OpenDocument's feed | Diigo Group

Putting Andy Updegrove to Bed (without his supper) | Universal Interoperability Council

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:53:47 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

In late 2007, an article by OASIS attorney Andy Updegrove claimed that W3C Compound Document Formats: [i] are non-editable formats; [ii] are not designed for conversions to other formats; and [iii] are therefore unsuitable as office formats. Updegrove could not have been more wrong.

But unfortunately, the erroneous Updegrove article was widely publicized by the usual occupants of the IBM cheering section⁽¹⁾ in the stadium where the latest big vendor game for the Incompatible File Format Cup is being played, IFFC Games Stadium.

Tags: cdf ibm interop oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

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

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:49:40 -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

IBM's Director of Strategy comes clean on OpenXML - IBM WILL support OpenXML in its Lotus and Portal products - Notes2Self.net

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:01:29 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Well, if that's IBM's plan they're going to need more than ODF, that's for sure - and that brings us to the announcement I've been wondering about:

IBM favors ODF as a file format because it is "truly open" and technically elegant, Heintzman said.
But IBM will support Open XML, which is the current document format in Office 2007, in its Lotus collaboration and portal products. IBM already supports older versions of Office.

I feel a Pamela Jones moment coming on .... there it is, as plain as day for the world to see, Doug Heintzman breaks through all IBM's doublespeak and hypocrisy and admits it.

I don't know about "Beyond Office" as a plan, I think the real game here is "Beyond ODF"

Tags: cdf heintzman ibm odf ooxml openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

IBM’s Stance Against OpenXML Is Increasingly Confusing : Oliver Bell’s weblog

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:01:29 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Events have played out in the media and in the blogosphere over the last couple of weeks that represent a breakdown of some of those anti-OpenXML arguments that have been played back so frequently over the last year.

Arguments that there is a lack of demand for Open XML, the specification is too complex to implement, the specification can’t be deployed cross platform and the long running but baseless claim that the Ecma-376 specification might be encumbered by IPR and patent threats all appear to have been cast aside as big blue steps up to meet the demands of their own customers and the market in general.

Here is a blow by blow review of the relevant activity over the last two weeks…

Tags: cdf heintzman ibm odf ooxml opendocument openxml symphony weir

Posted by: garyedwards

A gadfly's take on IBM's 'support' for Open XML | Computerworld Blogs

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:01:28 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

On the revelation that some of IBM's products would support a document format that it officially, adamantly opposes, Hiser is not surprised one bit. IBM and Sun have both had "the magic blueprints" to Microsoft's document formats, including Open XML, for the past several years, Hiser said.

With that key technical interoperability information, "how could you not expect IBM to start coding around OOXML?" he asked.

Tags: cdf ibm odf ooxml opendocument sam

Posted by: garyedwards

Podcast: ODF, OOXML and CDF .... The OpenDocument Foundation Responds | Between the Lines | ZDNet.com

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:13:19 -0000

Comments:

Dragged through the mud posted by garyedwards

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

David continues his deep dive into the curious case of the OpenDocument Format and the OpenDocument Foundation.

Tags: cdf foundation ibm iso oasis odf ooxml opendocument openoffice sun symphony

Posted by: garyedwards

Whoops?! IBM products support Microsoft's Open XML doc format! Lotushpere

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:52:45 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Nobody has invested more to defeat Microsoft Corp.'s Open XML document format than IBM Corp.

So why is IBM supporting Open XML in a handful of its products?

According to technical documentation on IBM's own Web sites, Big Blue already supports Open XML, the native file format of Microsoft Office 2007, in at least four of its software.

However, Microsoft Office users interested in testing or switching to Lotus Symphony, IBM's upcoming challenger to Office, may be disheartened by signs that IBM won't budge from its stance that it will only support documents created in Office 2003 and prior versions.

Tags: cdf ibm iso oasis odf ooxml opendocument openoffice sun symphony

Posted by: garyedwards

Bluster keeps the ODF / OOXML debate afloat | BetaNews

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:52:45 -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 23:52:44 -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

Look what Google can do now: OOXML!

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:52:43 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Instead of dialing 411 on your phone and paying the service fee, dial 800-GOOG-411

Send the name of the business and the city or the ZIP code to GOOGLE. (Type GOOGLE into the address or number field, like you would if you were using a phone number.) Google will text you back with the address and phone number.

