OpenDocument's feed | Diigo Group

Griffin Brown Weblog - ODF validation for the cognoscenti

Tue, 06 May 2008 19:05:47 -0000

Rob Weir gets royally spanked. And so does the notion that ODF is somehow "interoperable". Big Time.

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Just when it seemed like nobody was interested in the ODF conformance smoke test posted a few days ago, IBM's Rob Weir weighs in with a lengthy piece in response.

Tags: brown iso jtc-sc34 odf ooxml weir

Posted by: garyedwards

Harmonization Wars : Is it jetlag? | Brian Jones: Open XML- Open Document Formats

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:50:42 -0000

Brian Jones responds to Rob Weir's very strange demand that he be put in charge of any harmonization effort involving ODF and OOXML. 

In his response, Brian points to the Ecma official statement in support of harmonization provided in February of 2007. The harmonization response was directed at ISO National Body members objecting to the proposed fast tracking of OOXML. 

In late February -early March of 2007, the EU held an "interoeprability Workshop" in Berlin, Germany.The session was attended by IBM, Sun and Microsoft, as well as Ecma and OASIS. 

The EU took a very hard line position on "harmonization", embracing a position put forward by the French ISO NB group known as AFNOR. The WorkShop was followed by the EU establishment of DIN Workgroup NIA-01-34, headed by the Fraunhoffer Fokus Institute. 

The DIN WG sent out invites to all the major players, with Microsoft and Novell accepting the invitation to particpate in the harmonizatioon effort. IBM and Sun refused the invitation. 

Recently DIN invited the OASIS ODF Technical Committee to join the harmonization effort. The OASIS TC responded by asking Novell developer (and DIN participant) Florian Reuter to act as liaison to DIN. ODF grand puba Rob Weir himself put forward this request. 

Here's the thread:
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200801/msg00040.html
 
Now it looks like the grand puba is backtracking! Rob Weir wants to put himself in charge of harmonization. And we all know where that would lead. 

Harmonization will be difficult. It might even be impossible. As indicated by the Ecma statement Brian copiies in his post. 

The dynamics of harmonization are fairly simple to understand; you can't harmonize two application specific formats without also harmonizing the applications. This problem is further complicated by the fact that the presentation layers (styles) of both ODF and OOXML are woefully underspecified. While each format does a great job separating content from presentation, it is the presentation layers of each that remain stubbornly application specific. 

Neither presentation layers are in anyway as portable, application independent and interoperable as the widely used CSS, especially when considering the advances proposed with CSS 3.0 or implementations using CDF WiCD profiles. 

Since there are over 550 million MSOffice desktops, many of which are locked into set business processes and other workgroup-workflow related routines critical to day to day operations, changing MSOffice within the installed base is improbable. The cost of such a disruption would be prohibitive. The demands of legacy business processes will dictate with an unbending pragmatism that the ODF community will have to be the one to compromise. 

That said, an ODF compromise is actually rather easy. This can be done by an ODF subset focused on a high level of compatibility with the legacy binary documents and interop with existing MSOffice processes. 

To get there we need two things. On the one hand we need Microsoft to fully specify both the syntax and the semantics of their binary and xml formats. And on the other, we need the ODF vendors to fully specify all application specific settings, provide an interoperability framework with real compliance – conformance demands, and, enable generic elements upon which the compatibility subset can be built. ODF needs to be fully disconnected from OpenOffice, fully specified, and, OpenOffice needs to embrace interoperability as the first principle, with innovation constrained within the “interop first” development box. (Today, innovation trumps interop at both OASIS ODF and OpenOffice). 

The other approach to interoperability is the one first advocated by the Foundation. Rather than trying to harmonize or map two application specific formats, the easier route is to convert the applications specific formats to a generic, neutral, application-platform and vendor independent format that was designed for universal interoperability. Like the W3C's CDF :) 

Once converted to CDF, end users will find excellent interoperability across the web platform. It's not the kind of vendor-specific-desktop-application to other vendor-specific-desktop-application interop users had hoped for. But the interop across the web platform is a very special value in and of itself. 

Besides, once the vendor-specific-desktop-applications have perfected high fidelity lossless conversions to the neutral, web ready format, these connections will sink into the applications, unnoticed by users. The effect will that of a dynamic and interactive pdf independent of any particular application feature sets or structural implementation models. 

~ge~

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

if you actually read the Ecma response, you'll see that TC45's position is actually quite the opposite. Harmonization is not as simple as just adding a few tags here and there. It's going to be a lot of hard work, and the German Standard Body (DIN) is already working on the first step, which is to identify the differences. This isn't something to take lightly.

Here is Ecma's full response to this issue (emphasis added):

There are currently several XML-based document formats in use, each designed to address a different set of goals or requirements. These include ISO/IEC IS 26300 (ODF), China's UOF, and ECMA-376 (DIS 29500 – Open XML). All these formats have numerous implementations in multiple tools and multiple platforms (Linux, Windows, Mac OS, hand-held devices).

The Ecma Response Document from the Fast Track 30-Day contradiction phase for DIS29500 addressed the question of harmonization by explaining the differences between the ODF and Open XML formats as follows:

Tags: harmonization jones odf ooxml opendocument openxml weir

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

Hyprocrisy 101

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

Tags: cdf ibm odf ooxml opendocument 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