Document Wars's feed | Diigo Group

OOXML vs ODF: where next for interoperability? | Reg Developer

Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:37:45 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

'A diversion from the real end game – the taking of the internet'

Gary Edwards of the Open Document Foundation has a fascinating post on the important of Microsoft Office compatibility to the success of the ISO-approved Open Document formats.

It is in places a rare voice of sanity:

People continue to insist that if only Microsoft would implement ODF natively in MSOffice, we could all hop on down the yellow brick road, hand in hand, singing kumbaya to beat the band. Sadly, life doesn’t work that way. Wish it did.
Sure, Microsoft could implement ODF - but only with the addition of application specific extensions to the current ODF specification … Sun has already made it clear at the OASIS ODF TC that they are not going to compromise (or degrade) the new and innovative features and implementation model of OpenOffice just to be compatible with the existing 550 million MSOffice desktops.

Tags: foundation iso microsoft odf ooxml w3c

Posted by: garyedwards

Compound Document Formats Group Charter

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:52:29 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

be widely implementable in browsers and authoring tools

Tags: cdf da-vinci foundation opendocument w3c

Posted by: garyedwards

Harmonization and Interop: The dizzying dance of ODF, OOXML, and CDF

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:14:25 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

With the ISO BRM fast approaching, the harmonization of ODF and OOXML is all the rage. The legendary marbux takes on this discussion arguing that ODF and OOXML both lack the interoperability framework needed to meet ISO directives describing interop requirements. He argues that interop between MSOffice and OpenOffice can be achieved using CDF.

Tags: cdf ibm interop oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml uic w3c

Posted by: garyedwards

The Wizard of ODF: How ODF broke the semantic web and ran off iwth RDF/XML

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:37:01 -0000

Tags: archives odf rdf w3c

Posted by: garyedwards

Open XML trumps ODF in document format fight, consulting firm says

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:53:38 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Marino Marcich, executive director of the OpenDocument Format Alliance, retorted via e-mail that many users are taking "a buyer-beware attitude" toward Open XML because that format "is not interoperable and will tie them to the upgrade path of a single vendor."

For example, he noted that Becta, the U.K. government's educational technology agency, last week released a report of its own advising, among other things, that to ensure the widest compatibility of files between different applications, Office 2007 users shouldn't save documents in Open XML. Instead, Becta recommended the continued use of Microsoft's older and proprietary .doc, .xls and .ppt formats.

It's true, OOXML is not interoperable. It was designed for MSOffice and MSOffice only. The problem is that there is no interoperable" alternative to OOXML!!!!

ODF itself has serious interoperability problems fully demonstrated at the October 2007 ODF Interoeprability Workshop held in Barcelona Spain. If users want interoperbility with ODF, they must settle on a single ODF vendor. So how is that different from the interop problems imposed by OOXML?

posted by garyedwards

Tags: burtongorup cdf odf okelly ooxml w3c

Posted by: garyedwards

Open XML trumps ODF in document format fight, consulting firm says

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:53:38 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

The OpenDocument Format (ODF) remains "more of an anti-Microsoft political statement than an objective technology selection" by users, according to a report released Monday by analysts at Burton Group, who recommend that companies adopt Microsoft Corp.'s Office Open XML document format whether or not it is approved as an ISO standard next month.

Tags: burtongorup cdf css odf okelly ooxml w3c xhtml

Posted by: garyedwards

Standard or Not, OOXML Has a Lot Going for It | Redmond Developer News - Desmond

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:53:38 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Ultimately, O'Kelly said it best in his report: "The relative success of ODF and OOXML, in any case, will be determined more by its utility and which community effectively exploits W3C standards than it will by one or the other more effectively navigating through ISO standards procedures."

