So your goal is a networked world where metadata is routinely trashed by apps developed by those who are too dumb or otherwise disabled to preserve metadata and only the big boys get to do interoperability, right? So if I send you a document for your editing, I can't count on getting it back with xml:id attributes intact.
No thanks, Patrick. That sounds way too much like how things have worked ever since office productivity software first came on the market. In your world, interoperability belongs only to those who can map features 1:1 with the most featureful apps. And that is precisely why OpenDocument never should have been approved as a standard. Your kind of interoperability makes ODF a
de facto Sun Microsystems standard wearing the clothing of a de jure standard. Why not just standardize the whole world on Microsoft apps and be done with it? Are two monopolies maintained by an interoperability barrier between them better than one?
Fortunately, we don't have to debate the issue because the Directives resolve the issue. You lose under the rules of the game.
Gary Edwards (364)
Perry Branch (1)
Few people are aware of the raging debate that has pushed ODF to the edge. The OASIS ODF TC is split between those who support Universal Interoperability, and those who insist on continuing with limited ODF interoperability.
ODF (OpenDocument), formally known as Open Office XML, began it's standards life in the fall of 2002 when Sun submitted the OpenOffice file format to OASIS for consideration as a office suite XML fiel format standard. The work on ODF did not start off as a clean slate in that there were near 600 pages of application specific specification from day one of the standards work. The forces of universal interop have sought for years to separate ODF from the application specific features and implementation model of OpenOffice that began with those early specification volumes, and continues through the undue influence Sun continues to have over the ODF specification work.
Many mistakenly believed that submission of ODF to ISO and subsequent approval as an international standard would provide an effective separation, putting ODF on the track of a truly universal file format.
Marbux is one of those Universal Interop soldiers who has dug in his heels, cried to the heavens that enough is enough, and demanded the necessary changes to ODF interoperability language.
This post he recently submitted to the OASIS ODF Metadata SC is a devastating rebuttal to the arguments of those who support the status quo of limited interoperability.
In prior posts, marbux argues that ISO directives demand without compromise universal interoperability. This demand is also shared by the World Trade Organization directives regarding international trade laws and agreements. Here he brings those arguments together with the technical issues for achieving universal interop.
It's a devastating argument.
The OpenDocument Foundation has worked with the OASIS ODF TC since it's inception with one goal in mind. We believed that ODF could be that elusive Universal File Format. Today we know full well the difficulty of transitioning ODF away from it's application specific roots and the control of Sun. It's not that universal interop is difficult. It's actually simple. It's that OpenOffice would have to change and be re written to properly implement an ODF that is truly universal.
In the past year there were no less than five ODF iX "interoperability enhancement" proposals submitted to ODF TC members for discussion and consideration. Three of these iX proposals were vital to the success of ODF in Massachusetts and California, and were actually signed off on by Massachusetts ITD. The iX discussions did not go well though, as you can see in this status update recently posed by uber universal interop expert, Florian Reuter. (Page down to see the full report).
The iX interoperability enhancements are only part of the story though. There is still the need to fix the language of limited ODF interop that marbux so ably references. And then there is the need to fix and/or fully document the many application specific configuration-compatibility setting used by OpenOffice.
Institute the language of universal interop, embrace and implement the iX interoperability enhancement proposals, and fully document the application specific configuration - compatibility settings used by OpenOffice is a tall order for Sun. This is clearly a challenge for OpenOffice developers. But it has to be done if ODF is to achieve the universal interoperability the world expects and ISO directives demand.
As we approach the September 2nd, 2007 date of the ISO vote on MS OOXML, the world's attention is on the nonsense of OOXML. There is no possible way OOXML should be considered for any kind of standardization, yet here we are. IMHO, there is one and only one reason the world has been brought to the brink of this tragic consideration; and that reason is the limited interoperability of ODF!!
Even Sun has expressed their approval of ISO OOXML (DIS 29500), with this official comment:
“We wish to make it completely clear that we support DIS 29500 becoming an ISO Standard and are in complete agreement with its stated purposes of enabling interoperability among different implementations and providing interoperable access to the legacy of Microsoft Office documents.”
