Those who are following the development of Web services standards have been holding their breath, waiting to see how the controversy over choreography and workflow specifications will resolve itself.

Most people who are intimately familiar with the issue have been telling me for some time now that a peaceful resolution is likely. But, now that Business Process Execution Language for Web services (BPEL4WS) co-authors BEA, IBM, and Microsoft have announced the submission of specification to the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the controversy is about to evolve into an industry-splitting fracas.

On the surface, it looks like just another skirmish among vendors over a standard. But under the covers, it's nothing of the sort. Whereas most such skirmishes take place behind the closed doors of a single consortium, this one pits OASIS, which is emboldened by the combined muscle of IBM and Microsoft, against the de facto leader of Web standards setting--the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).

While everyone I've spoken to seems to prefer that all Web services standards setting take place under the umbrella of a single consortium, IBM and Microsoft's continued backing of more Web services technical committees within OASIS is making that organization look more like an IBM/Microsoft pawn that's being used to checkmate the W3C into irrelevancy.

For those of you not up to speed on this controversy, the promise of Web services--that of a series of specifications unanimously adopted by all vendors--is on the verge of becoming a train wreck. The lack of consensus over how to handle Web services workflow, choreography, and transactions has devolved into a bifurcation of the industry into two camps--one that's behind the Web services choreography interface (WSCI) and another that's supporting BPEL4WS.

For a fleeting moment, it looked like a potential resolution was in the works when Microsoft surprised everyone by joining the W3C's working group for Web services choreography. That membership lasted little more than a day. Before the news of Microsoft joining the group had even been reported, Microsoft withdrew its membership, within hours of attending its first meeting. Barely three weeks have passed and now OASIS appears as though it will have its own working group to handle the same problem.

The good news is that I don't have to rattle my favorite saber over this particular submission. Virtually every submission by either Microsoft or IBM has, at least at the onset, had unbearable or unknown intellectual property issues connected with it. In the case of BPEL4WS, however, all three co-authors have agreed to make the specification royalty-free.

The bad news is that the combined market presence of these three vendors in the Web services space means that the industry will have little choice but to follow their lead on the Web services standards setting process. The other bad news is that they've chosen OASIS as the brand to hide behind in this power play. Not that OASIS is an evil organization. But with a lion's share of the industry's power behind OASIS, the W3C is beginning to look more like David than Goliath. In order for the story to turn out with Biblical correctness, David must develop the will to strike.

OASIS: Goliath or puppet?
In this story, however, OASIS is not Goliath. OASIS is a conveniently positioned puppet. This royal battle is Microsoft and IBM vs. the W3C. If OASIS didn't exist, Microsoft and IBM would have found some other consortium to do its bidding. Forgetting for a moment what will become of Web services choreography standards, the real question now turns to what will become of the W3C.

To be fair, the W3C is working on many more strategic projects than Web services. By some accounts, the W3C had to be dragged into working on the few Web services specifications for which it has established working groups. Understandably, the current desperate economic climate has resulted in a situation where software vendors simply can't wait for slow-moving standards consortia to produce the interoperability standards necessary to gain market acceptance and traction for their offerings, let alone an entire new ecosystem like Web services.

The W3C is ill-equipped to respond to that sort of market pressure and, as is illustrated by its work on projects like The Semantic Web for which no such pressure exists, has a proclivity towards strategic rather than tactical endeavors. Even so, the W3C has tried to respond to the needs of the Web services ecosystem, but not to the satisfaction of many vendors--including Microsoft and IBM. Disputes over the W3C's intellectual property policies haven't helped matters.

Although intent to make BPEL4WS available on a royalty-free basis has been announced, that announcement did not come as a result of OASIS' intellectual property policy. Backed by the combined might of IBM and Microsoft, OASIS' rise to prominence is coming at the expense of the W3C's stature and brand, and perhaps long-term, the existence of royalty-free standards.

The non-royalty-free Web Services Interoperability Organization (WS-I), whose self-proclaimed but easily questioned mission is to guarantee interoperability through the provision of recommendations and test suites, is another IBM-Microsoft joint venture that's contributing to the theft of the W3C's thunder. It's a disturbing and unfortunate trend. The W3C's insistence on a royalty-free intellectual property policy was a gut-wrenching move for the consortia that demonstrated the thought leadership of W3C director Tim Berners-Lee.

If the bleeding is to be stopped, the W3C can no longer confine itself to taking the moral high ground. As long as I've been reporting on the issue of standards and intellectual property, the W3C has been happy to discuss its own announcements and events, but the organization and its leader refuse to take the gloves off when a nasty trend that could have long-term negative consequences for the Internet community is afoot. When it comes to threats like the current situation, the W3C refuses to comment. Over the last year, as the WS-I came to fruition and Web services specifications like WS-Security were handed to OASIS, I asked the W3C for a comment from Tim Berners-Lee but was turned down on all occasions. It's time for a change.

Berners-Lee can and should continue to play the good cop roll, keeping himself at arms-length from enemy lines. However, the W3C needs someone to address issues that challenge the relevance of the W3C.

		Reader Resources Web services ZDNet White Papers

In my discussions with W3C officials, I've suggested that the various consortia establish a compliance organization that runs in parallel to the standards-setting organization. In the same way that buyers may shy away from uncertified products in other realms (such as the Java Community Process J2EE certification), the imprimatur of the W3C should be available only to those products and services that have proven to be compliant with its recommendations. ("Recommendation" is the official terminology for a W3C standard.) This alone can raise the visibility of the W3C and the value of its imprimatur.

Articulating the value of that imprimatur and everything it stands for (including support of royalty-free standards), should be the job of the compliance organization director. After all, who better than the testing organization's director could draw attention to products, services, and vendors that are in compliance, and those that are not, and then to make hay about it?

In another, post-OS/2 debacle era, when the idea of IBM and Microsoft working together was ludicrous, the W3C was offered some measure of protection that if either company attempted a power play, the other would provide the necessary countermeasures to thwart it. But now, with the two working together, the W3C is about to get steamrolled (at least when it comes to Web services). Unless, of course, it decides to defend itself.

If you think the W3C needs to step up to the plate, use ZDNet's TalkBack below to submit your job application to the W3C for the position of "Compliance Director." Otherwise, use TalkBack to give your take on this controversy or vent to me at david.berlind@cnet.com.

Read other commentary by David Berlind.