Tags: burtongroup cdf css desmond odf okelly ooxml opendocument w3c xhtml

Posted by: garyedwards

CIO Wakeup Call: Burton Group ODF/OOXML report | The CIO Weblog

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:53:37 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Although most of the ruckus over the paper has focused on the prediction that OOXML will beat out ODF, the more intriguing and meaningful conclusion is in fact that the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) model, built on open and broadly accepted web standards already in broad use, will in fact "...be more influential and pervasive than ODF and OOXML." This implicit acknowledgment that the SaaS delivery model will dominate productivity and document storage applications is less supportive of Microsoft's approaches than many of the documents detractors care to acknowledge and suggests the entire debate is essentially a sideshow.

CIOs who are truly concerned with data preservation and open standards need to take a hard look at Microsoft's historical business practices and the remaining questions hanging over OOXML and ask themselves if it's worth making such a major transition to a format that is fraught with the same potential for vendor (rather than consumer) control in the future. SaaS options, it's worth noting, hardly escape this issue, so regardless of the very real potential that SaaS will eclipse any of the stand-alone office applications that are currently involved in this debate, it's still going to be necessary to pick a format for long-term, corporate control of vital data and documents.

Tags: burtongorup cdf cio css ny odf okelly ooxml w3c xhtml

Posted by: garyedwards

Burton Group Responds to Ars Technica's Angry ODF/OOXML Rebuttal

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:53:37 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Five days ago Ars Technica issued its view of the Burton Group ODF/OOXML report and made it clear that they disagreed with its findings, going with the headline, "Analyst group slams ODF, downplays Microsoft ISO abuses."

We've had some questions from Burton Group clients and others about the article, so I thought it would be worthwhile to go through where we agree, where we disagree, where Ars Technica mischaracterizes what we said, and where it's wrong.

Tags: burtongroup cdf css odf okelly ooxml w3c xhtml

Posted by: garyedwards

Bluster keeps the ODF / OOXML debate afloat | BetaNews

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:53:37 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

the Group went one step further, if only that far: It advised clients to steer clear of the whole format superiority debate, in order to avoid getting dragged down into what could be called "Office politics."

"ODF is insufficient for complex real-world enterprise requirements, and it is indirectly controlled by Sun Microsystems, despite also being an ISO standard," the Burton Group's Guy Creese and Peter O'Kelly wrote. "It's possible that IBM, Novell, and other vendors may be able to put ODF on a more customer-oriented trajectory in the future and more completely integrate it with the W3C content model, but for now ODF should be seen as more of an anti-Microsoft political statement than an objective technology selection."

Tags: burtongroup cdf css ibm iso microsoft odf okelly ooxml opendocument openxml sun w3c xhtml

Posted by: garyedwards

Brian Jones: Open XML Formats : Mapping documents in the binary format (.doc; .xls; .ppt) to the Open XML format

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:53:37 -0000

Comments:

Well well well. We knew that IBM had access to the secret binary blueprints back in 2006. Now we know that Sun ALSO had access!

And why is this important? In June of 2006, Massachusetts CIO Louis Gutierrez asked the OpenDocument Foundation's da Vinci Group to work with IBM on developing the da Vinci ODF plug-in clone of Microsoft's OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in. When we met with IBM they were insistent that the only way OASIS ODF could establish sufficient compatibility with MSOffice and the billions of binary documents would be to have the secret blueprints open.

Even after we explained to IBM that da Vinci uses the same internal conversion process that the OOXML plug-in used to convert binaries, IBM continued to insist that opening up the secret binaries was a primary objective of the OASIS ODF community.

For sure this was important to IBM and Sun, but the secret binaries were of no use to us. da Vinci didn't need them. What da Vinci needed instead was a subset of ODF designed for the conversion of those billions of binary documents! A need opposed by Sun.

Sun of course would spend the next year developing their own ODF plug-in for MSOffice. But here's the thing: it turns out that Sun had complete access to the secret binary blueprints dating back to 2006!!!!!!

So even though IBM and Sun have had access to the blueprints since 2006, they have been unable to provide effective conversions to ODF!

This validates a point the da Vinci group has been trying to make since June of 2006: the problem of perfecting a high fidelity conversion between the billions of binaries and ODF has nothing to do with access to the secret binary blueprints. The real issue is that ODF was NOT designed for the conversion of those binary documents.