This statement happens to coincide with Microsoft's oft stated reason as to why they could not support ODF and HAD TO create OOXML! Microsoft argues that ODF is insufficient and unable to handle the richness of MSOffice features and the high fidelity conversion of billions of legacy binary documents. They argue that ODF was not designed to meet the needs of existing MS documents, applications and processes. Which is true. ODF was not designed for the conversion of most of the worlds existing documents, applications and processes to ODF.
And this is where the arguments for universal interoperability come into play. The ISO Directives and WTO Trade Requirements insist that ODF be designed exactly to e compatible with existing file formats, including MS binaries, and, interoperable with existing applications, including MS applications.
Sun and many of the current OASIS ODF TC membership argue that this compliance-interoperability with existing Microsoft bound proprietary documents and applications is out of scope, outside the charter, and perhaps even impossible without Microsoft's direct participation and support..
The "impossible to do without Microsoft support" argument is no doubt persuasive. The "out of scope - outside the charter" arguments are ridiculous and can easily be used by Microsoft to justify their non participation.
It's up to the governments of the world to force Microsoft into compliance, participation and support of ODF. The only thing we can do is to make certain that there is no technical barrier standing between ODF and the perfect implementation of ODF by Microsoft applications. So the question is, "Have we done all we could to remove the technical barriers?"
Once again, it's all about universal interoperabilityversus limited ODF interoperability. The language of universal interop and the iX interoperability enhancement proposals are designed to remove any technical barriers to the perfect conversion of existing documents, applications and processes to ODF, and back - (the infamous "round tripping" requirement demanded by MSOffice bound workgroups).
The truth is that if ISO shoots down OOXML - as they MUST if they hope to save whatever's left of public confidence in the international standards process, there is still the problem of converting existing documents, applications and processes to ODF. Without the transition of ODF from limited interop to universal interop, this conversion is impossibly costly and disruptive to try. And because of this, the world will end up implementing OOXML simply because there is no other way to get to XML - as has already been demonstrated by Massachusetts, California, Denmark. and Belgium. More will follow no matter what the vote at ISO simply because ODF is impossible to implement under the circumstances of years of documents, workgroups and workflows being bound to MSOffice.
The ODF iX "interoperability enhancement" proposals were designed to meet needs which we consider vital to universal interoperability.
The universal interop characteristics so noticeably missing from ODf fall into these three categories:
*Compatibility - file format level interop -
::: backwards compatibility / compatibility with existing file formats, including the legacy of billions of binary Microsoft documents
*Interoperability - application level interop-
:::::: application interoperability including interop with all Microsoft applications
*Convergence - cross platform interop:
::::::::: the portable XML document promise of being able to move content/data/media rich document packages across desktop - server - device and Web information systems. Another way of expressing this would be the exchange of portable XML documents with data bindings across desktop productivity environments, enterprise publication-content-archive management systems, SaaS, SOA and Web 2.0
Organizations the world over are at an important inflection point. They need to move existing documents, applications and processes to XML. Once there, the explosively rich digital civilization emerging around Web based collaborative computing is within reach. The big enchilada being SaaS, SOA and the Web 2.0 AJAX-REST mashup interop that promises to shatter all the traditional restrictions of application vendor controlled "interop".
There are only two file formats that could possibly meet the needs of universal interoperability; ODF iX and CDF (the W3C's Compound Document Format).
CDF is unique in that it can meet all three of the above requirements. (Yes, CDF can handle the perfect conversion of existing MS documents, applications and processes to CDF, and back).
ODF on the other hand needs work. For sure it needs the iX "Interoperability enhancement" proposals. Otherwise we can't perfect the conversion of existing documents, apps and processes. For sure ODF needs to implement the language of universal interop, and amend the charter accordingly. A process marbux is not likely to let go of. And for sure, the charter of ODF must also be amended support ISO-WTO directives. Which would be for the charter to include "compatibility with existing file formats and interoperability with existing applications".
Then and only then can we kiss MS OOXML good-bye and good riddance.
Thanks marbux. Well done!
~ge~