Tags: cdf google ibm iso oasis odf ooxml opendocument openoffice sun symphony

Posted by: garyedwards

5 Things Microsoft Must Do To Reclaim Its Mojo In 2008 -- InformationWeek

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:38:30 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Instead of fighting standards, Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) needs to get on board now more than ever. With open, Web-based office software backed by the likes of IBM (NYSE: IBM) (think Lotus Symphony) and Google (NSDQ: GOOG) now a viable option, users—especially businesses frustrated by Microsoft's format follies (many are discovering that OOXML is not even fully backwards-compatible with previous versions of Microsoft Word)--can now easily switch to an online product without having to rip and replace their entire desktop infrastructure.

This article discusses how Microsoft might change their ways and save the company. This particular quote concerns Microsoft support for standards, and their fight to push MS OOXML through ISO as an alternative to ISO approved ODF 1.0.

The thing is, ODF was not designed for the conversion of MSOffice documents, of which there are billions. Nor was ODF designed to be implemented by MSOffice. ODF was designed exactly for OpenOffice, which has a differnet model for impementing basic docuemnt structures than MSOffice.

So a couple of points regardign this highlight:

The first is that IBM's Lotus Symphony is NOT Open Source. IBM ripped off the OpenOffice 1.1.4 code base back when it was dual licensed under both SSSL and LGPL. IBM then closed the source code adding a wealth of proprietary eXtensions (think XForms and Lotus Notes connections). Then IBM released the proprietary Symphony as a free alternative to the original Open Source Community "OpenOffice.org".

If Microsoft had similarly ripped off an open source community, there would be hell to pay.

Another point here is the mistaken assumption that users can easily switch from MSOffice to an on-line product like Google Docs or ZOHO "without having to rip our and replace their entire desktop infrastructure."

This is a ridiculous assumption defied by the facts on the ground. Massqchusetts spent two years trying to migrate to ODF and couldn't do it. Every other pilot study known has experienced the same difficulties!

The thing about Web 2.0 alternatives is that these services can not be integrated into existing business processes and MSOffice workgroup bound activities. The collaborative advantages of Web 2.0 alternatives are disruptive and outside existing workflows, greatly marginalizing their usefulness. IF, and that's a big IF, MSOffice plug-ins were successful in the high fidelity round trip conversion of workflow documents, there could in fact be seamless integration of Web 2.0 services into existing business processes. But that's not the case. As Massachusetts discovered.

posted by garyedwards

Microsoft in 2008 could make a bold statement in support of standards by admitting that its attempt to force OOXML on the industry was a mistake and that it will work to develop cross-platform compatibility between that format and the Open Document Format

It's impossible to harmonize two application specific file formats. The only way to establish an effective compatibility between ODF and OOXML would be to establish a compatibility between OpenOffice and MSOffice.

The problem is that neither ODF or OOXML were developed as generirc file formats. They are both application specific, directly reflecting the particular implementation models of OOo and MSOffice.

Sun and the OASIS ODF TC are not about to compromise OpenOffice feature sets and implmentation methods to improve interop with MSOffice. Sun in particular will protect the innovative features of OpenOffice that are reflected in ODF and stubbornly incompatible with MSOffice and the billions of binary documents. This fact can easily be proven be any review of the infamous "List Enhancement Proposal" that dominated discussions at the OASIS ODF TC from November of 2006 through May of 2007.

So if Sun and the OASIS ODF TC refuse to make any efforts towards compatibility and imporved interop with MSOffice and the billions of binary docuemnts seekign conversion to ODF, then it falls to Microsoft to alter MSOffice. With 550 million MSOffice desktops involved in workgroup bound business processes, any changes would be costly and disruptive. (Much to the glee of Sun and IBM).

IBM in particular has committed a good amount of resources and money lobbying for government mandates establishing ODF as the accepted format. this would of course result in a massively disruptive and costly rip out and replace of MSOffice.

Such are the politics of ODF.

posted by garyedwards

Tags: cdf ibm iso oasis odf ooxml opendocument openoffice sun symphony

Posted by: garyedwards

Can IBM save OpenOffice.org from itself?