It is true that one could eXtend ODF to achieve the needed compatibility. But one has to be very careful before taking this route. The Sun - ODF covenant not to sue specifically exempts eXtensions to ODF not involving Sun! Meaning, if the interoperable subset of ODF was designed and implemented without Sun-OASIS participation and approval, the covenant not to sue does not apply. Developers beware! You cannot safely eXtend ODF without Sun's permission.

Here is the relevant text from Sun's covenant: "Sun irrevocably covenants that, subject solely to the reciprocity requirement described below, it will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0 Specification, or of any subsequent version thereof ("OpenDocument Implementation") in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an obligation, as defined by the rules of OASIS, to grant (or commit to grant) patent licenses or make equivalent non-assertion covenants."

The obscurity of intent is masked in clever legalese. Which means, bring your legal team if you want to eXtend ODF, and prepare to argue.

My point is that this covenant could have been written clear and direct to say that Sun will not sue anyone for any reason related to ODF. But they didn't do that.

People will of course wonder why ODF is so bad that it might a as well be ZERO interop? The answer to this question is complicated, but a good place to start is to observe that, just as OOXML is an XML encoded dump of MSOffice in-memory-binary-representation, ODF is an XML encoded dump of OpenOffice/StarOffice in-memory-binary-representation.

The interop problem truly kicks in at the level of specifying this encoding. The Ecma and OASIS technical committees are responsible for fully specifying the OOXML and ODF. This means a complete syntax and semantic description needed to properly implement the specs. ODF and OOXML share one very big fault; the presentation-layout layer (or styles) is not fully specified! We have the syntax but not the semantics describing how layout works. This is particularly problematic in that both ODF and OOXML are application specific dumps. While they each do a good job separating content from presentation, neither fully specifies the presentation layer. Nor is the presentation layer portable in the sense that a CDF XHTML + CSS separation is portable.

And it is the presentation layer that binds the formats to their originating applications. MSOffice has one way of implementing basic document structures like lists, fields, tables, sections and page dynamics, and, OpenOffice has another. That these application differences are embodied in the formats creates an enormous interoperability problem. Applications can exchange content, but break when trying to interpret another applications presentation-layout layer. Especially when that presentation layer is under specified!

There were three aspects of ODF 1.0 that were under specified: numbered lists, formulas, and styles (presentation-layout). ODF 1.2 attempts to fix the formula problem, but does nothing for styles. The numbered lists "interop" problem was not fixed, but exacerbated.

So even though the binary blueprints were released two years ago to Sun and IBM, we have yet to see any improvement in conversion fidelity able to crack the lock MSOffice workgroup-workflow business processes have in the marketplace. Writing a subset of ODF enabling us to achieve that high fidelity conversion has a legal cloud hanging over the process. And all of these concerns are shadowed by the fact that neither OOXML or ODF have fully specified their presentation layers!

No wonder the W3C's formats are attracting so much attention.

~ge~
posted by garyedwards

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

The second issue we had feedback on was an interest in the mapping from the binary formats into the Open XML formats. The thought here was that the most effective way to help people with this was to create an open source translation project to allow binary documents (.doc; .xls; .ppt) to be translated into Open XML. So we proposed the creation of a new open source project that would map a document written using the legacy binary formats to the Open XML formats. TC45 liked this suggestion, and here was the TC45 response to the national body comments:

We believe that Interoperability between applications conforming to DIS 29500 is established at the Office Open XML-to- Office Open XML file construct level only.

And here i was betting that the blueprints to the secret binaries would be released the weekend before the September 2nd, 2007 ISO vote on OOXML! Looks like Microsoft saved the move for when they really had to use it; jus tweeks before the February ISO Ballot Resolution Meetings set to resolve the Sept 2nd issues.

The truth is that years of reverse engineering have depleted the value of keeping the binary blueprints secret. It's true that interoperability with MSOffice in the past was near entirely dependent on understanding the secret binaries. Today however, with the rapid emergence of the Exchange/SharePoint juggernaught, interop with MSOffice is no longer the core issue. Now we have to compete with E/S, and it is the E/S interfaces, protocols and document API's and dependencies tha tmust be reverse engineered.

