Forget standards … you’ll never get one by Chris Skinner.
A post by Ed Dodds on the ontologies-based-standards@ontolog.cim3.net list pointed me to this rather interesting post in finance of all places.
Chris writes:
Anyways, after coffee I got into a chat with the Standards Forum and one of their brethren told me that banks are childish about standards.
Childish?
Yes, he said. I deal with many industries – automotive, airlines, utilities and more – and banks are really juvenile when it comes to agreeing standards. For example, I asked a group of senior bankers the other day: “how many legs are there in an OTC Derivative exchange”.
One said two, the two counterparties; another said three or four, if you include the end customer; and two others said an infinite number.
Then they argued about it and could not agree.
I said: “there you go. If you cannot even agree on a simple question about OTC Derivatives, you will never agree global standards.”
I laughed and asked what the solution was.
He said: “avoid a global standard as you will never have one. You’ve tried for years and you will never agree such a thing. Instead, work on adapters.”
In other words, like electricity, we need plug adapters to our networks, not standards.
Totally agree with that.
Well, yes and no as to “Totally agree with that.”
Yes, there won’t be any universal standards, but no, that doesn’t mean we need to forget about standards.
Take “plug adapters” for example. Plug adapters could not exist without standards for the plugs that go into plug adapters. Yes?
We need to forget “universal” standards and instead concentrate on “local” standards. Standards that extend only so far as we are competent to define them.
Leave the task of writing standards adapters to people with experience with one or more “local” standards who have a need for the adapter.
They will be far more aware of the requirements for the adapter than we are.
Sounds like a use case for topic maps doesn’t it?