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:38:30 -0000

Comments:

This quote from Chalres Schultz is ridiculous. Because Novell is not allowed to commit code to OpenOffice, they must maintain a separate code base of extensions and improvements. With each build of OpenOffice, Novell must reintegrate their changes into the code base, making for a managerial nightmare.

When Novell does have improvements that Sun wants though, there is no end to the hoops of fire the Sun developers will jump through to get it. The Field Enhancement routine written by Novell's Florian Router is one of those improvements that Sun had to have. Sun even went so far as to arguing for changes in the way ODF implements fields to accomodate the Novell improvements!

It's important to note however that Sun did not support the ODF Field Enhancements UNTIL Novell agreed to donate Florian's code to OpenOffice!!!!!! Proving conclusively what i have been arguing for years: Sun does not allow for any changes to ODF unless and until those changes can be implemented by OpenOffice.

The ODF Field Enhancements needed by Florian's fix to OpenOffice were originally proposed on July 12th, 2006, when Florian was the CTO of the OpenDocument Foundation. These changes to the way ODF implements fields were needed by the da Vinci plug-in as part of our efforts to save ODF in Massachusetts.

so here we have a rather direct example of Sun refusing improvements to ODF when needed by another application (da Vinci), but supporting those exact same changes when it is OpenOffice that can be improved!!!

The arguments that the OpenOffice.org Community isn't open also apply to the OASIS ODF TC work!!!!!!
posted by garyedwards
Good catch by Eric!

This link is to the infamous Sun statement of support for MS OOXML issued by Jon Bosak when ISO DIS 2900 was voted on by the US delegation to ISO.

The statement is important because it directly references the core issue: MS OOXML was written for MSOffice and the billions of binary docuemnts bound to that application suite. ODF on the other hand was written to OpenOffice.

Because ODF was not designed for the conversion of those billions of MSOffice documents, conversion is next to impossible. The implementation of ODF in MSOffice is next to impossible. The loss of information, especially the presentation-layout information, is so severe as to be intolerable in the real world.

This leaves the real world, where MSOffice dominates over 550 million desktops, unable to implement ODF. In light of this real world problem, Sun's Bosak urges support for MS OOXML as an ISO standard!!!

So we have this situation at OASIS ODF where Sun is in control of both ODF and OpenOffice, refusing in all cases to compromise the linkage or accomodate the much needed interoperability enhancemnts seeking to improve the conversion of billions of documents to ODF. And publicly supporting MS OOXML as the only pragmatic alternative to the situation Sun is responsible for!

posted by garyedwards

Tags: cdf ibm iso oasis odf ooxml opendocument openoffice sun symphony

Posted by: garyedwards

Can IBM save OpenOffice.org from itself?

Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:38:30 -0000

Comments:

Heintzman must be referring to the Rob Weir -OASIS ODF Adoption (cough marketing-lobbying) TC event called the "ODF Interoperability Workshop".
This was a day long event demonstrating for all the world to see that there is no such thing as ODF interoperability. The exchange of documents between OpenOffice 2.0, KOffice and Lotus Symphony is pathetic.

The results of the day long event were so discouraging that Rob Weir took to threatening developers who attended in his efforts to keep a lid on it. I think this is called damage control :). From what i hear, it was a very long day for Rob. but that's no excuse for his threatening anyone who might publicly talk about these horrific interop problems. The public expects these problems to be fixed. But how can they be fixed if the issues can't be discussed publicly?
posted by garyedwards
Lotus Symphony is based on the OpenOffice 1.1.4 code base that IBM ripped off back when OpenOffice was under dual license - SSSL and LGPL.
posted by garyedwards

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

In e-mailed comments, Heintzman said his criticisms about the situation have been made openly.

"We think that Open Office has quite a bit of potential and would love to see it move to the independent foundation that was promised in the press release back when Sun originally announced OpenOffice," he said. "We think that there are plenty of existing models of communities, [such as] Apache and Eclipse, that we can look to as models of open governance, copyright aggregation and licensing regimes that would make the code much more relevant to a much larger set of potential contributors and implementers of the technology....

"Obviously, by joining we do believe that the organization is important and has potential," he wrote. "I think that new voices at the table, including IBM's, will help the organization become more efficient and relevant to a greater audience.... Our primary reason for joining was to contribute to the community and leverage the work that the community produces.... I think it is true there are many areas worthy of improvement and I sincerely hope we can work on those.... I hope the story coming out of Barcelona isn't a dysfunctional community story, but rather a [story about a] potentially significant and meaningful community with considerable potential that has lots of room for improvement...."