The E/S juggernaught is now surging to 70% or more of the market. These near monopoly levels of market penetration is game changing. One must reverse engineer or license the .NET libraries to crack the interop problem. And this time it's not just MSOffice. Today one must crack into the MS Stack whose core is tha tof MSOffice <> E/S.

So why not release the secret binary blueprints? If that's the cost of getting the application, platform and vendor specific OOXML through ISO, then it's a small price to pay for your own international standard.
posted by garyedwards

Tags: burtongroup cdf css ibm iso microsoft odf okelly ooxml opendocument openxml sun w3c xhtml

Posted by: garyedwards

CDI WICD 2.0

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:53:37 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

This document defines a generic language-independent processing model for combining arbitrary document formats.

The Compound Document Framework is language-independent. While it is clearly meant to serve as the basis for integrating W3C's family of XML formats within its Interaction Domain (e.g., MathML, SMIL, SVG, VoiceXML, XForms, XHTML, XSL) with each other, together with CSS and the DOM; it can also be used to integrate non-W3C formats with W3C formats or integrate non-W3C formats with other non-W3C formats.

1.1. Conformance

Everying in this specification is normative except for diagrams, examples, notes and sections marked non-normative.

The key words must, must not, required, shall, shall not, should, should not, recommended, may and optional in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

This specification defines the following classes of products:

conforming implementation: A user agent that implements all interfaces described in this specification and follows all must-, required- and shall-level of critera in this specification.
conforming document: A document that follows all must-, required- and shall-level of critera in this specification that apply to document authors.
conforming authoring tool: One that produces conforming documents.

Tags: cdf css svg w3c wicd xforms xhtml

Posted by: garyedwards

Independent study advises IT planners to go OOXML

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:53:36 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

3.2.2.2. A pox on both your houses!

gary.edwards - 01/22/08

Hi Robert,

What you've posted are examples of MSOffice ”compatibility settings” used to establish backwards compatibility with older documents, and, for the conversion of alien file formats (such as various versions of WordPerfect .wpd). These compatibility settings are unspecified in that we know the syntax but have no idea of the semantics. And without the semantic description there is no way other developers can understand implementation. This of course guarantees an unacceptable breakdown of interoperability.

But i would be hesitant to make my stand of rejecting OOXML based on this issue. It turns out that there are upwards of 150 unspecified compatibility settings used by OpenOffice/StarOffice. These settings are not specified in ODF, but will nevertheless show up in OpenOffice ODF documents – similarly defying interoperability efforts!

Since the compatibility settings are not specified or even mentioned in the ODF 1.0 – ISO 26300 specification, we have to go to the OOo source code to discover where this stuff comes from. Check out lines 169-211. Here you will find interesting settings such as, “UseFormerLineSpacing, UseFormerObjectPositioning, and UseFormerTextWrapping”.

So what's going on here?

..... response to Robert Crocker concerning Mary Jo's article, “Independent study advises IT planners to go OOXML”. 3.2.2. So this is well documented?

Robert Crocker - 01/14/08 :

Mind explaining these functions to us then? - Section 2.15.3.6 page 2161, autoSpaceLikeWord95. – Section 2.15.3.26 page 2199, footnoteLayoutLikeWW8. – Section 2.15.3.31 page 2209, lineWrapLikeWord6. – Section 2.15.3.32 page 2210, mwSmallCaps. – Section 2.15.3.41 page 2225, shapeLayoutLikeWW8. – Section 2.15.3.51 page 2245, suppressTopSpacingWP
posted by garyedwards

From: Bill Gates Sent: Saturday, December 5 1998 To: Bob Muglia, Jon DeVann, Steven Sinofsky Subject : Office rendering "One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities. Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has to avoid doing something to destroy Windows. I would be glad to explain at a greater length. Likewise this love of DAV in Office/Exchange is a huge problem. I would also like to make sure people understand this as well." Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Tags: anti-trust browser-wars gates msoffice netscape ooxml w3c

Posted by: garyedwards

Independent study advises IT planners to go OOXML | All about Microsoft | ZDNet.com

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:53:36 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

“ODF represents laudable design and standards work. It’s a clean and useful design, but it’s appropriate mostly for relatively unusual scenarios in which full Microsoft Office file format fidelity isn’t a requirement. Overall, ODF addresses only a subset of what most organizations do with productivity applications today.”

