I was going through Google to find a link to a web services story that I wrote and found a link to a long weblog you wrote about my article. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, as you say, but you stressed that my article was long on opinion and short on fact. I dispute that and I'm disappointed that you decided not to contact me directly with your concerns. What you call "Microsoft and IBM bashing" in the article is in fact your opinion, not mine. I did thorough research for that story and was told by many involved in the process about concerns over MS and IBM's position in the standards process, overlapping work between bodies and licensing and patent issues surrounding web services themselves. I quote a number of varied sources, including people from the standards bodies, vendors, analysts and CIOs, to that effect. You give your readers the impression that I don't have any factual evidence to back up my story. You state that it is my opinion. That is simply not true. If you take a close read of the story, you'll see these assertions are backed up with quotes from sources who expressed those opinions. I presented those opinions to Microsoft, IBM, the standards bodies and all other interested parties, who all responded in the article with their views on the future of web services.

Here are your specific statements that I take issue with:

"For starters, the W3C group in question is not WSCI, its the WS-Choreography working group."

You imply that I referred to the group incorrectly. I did not. Here's what I said in the article: "W3C formed the Web Services Choreography Working Group to consider the specifications."

You say that I quoted you out of context and that in the story I supported the myth that MS "stormed out of the meeting." I neither stated that myth nor perpetuated it in the article. Here is what I said:

"David Chappell, Sonic Software's chief technology evangelist and a member of the W3C working group, remembers the meeting well. He says the representative from Microsoft and one from BEA Systems "were clear that there was this other BPEL initiative, and they said, 'The wishes of both Microsoft and BEA are that the group focus on things that are complementary to BPEL and not competing,'" recalls Chappell. "The response from the group was, 'We'll take that under advisement.' So Microsoft said, 'We're not going to participate.'" The Microsoft representative never returned, although BEA continued to be a part of the group. IBM does not have a representative in the group."

Should I have not reported that MS refused to participate in the group? It is fact, and I don't believe it supports or refutes any myth.

You state: "Sonic is also a very active member of the WS-BPEL TC, although the article leaves that detail out, which by default implies that we are in an opposing camp."

I think that stretches my reader's interpretation of your role in the story illogically and unreasonably. How does membership constitute being in a camp or out of one? I do not attribute criticism of MS' motives for being in the meeting or not being in the meeting to you. Your membership would not have proven or disproven that because your anecdote as related in the story does not do anything but state what happened at the meeting. I quoted you in the story because you were present at the meeting. What better source to report the facts than someone sitting there in the room?

You go on to state that, "Since that inaugural face-to-face meeting the two groups, W3C WS-Choreography and OASIS WS-BPEL have appointed liaisons between the 2 groups, and intend to share work and not compete with each other. This is another detail that didn't make the cut in the final article."

Really? Here's what I state in the article: "Responding to complaints about potential confusion and duplication, Oasis and W3C established liaisons to coordinate work between the two groups to try to avoid overlap."

You go on to say, "There is another part of this article that has me claiming that Microsoft and IBM won't let anyone share information about their spec workshops."

That is incorrect. Nowhere do I state that IBM does not allow sharing of information about specification workshops. And you acknowledge that in fact MS did not let you share information. You accuse me of quoting you out of context to fit my purposes. Yet if you had seen fit to include the context surrounding this fact in your weblog, your readers would have seen that the reason I included it was because multiple sources had complained that the work on web services is done behind the walls of MS and not in the standards groups. Here's what I said:
"Critics say Microsoft and IBM's strategy of writing specifications outside of the standards groups limits give-and-take. "It's turning into a proxy war where Microsoft and IBM are coming up with what they feel will be the standards and shopping them around to see who will rubber-stamp them," says an official from a standards group who requested anonymity. "If one won't take it, they take it to the other. They're playing W3C and Oasis off against each other.""

You imply that I took this anecdote out of context. The context is that people are complaining that web services standards are not being developed in the open. This was an example of that lack of openness, according to critics.

You finish up by posing the rhetorical question: "Do I think Christopher Koch is a bad guy for creating this spin in the article? No. He is entitled to his opinion, and he is not alone in having that opinion. We hear similar concerns from the IT community very regularly."

If you are hearing these concerns from the IT community regularly, then how have I created spin? By reporting on their concerns? That's my job. To imply that this is some sort of fabrication or my own opinion is irresponsible, I think.

A Blogger named Phil Wainewright took up the inaccurate statements made about my article in your blog and presented them as fact:
"It suits journalists to present the standards process as a bitter struggle fought by unscrupulous vendors. But sometimes their imagination gets the better of them. Sonic's Dave Chappell has this week published his side of a story reported by CIO Magazine last week under the headline The Battle for Web Services.

Although Dave says he was not misquoted, he describes how his comments were presented in a misleading context, and how pertinent facts were omitted. The article gives the impression that the IBM and Microsoft-led WS-BPEL group at OASIS is not even talking to the W3C's WS-Choreography group. But Dave — whose company participates in both — points out that in fact there is active liaison between the two groups. While he concedes that there is "a rift" and that "there are 'politics and egos' involved in the battle for mindshare," it's not the case that the divide is unbridgeable — and every effort is being made to build bridges across the divide.

But if a respected title like CIO Magazine declares that "the Web services standards process began to fall apart this year," surely that's as good as an official declaration? Not according to Dave, who concludes that "this article took my comments out of context in order to get some sensationalism and create some overblown hype."

Why is it, then, that journalists are so keen on seeking out and sensationalizing differences of opinion in web services standards debates? The explanation is simple. It sells copy. These are the headlines and stories that readers turn to. They lap them up. To be frank, I'm not above hinting at standards dissent in headlines on Loosely Coupled if it will bring a few more of our target readers on board, although I balk at misleading them once I've caught their attention."

Looks like both you and Phil Wainewright could have used a closer reading of the article. I did not "imagine" this story. I do not give the impression that "IBM and Microsoft-led WS-BPEL group at OASIS is not even talking to the W3C's WS-Choreography group." In fact, I point out that they have created liaisons. I do not conclude, anywhere, that the divide in web services is "unbridgeable." And I did not purposely mislead readers, as Mr. Wainewright claims. In fact, my readers, as quoted in the story, are some of the loudest complainers about the process.

I could have used an opportunity to respond to charges that I take very seriously, that impugn my reporting abilities, my integrity and my motives for writing stories.

Sincerely,

Christopher Koch