What Heintzman is refering to here is the incredibly disastrous "ODF Interoperability WorkShop" held at the OpenOffice Confernece in Barcelona, Spain.

The Interop WorkShop was organized by IBM's Rob Weir. Incredilby he still has his job. RW put on display for all to see that special brand of ZERO interop unique to ODF. What's really surprising is that in the aftermath of this tragic display of interop illiteracy, RW initiated a new interoperabilitysub committee at the OASIS ODF Adoption TC!

Interop is a technical problem, as was embarassingly demonstrated in Barcelona. Yet here they are setting up the interop solution at a marketing group! Which is a strong indication that rather than taking on the politically difficutl and vendor adverse task of binding an interoperability framework to the ODF specification, they've decided to shout down anyone who might point out that the emperor indeed has no clothes.

What a sad day for ODF.
posted by garyedwards

Tags: cdf ibm iso oasis odf ooxml opendocument openoffice sun symphony

Posted by: garyedwards

How A PAID IBM Lobbyist Orchestrates The Worldwide Search for a Standard Document Format

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:17:12 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Open Means Open

For a document format to be considered "open," it should be fully implemented by many different vendors, interoperable, fully published, and available royalty free without intellectual property restrictions.

Microsoft's OOXML continues to fail this test. For example, the comments from the British Standards Institute pointed out that "there was no other proven implementation of OOXML apart from Office 2007."

Unless and until there is another proven implementation, any government beginning to use OOXML would be faced with only one option. This is contrary to the objective of government open standards policies.

Open standards policies are proliferating as governments seek to create IT architectures that rely on open standards to allow multiple vendors to compete directly based on the features and performance of their products.

What governments obviously need are open standards that enable technology solutions that are portable and that can be removed and replaced with that of another vendor with minimal effort and without major interruption.

Tags: alliance cdf ibm marino odf ooxml opendocument

Posted by: garyedwards

Hyprocrisy 101

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:05:09 -0000

Tags: cdf ibm odf ooxml opendocument weir

Posted by: garyedwards

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

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:17:07 -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

Bloggers beware: You're liable to commit libel | CNET Tech news blog -

Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:32:39 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

To prove libel, which is the same thing as written defamation, the plaintiff has to prove that the blogger published a false statement of fact about the plaintiff that harmed the plaintiff's reputation. Let's break that down.

"Published" means that at least one other person may have read the blog. That's right, just one.

A "false statement of fact" is a statement about the plaintiff that is not true. Truth is the best defense against libel. An opinion is also a defense against libel. But, depending on the context, the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact can be remarkably gray. Context is a big deal in determining defamation.

One thing to watch out for: simply inserting the words "in my opinion" in front of a statement of fact doesn't magically make it an opinion.

Satire and hyperbole can also be defenses against libel, but again, very gray.

Then there's the matter of "harming the plaintiff's reputation." It's one thing to say that a false statement harmed your reputation, but if you can't demonstrate damages, the suit may be effectively worthless. Damages would include, for example, losing X customers that represent Y income, suffering emotional distress and so on. Also, if your damages are minimal, you may have a hard time finding a lawyer to take the case. They're a greedy lot. (That's an opinion, not a statement of fact.)

If the plaintiff is your average, everyday, run-of-the-mill person or company, then negligence is sufficient to prove libel. That means that a reasonable person would not have published the defamatory statement. If the plaintiff is a "public figure," however, then the plaintiff must prove actual malice--a higher burden of proof. That means that the blogger knew that the statement wasn't true or didn't care.

Then there's the question of who's responsible for comments on a blog. Whoever publishes the Web site is responsible for content on the site. That includes comments. However, many bloggers have independent agreements to indemnify the site that publishes their blog. That may or may not include comments.

Plaintiffs can certainly sue everybody in the chain and see what sticks, though they will likely go after those with the deepest pockets. You can avoid the entire question by turning comments off.

Tags: ibm jones libel sutor updegrove weir

Posted by: garyedwards

An Antic Disposition: Cracks in the Foundation - IBM takes over ODF

Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:34:36 -0000

Comments:

An eMail went out today, October 24th, 2007, nominating IBM's Rob "Show me your garage!" Weir to be the new Co Chairman of OASIS ODF TC. So it's looks like it's true; IBM is moving to take over ODF and OpenOffice.