The report continues:

“ODF is insufficient for complex real-world enterprise requirements, and it is indirectly controlled by Sun Microsystems, despite also being an ISO standard. It’s possible that IBM, Novell, and other vendors may be able to put ODF on a more customer-oriented trajectory in the future and more completely integrate it with the W3C content model, but for now ODF should be seen as more of an anti-Microsoft political statement than an objective technology selection.”

Mary Jo takes on the recently released Burton Group Report comparing OOXML and ODF. Peter O'Kelly, one of the Burton Group authors, once famously said, "ODF is a great format if you live in an alternative universe where MSOffice doesn't exist!"

This observation speaks to the core problem facing ODF and those who seek to implement the ODF standard: ODF was not designed for the conversion of MSOffice documents. Nor was ODF designed to work with MSOffice applications.

Another way of saying this is to state that ODF was not designed to be interoperable with MSOffice documents, applications and bound processes. The truth is that ODF was designed for OpenOffice/StarOffice. It is an application specific format.

Both OOXML and ODF do a good job of separating content from presentation (style). The problem is that the presentation - layout layers of both ODF and OOXML remains bound to specific applications producing it. While the content layers are entirely portable and can be exchanged without information loss, the presentation layers can not.

Microsoft makes no bones about the application specific design and purpose of OOXML. It's stated right in the Ecma 376 charter that OOXML was designed to be compatible with MSOffice and the billions of binary documents in MSOffice specific binary formats. The situation however is much more confusing with ODF.

ODF is often promoted as being application, platform and vendor independent. After five years of development though, the OASIS ODF TC has been unable to strip ODF of it's OpenOffice/StarOffice specific aspects. ODF 1.0 - ISO 26300 had three areas that were under specified; meaning these areas were described in syntax only, and lacked the full semantics demanded by interoperable implementations. Only OpenOffice and StarOffice code base applications are able to exchange documents with an acceptable fidelity.

The three under specified areas of ODF are: Lists (numbered), Formulas, and Layout - Presentation (styles).

ODF v 1.2 will deal with the formula problem, but this version is still in committee - perhaps years away from ISO approval. The List model in ODF 1.2 further aggravates the existing interop problems. And the presentation-layout problem is not dealt with at all. Meaning, we can expect the ODF Interop problems to continue far into the future.

There is a solution, but not what people think.

Most observers think that it's possible to harmonize ODF and OOXML. This is wishful thinking. Since both ODF and OOXML are application bound at the presentation layer, the only way to harmonize them would be to harmonize the applications themselves. Meaning; alter how the applications implement basic document structures such as lists, tables, sections, fields and page dynamics so that the implementation models are similar. This would involve serious compromise of what each application provider considers to be innovative feature sets.

Efforts to harmonize at the application layer will not work. The vendors, Sun and Microsoft, are unlikely to compromise on their innovative differentials. And there is no hope of changing the application specific formats unless and until the application providers consent.

The solution that will work is that of relying on converters. While everyone wants MSOffice to implement ODF, this is structurally impossible unless a subset of ODF is designed for this purpose. And the OASIS ODF TC has already rejected six different subset proposals designed for compatibility with MSOffice and the conversion of billions of MS binary documents.

It's also impossible to convert from one application specific format into another without significant information loss. Maybe if Microsoft and Sun were to completely specify the presentation - layout layers this problem could be lessened. But that's unlikely to happen.

So what to do?

Convert to a generic format designed for universal interoperability!

