gov (45)
planetgs.com (29)
www.serpanalytics.com (26)

Special Announcement

Our Points

Tuesday, August 15. 2006

Is the solution open source or open standards?

Military Information Technology has an editorial pushing for open source software for the military.

The article is set up by a vignette describing a new coalition sensor and how open source software allows it to be integrated into coalition network after "the command interface has been modified to import data from the new sensor."

Open source software would make that possible. But, so would open standards. In fact, with open standards (open interfaces actually) implemented in the coalition network and the sensor, there'd be perhaps no need to modify the command interface at all. Oh, and those interfaces could be implemented in open source and proprietary code, should military leaders demand it.

Having spent six years now learning about interoperability standards in my work with OGC, I fear there's still a lot of places they are not fully understood. Perhaps this was just an unfortunate choice for an example. It is however one chance to point out that open source is not the answer to every problem. Perhaps open source is becoming the hammer for every nail?

Posted by Adena Schutzberg in Open Source, Standards, Sensors at 09:41 | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

It's the difference between "tell me" (the standard) and "show me" (the implementation). Without an implementation, a standard is just a tedious document that tells me how to solve a problem in theory. Without a standard, an implementation is just one developer's opinion that shows me how she solved the problem.

Standards and Open Source work together, and they are not an either/or proposition. I would argue that standards without an Open Source implementation are not really a standard.

#1 Howard Butler (Link) on 2006-08-15 11:37 (Reply)

"Open Standards", whose only implementation is in closed source and proprietary code, is hardly particularly "Open". Better to call it "Public Documentation", which is what it really is, rather than "Open Standards". Not only is there a danger that the owner of the implementation effectively controls the standard (by defining how it really works) but there is no opportunity for others to propose future enhancements to the Standard by studying how it it is implemented in code (or to similarly improve/extend the existing code). Indeed, the process of creating "Standards" needs actual working code implementation(s) to discover all of it's subtle implications and unrealized ambiguities. "Open" comes in many different shades of meaning - better to promote the most encompassing definition than to end up with another watered-down and meaningless buzzword.

#2 Marc on 2006-08-15 15:12 (Reply)

I believe that Adena hit the nail on the head so to speak. The question isn't about defining "interoperability" as always meaning "open source" code when the real business need isn't necessarily tools for programming, but access to the right data and analytical functions. If I can buy what I need (and get support) to accomplish the job, why would I sit down and write (and support) it myself? And of course that would assume that I still have that programming ability which I no longer do, so to me having applications that I can get to interoperate on their own is better than a "free" environment for me to customize my own interface. The answer to the question depends on your abilities and anyone who claims that there is only one way is only looking from their own perspective.

#3 Dale on 2006-08-21 09:12 (Reply)

"Open Standards" (and even "Open Interfaces"), however you want to define it, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standards) has been around for years although often without the prepended "Open". This hasn't necessary guaranteed interoperability. If the associated code isn't open source then multiple individuals/groups/organizations need to write code to the Standard's specifications themselves with no guarantee that they understood it correctly, much less that it actually interoperates with all of the other implementations. Sure, "Open" test suites to validate the code could be made available but why not also include an Open source implementation(s)? Before being released, an "Open Standard" really needs to be thoroughly tested in actual use - the code and standards are really Yin and Yang. There are plenty of examples of failed "Open Standards" that have been published but were never implemented/tested before being released. This is the advantage of "Open Source" in the editorial that Adena refers to. Having the Open source code available doesn't imply that everyone is forced to develop their own software.

#4 Josh on 2006-08-21 21:34 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Advertisers

Polls

What's your preferred format for electronic publications?

	July '09
Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31