Not that that's bad. In the long run this is perhaps the best thing that ever happened to ODF and OpenOffice. There is no way IBM's Lotus Notes business plan for ODF-OOo could be any worse than Sun's plan has turned out to be.

~ge~

posted by garyedwards
So, South Africa was watching closely the failed effort in Massachusetts to implement ODF? And now they are determined to make it work?

Good thing they left themselves a “pragmatic” out; “there are standards which we are obliged to adopt for pragmatic reasons which do not necessarily fully conform to being open in all respects.”

Massachusetts spent a full year on an ODF implementation Pilot Study only to come to the inescapable conclusion that they couldn't implement ODF without a high fidelity "round trip" capable ODF plug-in for MSOffice. In May of 2006, Pilot Study in hand, Massachusetts issued their now infamous RFi, "the Request for Information" concerning the feasibility of an ODF plug-in clone of the MS-OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in for MSOffice applications.

At the time there was much gnashing of teeth and grinding of knuckles in the ODf Community, but the facts were clear. The lead dog hauling the ODf legislative mandate sleigh could not make it without ODf interoperability with MSOffice. Meaning, the rip out and replace of MSOffice was no longer an option. For Massachusetts to successfully implement ODf, there had to be a high level of ODf compatibility with existing MS documents, and ODf application interoperability with existing MS applications.

Although ODf was not designed to meet these requirements, the challenge could not have been any more clear. Changes in ODf would have to be made.

So what happened?

Over a year later, a few days after Sun delivered their proprietary ODF plug-in for MSOffice, Massachusetts announced that both ODF and MS-OOXML would be recognized as implementable standards. (Good one Sun. Thanks a pant load.)

Recent legislative hearings in Texas concerning a bill that would mandate ODF as the only document standard, revealed something very surprising. There was direct testimony that out of the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts, only 24 desktops had successfully transitioned to ODF. Whoops. Good thing they had the Sun ODf plug-in :)

With Exchange/SharePoint developer hubs going down everywhere, automagically converting binary documents to MS-OOXML, and the MS-OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in effectively enabling workgroup conversions to MS-OOXML, things do not look good for the future pragmatic implementation of ODF in Massachusetts. Or anywhere else for that matter.

The needed changes to ODf emphasizing the need to meet the Massachusetts defined market requirements of high level of ODf compatibility with existing MS documents, and ODf application interoperability with existing MS applications, were not made by the OASIS ODf TC.

So i wonder just how closely South Africa has been watching Massachusetts?

Not that it's difficult to figure out. In Massachusetts it all came down to the sprawl of MSOffice bound workgroups where business process document exchange required this difficult "high fidelity round trip" conversion. Not only does the ODF plug-in have to perfect a consistently high fidelity conversion to ODF of these active documents, but the documents had to be "round trip" ready in terms of application use.

Round tripping is a killer for ODf, with or without the inclusion of MSOffice desktops in any workflow – document processing chain. The specification was designed to protect content during extensive document exchange and processing chain use, but not presentation!

During an effective document exchange, many applications must be interoperable at the file format level. For ODF this is limited to "content", with the assumption that each application will apply their own "presentation". Sometimes this is jokingly called the "let a thousand presentations bloom but don't touch my data" approach. It's very consistent with the way document processing experts view the world.

The "let a thousand presentations bloom" approach is not however consistent with public expectations for ODF.

The public expects PDF quality of interop between applications, where both content and presentation is preserved throughout the document exchange process - unless and until the owners of the document make changes.

This dilemma brings us back to that age old problem of interactive (as opposed to PDF static) document exchanges being totally tied to specific applications - right down to the version level.

What we found in Massachusetts is that the ODf implementation barrier was due to MSOffice bound workgroups and business processes. And it wasn't just the year long Pilot Study screaming this. They gave us 150 test documents representative of critical business processes where uncompromising fidelity had to be maintained. And yes, the documents were filled with our favorite structural conversion problems of lists, tables, fields, sections and page dynamics. These problems in turn can be attributed directly to the structural implementation differences between MSOffice and OpenOffice.

