Re: [school-discuss] SIF - A second glance

[Alan Chen <alan@digikata.com>]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 08:01:25AM -0500, Doug Loss wrote:
> Teemu wrote:
> 
> > I think it is a good idea to create an OPEN standard. I don't like the fact
> > that you have to be a paid member of SIIA if you want to affect the specs.
> > The same thing is with IMS standards, to participate in a working group you
> > have to pay $5000. How stupid, what an open standard is that?
> 
> Does anyone know how SIF and IMS relate to each other?  Bruno and I looked at IMS
> some years ago too, and concluded that it was much to bureaucratic to ever
> actually come up with anything usable.  But if these two flawed bureaucracies
> compete with each other for "market share," it may be much easier for whatever we
> do to be accepted.
> 
> --
> Doug Loss                 All I want is a warm bed
> Data Network Coordinator  and a kind word and
> Bloomsburg University     unlimited power.
> dloss@bloomu.edu                Ashleigh Brilliant

Just a thought, but as along as the open standard is a standard, it
becomes very easy to convert data between EduML (for example) and
SIF/IMS later if they actually do get significant share.  My personal
impression is that the SIF standard is too beaurecratic, competitive,
and closed to become any sort of widely used protocol.  The
connectivity portion of the SIF I think is a little silly, they're
just re-inventing what any number of other protocols have already done
better - e.g. CORBA, SOAP, etc. I should mention that my opinion is based
on a reading if SIF specs over a year ago...

-- 
Alan Chen
Digikata LLC
http://digikata.com