The W3C's CDF was designed for universal interop. It is totally application independent, building on combining basic document structures within the XHTML - CSS - XForms - SVG framework. CSS in particular is an extremely portable presentation layer!

Given that the large application vendors are unlikely to compromise, the W3C's CDF may be the only solution possible. The idea being to convert MSOffice documents (binary and OOXML) to CDF, and, similarly convert OpenOffice/StarOffice ODF documents to that same CDF profile.

At this higher level of Web ready CDF, there is universal interoperability. But the solution does put incredible pressure on the conversion layers.

This approach looks very similar to the SOA model where XML connectors are routinely used to wire together legacy systems. A common XML schema is used as the conversion layer connecting many black box information systems, with each connector having to be written and implemented. From the common schema, the legacy systems can be wired into emerging Web information systems, creating a fairly good information flow. Interoperability between systems might not be perfect (it depends on the quality of the individual converters – connectors), but it is usually far beyond the zero interop of previous generations!

What i'm suggesting is that document interoperability can be achieved following a similar route to that of SOA. The legacy applications can be wired together using an advanced conversion layer connecting the applications to a common XML configuration. The W3C's CDF has the flexibility and reach to capture the richness of our desktop productivity legacy. The SOA approach allows us to continue to leverage that desktop application value without having to rip out and replace. Which is costly and disruptive to existing business processes.

~ge~
posted by garyedwards

Tags: burtongorup cdf css garyedwards maryjo odf okelly ooxml w3c xhtml

Posted by: garyedwards

Continuing Intermittent Incoherency » The W3C Cannot Save Us

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:43:05 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

It signals the effective end of the CSS WG as we (don’t) know it. Rebuilding credibility in the WG is going to be much, much harder now that Mozilla’s representative has effectively given up on the closed-door process. The working group’s secret cabal style of operation is imploding. It was inevitable, but the timing is still a surprise.

But why was it inevitable? And should we take Andy’s suggestion seriously and expect a re-chartered WG to do better? After thinking about it for a while, I think the answer is that we can’t expect any standards body to do what is being asked of the CSS WG; namely to invent the future by committee.

Alex Russel of Dojo fame is calling for a break from the W3C Standards work, and a return to browser led innovation. His reasoning is that the W3C committees are unable to keep up with the innovative needs of Web Developers. W3C Standards are holging us back.

So, do we listen to Alex and trade standards based interoperability for vendor based "innovation"? I think not. There is an error in Alex's logic i think.

The error is in mot fully recognizing the power and influence vendors have at the W3C. It's not that the W3C lags. It's that the vendors who sponsor much of the W3C standards work desire to hold back standards in order to provide for marketplace innovation differentials. Teh sad truth is that vendors have learned how to work both open standards and open source communities to protect their applications.
posted by garyedwards

Tags: cdf css html5 mozilla w3c xforms xhtml xml

Posted by: garyedwards

Whither OpenDocument Format? Say Hello To a Truly Universal File Format - CDF!

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:17:25 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Filtering vs. Standards

Corel's policy is to focus on what its customers want rather than get overly involved in any one document format, Larock explained. WordPerfect uses Corel's proprietary document format but makes that code available.

"We have filters built in to translate into more than 65 different file formats, including OOXML and ODF," he said. "That list included some legacy WordPerfect, AMIPro, PDF, multiple MS Word earlier formats and numerous graphic file formats."

Maintaining filters for legacy document formats is important. People have lots of older files in archive that they still want to access, said Larock.

Up for Grabs

The evolution of text on the Internet along with the use of Web 2.0 applications is starting to have an impact. It is becoming a contest between a desktop presence and a Web-based format, according to Larock. He compared the situation to the transition from analog to digital formats in the telephone industry.

Another big endorsement for the W3C's CDF as the universal file format! posted by garyedwards

Tags: cdf corel odf ooxml opendocument w3c xhtml

Posted by: garyedwards

What is RDF and what is it good for?