Let's take this issue to a higher level. The ODF barrier itself had two problem points which we've expresses as the critical market requirements for a high level of ODf compatibility with existing MS documents, and ODf application interoperability with existing MS applications.

The first was that it's impossible to fully capture MSOffice feature sets and specific structural implementation models in ODF. The ODf container is simply not designed for the high fidelity conversion of MS binary or xml documents, which directly reflect the MS application specific implementation model of basic structures.

Our solution was the ODF iX "interoperability enhancements" comprised of five generic elements for the structural basics of lists, tables, fields, sections and page dynamics. These extensions were critical to any ODF plug-in effort needing to establish the high level of MSOffice compatibility - interoperability demanded by Massachusetts workgroups wanting to transition to ODF.

I wonder if the South African workgroups are different? Maybe they avoided the past ten years of MSOffice's dominance as a developer platform? If that's the case, they can move directly to Linux desktops running OpenOffice ODf. There would be no barrier similar to what stopped Massachusetts, California, and the EU-IDABC.

The ODF iX eXtensions were not acceptable to the OASIS ODF TC.

The second problem point has to do with ODF Interoperability in general. To be blunt, there is none. Except at the application specific - version specific level of document exchange. And this is not what the public expected from ODF.

To fix ODF Interoperability, there has to be some level of compliance and conformance requirements. Today, ODf compliance is optional. Nor are there any test suite requirements, let alone anything as strict and demanding as the W3C's "CDR" for W3C Compound Document Formats.

Every ODF application has their own way of implementing ODF. There are no guarantees of interop, or even basic interop requirements.

Still, OpenOffice 2.3 workgroups can exchange documents effectively with other OOo 2.3 workgroups. Just don't try to exchange those same documents with a Lotus Symphony desktop because Symphony is based on a proprietary fork of OpenOffice 1.1.4.

The effect of this is that a Lotus Symphony desktop (ODF 1.0) can't join a OpenOffice 2.3 workgroup (which implements ODF 1.2) without seriously disrupting the workflow.

Now imagine the situation in Massachusetts where they expected OpenOffice ODF 1.0 desktops to be joining ODF 1.0 plug-in enabled MSOffice workgroups! Or how about Linux – OpenOffice desktops joining existing MSOffice directed workgroups?

To compete against MS Server side systems, Linux server systems must either figure out how to interoperate with the MSOffice – Outlook bound workgroups, or, replace those desktops. Massachusetts sent out a clear message; the disruptive cost of rip out and replace was far beyond the price they were willing to pay for much desired freedom to choose, freedom to innovate, and the sovereignty over their information future that could have been theirs. And Massachusetts understood, perhaps better than anyone, the value of complete sovereignty. They couldn't bear the disruptive cost though.

Compound the matter with the reality that today, there are few if any ODF 1.0 - ISO 26300 applications, at any measure of compliance. Near all have moved to some level of ODF 1.2.

Compound that problem further by understanding that ODF 1.2, as currently written, will not pass ISO certification. In May of 2006, ISO Directorate issued a statement that ODF will not be exempt from ISO Interoperability Requirements. The good news is that MS-OOXML also fails to comply. But where does that leave the world?

Confusion, continuing ODf implementation – interoperability difficulties, and the absence of a clear winner in the universal file format stakes will leave the marketplace with only one option: the system default provided by the MS Stack of MS-OOXML ready applications with insidiously proprietary smart tags, XAML, WFP, TFS, and other stack specific collections of dependencies.

This is the interoperability thicket that South Africa so boldly charges into. If the OASIS ODF TC, and the ODF community of applications do not get there act together soon, odds are that South Africa will find themselves in the same predicament as Massachusetts. All dressed up in ODf with nowhere to go but MS-OOXML.

People have accused us of overstating the ODF interoperability problems. The lord of the garage gestapo and his minions insists that these problems can be fixed. Let's hope they are right. Let's hope that South Africa can pull off the implementation of ODF on something more than 24 desktops. And let's hope that this time, the ODf community comes out of the blogosphere and shows up for this important implementation battle instead putting the entire burden on SA as they did in Massachusetts.

A few more failures like Massachusetts and Microsoft is going to be wondering why they ever went through the problems of submitting their proprietary xml to ISO to begin with. Unless and until ODF can successfully challenge MS-OOXML as a real world "implementable" alternative, we're going to find ourselves stuck in the MS Stack for years to come. ISO approval or not.

