ODF Civil War: Bulll Run - Suggested Changes on the Metadata proposal - OASIS ODF

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:04:38 -0000

Comments:

This is the famous marbux response to Sun regarding Sun's attempt to partially implement ODF 1.2 XML-RDF metadata. It's a treasure.

There is one problem with marbux's statement though. We had decided long ago not to fork ODF even if the five iX "interoperability enhancement" proposals were refused by the OASIS ODF TC. This assurance was provided to Massachusetts CIO Louis Gutierrez witht he the first ODF iX proposal submitted on July 12th, 2006. Louis ended up signing off on three iX proposals before his resignation October 4th, 2006.

The ODF iX enhancements were essential to saving ODF in Massachusetts. Without them, there was no way our da Vinci plug-in could convert existing MSOffice documents and processes to ODF with the needed round trip fidelity.

For nearly a year we tried to push through some semblance of the needed iX enhancements. We also tried to push through a much needed Interoperability Framework, which will be critical to any ISO approval of ODF 1.2.

Our critics are correct in that every iX effort was defeated, with Sun providing the primary opposition.

Still rather than fork ODF, we are simply going to move on.

On October 4th, 2006, all work on ODF da Vinci ended - not to be resumed unless and until we had the ODF iX enhancements we needed to crack the MSOffice bound workgroup-workflow business process barrier.

In April of 2007, with our OASIS membership officially shredded by OASIS management, bleeding from the List Enhancement Proposal doonybrook, and totally defeated with our hope - the metadata XML-RDF work, we threw in the towel.

Since then we've moved on to CDF, the W3C Compound Document format. Incredibly, CDF is able to do what ODF can not. With CDF we can solve the three primary problems confronting governments and MSOffice bound workgroups everywhere.

The challenge for these groups is to convert their existing documents, applications and processes to Internet ready XML.

Of course, for 95% of these groups, the documents, applications and processes are MSOffice bound.

The three problems that must be overcome are:

...... Compatibiltiy with existing documents, including MSOffice binary and xml docuemnts.

...... Interoperability with existing applications, including MSOffice.

...... Grand Convergence - a portable file format able to transit across desktop, server, device and web information systems. (Think SOA, SaaS, Web 2.0 here as well as iPhone).

We believe that MS-OOXML was designed to accomplish these three tasks, but only for the emerging MS Stack of desktop, servers, device and web systems.

It's also clear to us that MS-OOXML replaces HTML in the MS Stack, as well as nearly all the W3C Internet technologies.

Which is why we insist that ODF is not the target of MS-OOXML. HTML is. With the Internet the prize!

ODF was simply not designed to address these three problems. In fact, whenever these issues came up at OASIS, Sun would brush these concerns off with, "That's outside the Charter and out of scope". What they are reluctant to admit to is that they have opposed efforts to include these issues in the Charter. The very first OASIS OpenOffice XML TC meeting is a case in point. Phil Boutros of Stellent made the first "compatibility-interoperabilty" charter proposal before the first vote to accept the Sun proposed cahrter was held. Somehow Sun managed to put off the needed changes until members has a chance to fully discuss the issue. Now, five years later, with too too many, "That's outside the Charter and out of scope" comments from Sun to count, the ODF Charter remains the same.

So here we are. ODF was not designed for the same purposes as MS-OOXML. ODF was designed to be a desktop office suite file format. End of story,

So we had no choice but to turn to another file format. Incredibly CDF works! Although CDF was designed for "grand convergence", it works wonderfully well to solve the file format compatibility - application interoperability issues.

One last point about Bruce d'Arcus. We believe he traded ODF 1.2 Interoperability for Sun's promise of advanced bibliographic features in OpenOffice. Which is okay. Bruce has fought a long hard fight to get that. But what might work for him doesn't necessarily mean it's good for anyone else.

Especially since ODF 1.2 in it's current state will be rejected by ISO. A May 2006 ISO Directive, issued in response to a rather secret request that ODF be exempt from ISO Interoperability Requirments, refused to grant the exception.

The OpenDocument Foundation's last offical act as a member of OASIS will be the submission of the "Universal Interoperability Framework" Proposal. The intent is to save ODF 1.2 at ISO by bringing ODF 1.2 in line with ISO Interoperability Requirments.

Although we've moved on, it's too painful to think of the mess that awaits those who believe in ODF, and have put years of work into that effort. Come February, MS-OOXML will not be able to fulfill the resolution requirements, and will not be acepted by ISO. Weeks later, perhaps in May or as early as April, ODF 1.2 will also be rejected based on ISO Interop requirements and a warning already given but not heeded. Leaving the world a mess, and nothing to stop Microsoft but CDF.

~ge~

posted by garyedwards

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

From our perspective it would be better to aim for doing the job in ODF 1.2, even if that requires delay. We will oppose ODF 1.2 at ISO unless the interoperability warts are cleaned up. What the market requires is no longer in doubt. See the slides linked above and further presentations linked from this page, < http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6474/5935>. Substantial progress toward those goals would seem to be mandatory to maintain Europe's preference for a harmonized set of file formats that uses ODF to provide the common functionality. Delaying commencement of such work enhances the likelihood that governments will tire of waiting for ODF to become interoperable with MS Office and simply go with MOOXML. We may not be able to force Microsoft to participate in the harmonization work, but we will be in a far better position if we have done everything we can in aid of that interoperability without Microsoft's assistance.

As the situation stands, we have what is known in the U.S. as a "Mexican stand-off," where neither side has taken a solitary step toward what Europe has requested. We have decided to do that work via a fork of ODF; it is up to this TC whether it wishes to cooperate in that effort.

Tags: metadata odf odf-civil-war ooxml

Posted by: garyedwards

OpenDocument's feed | Diigo Group

ODF Civil War: Bulll Run - Suggested Changes on the Metadata proposal - OASIS ODF