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:56:53 -0000

Comments:

Exellent introduction to RDF and the Semantic Web!
posted by garyedwards

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

On the Semantic Web, computers do the browsing for us. The SemWeb enables computers to seek out knowledge distributed throughout the Web, mesh it, and then take action based on it. To use an analogy, the current Web is a decentralized platform for distributed presentations while the SemWeb is a decentralized platform for distributed knowledge. RDF is the W3C standard for encoding knowledge.

Tags: metadata odf rdf rdf_xml semantic w3c web xml

Posted by: garyedwards

The Meaning of Open Standards

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:47:45 -0000

Comments:

The marbux comment:

See particularly section 6.8 and its discussion of "etiquettes," which sounds like CDF profiles to me.

This 1998 academic paper on open standards could give us a solid foundation to build our arguments for Universal Interop from. I may have forwarded this link before, roughly a year ago. Here is the abstract of the paper:

This paper develops the argument that many Information Technology standardization processes are in transition from being controlled by standards creators to being controlled by standards implementers. The users of standardized implementations also have rights that they wish addressed. Ten basic rights of standards creators, implementers and users are identified and quantified. Each of these ten rights represents an aspect of Open Standards. Only when all ten rights are supported will standards be open to all.

It builds upon a previous work by Bruce Perens. Well worth the read.

posted by garyedwards

Tags: ecma iso oasis odf ooxml w3c

Posted by: garyedwards

Standardization by Corporation | Can big application vendors be stopped from corrupting open standards and open source?

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:45:36 -0000

Comments:

Will ISO follow either the AFNOR or Brittish proposals to merge ODF and OOXML? I think so. If they continue on their current path of big vendor sponsored document wars, ISO will beocme irrelevant. Sooner or later the ISO National Bodies must take back the standards process from corporate corruption and influence.

One thing is clear. Neither Microsoft or IBM is about to compromise. IBM has had many chances to improve ODF's interoperability with Microsoft Office and the Office documents, but has been steadfast in their stubborn refusal to concede an inch.

Microsoft hides behind their legacy installed base of over 550 million MSOffice desktops. There simply isn't a pragmatic or cost effective way of transitioning the installed base to ODF without either seriously re writing and replacing those applications, or, changing ODF to be compatible.

The marketplace is clear on what they intend on doing. Pragmatism will rule. Productivity trumps standards initiatives whenever they are out of sink.

In the face of this clear marketplace intent, one would think IBM might compromise on ODF. No way! They are intent on using ODF to force a market wide rip out and replace of MSOffice.

Most people assume that there are two opposing groups at war here; the Microsoft OOXML group vs. the IBM ODF group. This isn't an accurate view at all. There is a third, middle group of developers working the treacherous space of conversion - the no man'sland between OOXML MSOffice and ODF OpenOffice.

The conversion group know the problems involved, and are actually trying to dliver marketplace facing solutions. The vendors of course are in this war to the bitter end, and could care less about the damage they cause to end users.

It's also true that the conversion group seeks to bridge desktop productivity into the larger, highly interoeprable web platform.

It's also possible that ISO will chose to merge ODF and OOXML, as proposed by the French AFNOR plan as well as by the British. To do this they must first remove entirely the coproarate vendor influence of Ecma and OASIS, and perfect the merger entirely at ISO. The big vendors will of course fully oppose this approach.

My post just happened to coincide with ISO Governor Mark Bryan's "Standardization by Corporations" letter where he expresses a derpressing but nevertheless very true concern.

In fact, the OpenDocument Foundation was created specifically to address our concerns about the undue influence big application vendors were exerting on ODF following the April 30th, 2005 approval of ODF 1.0 (which went on to become ISO 26300).

~ge~
posted by garyedwards

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Standardization by Corporation

Maybe i spoke to soon. This just came in from ISO, the resignation letter of the SC34WG1 Chairman who has completed his three year term.

There is a fascinating statement at the end of the Martin Bryan letter. "The disparity of rules for PAS, Fast-Track and ISO committee generated standards is fast making ISO a laughing stock in IT circles. The days of open standards development are fast disappearing. Instead we are getting “standardization by corporation”, something I have been fighting against for the 20 years I have served on ISO committees. I am glad to be retiring before the situation becomes impossible..."