~ge~

.

posted by garyedwards

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

You must admire their tenacity. Gary Edwards and the pseudonymous "Marbux". The mythology of Silicon Valley is filled with stories of two guys and a garage founding great enterprises. And here we have two guys, and through blogs, interviews, and constant attendance at conferences, they have become some of the most-heard voices on ODF. Maybe it is partly due to the power of the name? The "OpenDocument Foundation" sounds so official. Although it has no official role in the ODF standard, this name opens doors. The ODF Alliance , the ODF Fellowship, the OASIS ODF TC, ODF Adoption TC (and many other groups without "ODF" in their name) have done far more to promote and improve ODF, yet the OpenDocument Foundation, Inc. seems to score the panel invites. Not bad for two guys without a garage.

Tags: foundation ibm odf odf-civil-war opendocument weir

Posted by: garyedwards

IBM In Denial Over Lotus Notes - Forbes.com

Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:57:56 -0000

Comments:

Want to know the real reason why IBM and Microsoft are going at it hammer and tong over document formats? Here it is. Lotus Notes is getting clobbered by the Exchange/SharePoint juggernaut.

The article is old, but the point is well taken. Today the Exchange/SharePoint juggernaut i sover 65% marketshare. IBM is struggling to protect the Lotus Stack against an impossible foe.

The thing is, Microsoft E/S will ALWAYS have better integration with the MSOffice - Outlook desktop monopoly base (550 M and counting). Most of this "integration" is due to the high fidelity exchange of documents in Microsoft's proprietary XML mode known as MS-OOXML. Forget the charade that MS-OOXML is an open standard called Ecma 376. MSOffice and infamous XML Compatibility Pack Plug-in do not implement Ecma 376. The Pack implements MS-OOXML.

One key differnece between MS-OOXML and Ecma 376 us that MS-OOXML is infused with the Smart Tags components. These are for metadata, data binding, data extraction, workflow, intelligent routing and on demand re purposing of docuemnt components. In effect, MS-OOXML :: Smart Tags combines with proprietary .NET Libraries, XAML and soon enough Silverlight to replace the entire span of W3C Open Internet Technologies.

Can you say "HTML"?

Okay, so why does this matter to IBM and the future of Lotus Notes?

The end game of the document format wars is that of a stack model that converges desktop, server, devices and web information systems. The MS Stack uses MS-OOXML as the primary transport of accelerated content/data/multi media streams running across the MS Stack of desktop, server, device and web application systems. It's the one point of extreme interoperability.

It's also a barrier that no non MS applicatio or service can penetrate or interoperate with except on terms Microsoft dictates. This includes the Logus Notes Stack as well as any other ODF based alternative.

It gets worse.

The lever Microsoft uses to push the Exchange/SharePoint Hub is that of integration into the EXISTING 550 million MSOffice bound workgroup - business process strapped desktops. It's an integration Lotus Notes can't touch.

So even though E/S offers a fraction of the fabled Lotus Notes collaboration and messaging capability, the untouchable integration to the MSOffice desktop factor trumps all feature comparisons.

IBM's plan for countering the E/S juggernaut seems to be that of riding government anti trust concerns into a mandated rip out and replace of MSOffice with ODF based alternatives like OpenOffice, IBM WorkPlace and IBM LOtus Symphony. Symphony and WorkPlace are both based on a proprietary fork of OpenOffice 1.1.4 that took place when the OOo license was a dual SSSL-LGPL license.

ODF 1.0 has achieved the ISO/IEC standards stamp of approval. Micrsoft of course countered with Ecma 376, which failed to get the ISO/IEC stamp of approval. Meaning, governments seeking to implement open standards compliant with ISO and various world trade agreements, would of course be lef twith the challenge here of implementing ODF by ripping out an dreplacing MSOffice. Which is good for IBM and may in fact halt the Lotus Notes hemmoraging.

While i doubt that governments are so stupid to not know the difference between MS-OOXML and Ecma 376, there is more to this than just ISO approval. The disruptive cost of ripping out and replacing MSOffice is beyond anyone's reach. Even if they wanted to do it, and the law insist that they do it, most lack the funds to do it.

