Standards, Open and Otherwise

I was reading the Wikipedia page on Open Standards. There certainly are a lot of definitions, and this is only one source. No doubt there are many other definitions. One might conclude that the phrase is only a vague suggestion.

What we need is a standard definition of what an open standard is, so we can all agree to it, and, since it would be too ironic otherwise, I guess that should be an open standard definition of what an open standard is.

Before worrying about what an open standard is, it might be good to determine what a standard is. This is no easier. Wikipedia has a long disambiguation page for "standard". The Free Dictionary has a page of definitions for "standard". There are all sorts of possibilities.

Perhaps we should begin with something basic like: "I think, therefore I am". If we can derive meanings for standard and open standard from this, maybe we can get everyone to agree. The problem with this approach is that, it seems, no one has gotten beyond thinking, which may or may not prove that they are, at least to themselves: but nothing else has yet been derived to general satisfaction.

This doesn't leave much alternative other than providing a definition of the phrase with each use. So, if you see the terms standard or open standard used, don't make any assumptions about what they mean, get a definition of them from the user: this is the only way to know what the user means.

"Open" is sexy. "Open" is good. "Open" is in. "Open" rocks. Lately, marketing types do their best to associate "open" with whatever they are marketing. An "open standard" may simply be a standard that the promoter wants you to believe is good, sexy and in. Just as there are too many lawyers, there are too many marketers who have dedicated their lives to abusing language to subvert your decision making. Don't be sucked in. Read the fine print.

My education and work experience are in engineering and IT. My interest in "standards" is in the context of qualifying things that will be used. Thus the definitions of "standard" that are most relevant to me, from those on the Free Dictionary page, are:

An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; a criterion

and

An object that under specified conditions defines, represents, or records the magnitude of a unit.

and

Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence.

and

A degree or level of requirement, excellence, or attainment.

Actually, one of their most appealing (to me) definitions isn't in the definition section - it is in the description of the synonyms of "standard":

a point of reference against which individuals are compared and evaluated

And, similarly, in the thesaurus section:

a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated

When I think of a "standard", this is what I am thinking of.

To be of any use, a standard must be available to the person who is doing the comparison and evaluation. It doesn't have to be available to anyone else, though it may be. When procuring computers, I might define my own standards against which I will compare and evaluate all the candidate systems. I might do this very privately, without letting anyone know what my standards are. Or I might publish my standards in an RFP which I might make available to prospective system vendors subject to a non-disclosure agreement. Or I might publish my standards so that they are available to prospective vendors or others without restrictions on reproduction or use.

Sometimes, two or more otherwise independent entities might agree to a common standard in order to achieve some consistency or compatibility. Many "standards" are published with the intent that others will use them. "Standards organizations" are organizations that specialize in producing such standards. Such organizations may do nothing else other than produce "standards".

Standards may be published to be available to some group of entities. Access to the standard may be very restricted (e.g. I assume Coca Cola has a standard recipe that is available only to its manufacturers around the world - a closely guarded secret never to be disclosed to Pepsi) or unrestricted. Access to a published standard may be subject to entering into an agreement which limits rights to access, use or refer to the standard. The lawyers of proprietors and the law makers have developed diverse means for extracting value from property.

So, what might an "open" standard be?

In contrast, consider what a "proprietary" standard might be. Perhaps the definition of an "open" standard should preclude the promotion or promulgation of any proprietary interest. Proprietary interests are protected and promoted by means which are generally restrictive and compulsive: not what I think of as "open", generally.

In conclusion, my definition of an "open standard" is:

a standard which is not constrained by and does not incorporate, promote or promulgate any proprietary interest.

There is a problem with this definition: in most countries any published standard will be subject to copyright which establishes an unavoidable proprietary interest in the publication and unavoidable proprietary constraints on use of the publication. Therefore there is no such thing as a published standard which is not constrained by proprietary interest, at least not until years later when the copyright expires. So, maybe this definition should be amended to:

a published standard: which is not subject to copyright, or in which the copyright owner explicitly grants permission for anyone to reproduce and use the published standard without fee, royalty or other compensation, and which does not otherwise incorporate, promote or promulgate any proprietary interest.