When corporations join open standards or open source efforts, they arrive with substantial but most welcome financial and expert resources. They also bring marketshare and presence. And, they bring business objectives. They have a plan.

As long as the corporate plan is aligned with the open standards - open source community work, all is fine. In fact it's great. For sure though there will come a time when the corporate plan asserts it's direction, and there is possible conflict. At this point, the very same wealth of resources that were cause for celebration can become cause for disappointment and disaster.

One of the more troubling things i've noticed is that corporations treat everything as a corporate asset to be traded, bartered and dealt for shareholder advantage and value. This includes patents and interoperability issues which not surprisingly are wrapped into open standards and open source efforts. Rather than embrace the humanitarian – community of shared interest drivers of open standards and open source, corporations naturally plot to get maximum value out of the resources they commit.

A primary example of this is Sun's use of OpenOffice, ODF, and an anti trust settlement disaster that left them at the mercy of Microsoft.

Tags: bryan cdf ecma ibm iso mary-jo microsoft oasis odf ooxml opendocument sun w3c zdnet

Posted by: garyedwards

Did the W3C acknowledge CDF’s potential as an office format (vs ODF) in newly public e-mail? | Berlind’s Testbed | ZDNet.com

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:45:36 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Along the way, both sides know that there is little margin for error. All it takes is for one slip-up in messaging, one missed appointment, one mistake or one technical snafu to create a hole that the other side will gladly drive a Mack truck through. The stakes are so high that both sides have done a remarkable if not awe-inspiring (though not always commendable) job in executing their global full court presses. For the ODF community, it’s relatively minor to have a few dissenters like Edwards and Hiser break ranks. But, should the W3C concur with Edwards and Hiser that CDF is the more sensible candidate (than ODF) to be the world’s international open standard for universal document interop and portability, solidarity around ODF could weaken. And any weakening of solidarity around ODF is exactly the sort of hole that Microsoft would look to drive a truck through.

If an indicator from the W3C that CDF is better-suited for ODF’s job than ODF could lead to such a hole, a similar indicator from IBM would be disastrous for the ODF community. Although it’s nothing more than a wild guess on my behalf, I’m willing to bet that IBM is probably responsible for more than 40 percent of the global resources being brought to bear on ODF’s behalf, if not 50 or 60 (percent). Microsoft wouldn’t need a Mack truck to take advantage of an IBM insinuation that ODF is non-strategic (or, “transitional” as Edwards said to me in an e-mail). Global support for ODF would very likely unravel because of how many people from governments to businesses to the ISO would feel betrayed and Microsoft’s OOXML would be left as the only format standing. The ODF coalition might live to see another day and another battle with CDF as their savior, but the damage would very likely be irreversible given the long memories of most of those who were betrayed.

Whereas the W3C has very little riding on ODF (Format), IBM has everything riding on it. Alright, not everything. IBM is involved in plenty of other businesses. But, after investing so much in ODF and now being so close to its best shot at seeking the aforementioned revenge, the last thing Big Blue can afford is a material breakdown in the world’s interest in ODF.

The question now is whether that moment has arrived for Gary Edwards and Sam Hiser in whole or in part, or maybe not at all. In response to my post, Doug Schepers, the primary contact at the W3C for CDF commented that in his eyes, it was simply an “honest misunderstanding on their part, and perhaps overenthusiasm.” Edwards, who over the weekend, disclosed to me the exact content of his e-mails with Schepers clearly had enough and simply published those e-mails here on ZDNet under the heading An Honest Misunderstanding? Hardly! Play the tape!. You can read the e-mails yourself. But, if there’s any text in them that vindicates Edwards and Hiser, it’s the part where Schepers wrote the following to them (I’ve boldfaced the most salient point):

So, what do you think? Do Edwards and Hiser have more credibility now that this e-mail has come to light?

Tags: berlind cdf foundation heintzman odf ooxml opendocument schepers w3c zdnet

Posted by: garyedwards