For IBM this may in fact be a pyhric victory. MSOffice is the unmovable constant in the migration to XML equation. And even though it's a near certainty that Microsoft will not be able to revive Ecma 376 at ISO, IBM has the cahllenge of trying to get ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.2 through ISO.

Today, ODF 1.2 is guaranteed to fail to get ISO approval. It's a ticking time bomb waiting to go off shortly after the ISO Resolution Board fails to resolve the near 3,000 Ecma 376 problems in February of 2008. ODF 1.2 features were frozen in July of 2006, and it is scheduled to go in front of OASIS soon, with ISO to follow.

The stakes are high here. There's not much IBM can do to force open the MSOffice - Outlook interoperability API's that would level the competitive playing field and remove the unfair advantage of the Exchange/SharePoint Hub. Governments are worn and tired of the anti trust battles with Microsoft. For sure the May 2006 RFi announcement by Massachusetts that they were seeking information about the feasibility of a ODF plug-in for MSOffice signalled the end of a "rip out and replace" mandate approach that may have broken the monopolist grip once and for all. Either the ODF Community had to adapt to the new market requirements Massachusetts was insisting upon, or the future would belong to MS-OOXML.

Those market requirements are difficult, pretty much relecting the overall dilemma that compatetiors do not have equal access to much needed interoperability information that Microsoft reserves for the exclusive use of it's own application stack. But that's the hand we've been dealt. If the anti trust initiatives don't break the iron grip, it is beyond ridiculous to think that the grip will be broken on the backs of divisional workgroups who lack budgets, legal weaponry, and F16 fighter squandrons.

IBM fights on though. They have no choice to play out the hand they've been dealt. And they're down to one ace; ODF.

Now you know,

~ge~

posted by garyedwards

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

The marketing folks in IBM's Lotus division are starting to sound like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, who insists he's winning a fight even as he loses both arms and legs: "'Tis but a scratch," the Black Knight declares after one arm is lopped off. "Just a flesh wound," he says after losing the other. "I'm invincible!"

The same goes for IBM's (nyse: IBM - news - people ) Lotus, which keeps declaring victory even as Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) carves it up.

Tags: exchange ibm lotus microsoft

Posted by: garyedwards

ODF tied to OpenOffice? Say it isn't so! -- gary.edwards's comment on "IBM Symphony falls on deaf ears without open source e-mail, calendar" | TalkBack on ZDNet

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:32:13 -0000

Comments:

Good discussion on IBM's recent release of OpenOffice as Lotus Symphony. OpenOffice Community Marketing Lead, John McCreesh, steps into it though with an errant quote. Sadly, i have to take him to task. posted by garyedwards

Tags: ibm lotus-symphony odf ooxml openoffice

Posted by: garyedwards

OpenDocument's feed | Diigo Group

Putting Andy Updegrove to Bed (without his supper) | Universal Interoperability Council

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

IBM's Director of Strategy comes clean on OpenXML - IBM *WILL* support OpenXML in its Lotus and Portal products - Notes2Self.net

IBM’s Stance Against OpenXML Is Increasingly Confusing : Oliver Bell’s weblog

A gadfly's take on IBM's 'support' for Open XML | Computerworld Blogs

Podcast: ODF, OOXML and CDF .... The OpenDocument Foundation Responds | Between the Lines | ZDNet.com

Whoops?! IBM products support Microsoft's Open XML doc format! Lotushpere

Bluster keeps the ODF / OOXML debate afloat | BetaNews

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

Look what Google can do now: OOXML!

5 Things Microsoft Must Do To Reclaim Its Mojo In 2008 -- InformationWeek

Can IBM save OpenOffice.org from itself?

Can IBM save OpenOffice.org from itself?

How A PAID IBM Lobbyist Orchestrates The Worldwide Search for a Standard Document Format

Open Means Open

Hyprocrisy 101

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

Bloggers beware: You're liable to commit libel | CNET Tech news blog -

An Antic Disposition: Cracks in the Foundation - IBM takes over ODF

IBM In Denial Over Lotus Notes - Forbes.com

ODF tied to OpenOffice? Say it isn't so! -- gary.edwards's comment on "IBM Symphony falls on deaf ears without open source e-mail, calendar" | TalkBack on ZDNet

IBM's Director of Strategy comes clean on OpenXML - IBM WILL support OpenXML in its Lotus and Portal products - Notes2Self.net