Skip to main content

Home/ Document Wars/ Group items tagged office productivity

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

IBM's Director of Strategy comes clean on OpenXML - IBM *WILL* support OpenXML in its L... - 0 views

notes2self.net/...lotus-and-portal-products.aspx

cdf heintzman ibm odf ooxml openxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 25 Jan 08 - Cached
  • 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"
Gary Edwards

ODF and OOXML must converge!! AFNOR, the French Standards Body, announces proposals for... - 0 views

www.infotechfrance.com/...affichage_signets.pl

cdf interoperability iso odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocment standards

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • AFNOR has recommended to ISO adopting an approach enabling it to guarantee – using ISO processes – mid-term convergence between Open Document Format (ODF) and OfficeOpen XML (OOXML), as well as the stabilisation of OOXML on a short-term basis.
  • Firstly, to restructure the ECMA standard in two parts so as to differentiate between, on the one hand, a core of essential and simple functionalities to be implemented (OOXML-Core) and, on the other hand, all the additional functionalities required for compatibility with the stocks of existing office document files created by numerous users, which will be gathered within a package called OOXML-Extensions. Secondly, AFNOR proposes to take into account a full series of technical comments submitted to the draft in order to make OOXML an ISO document of the highest possible technical and editorial quality. Thirdly, it proposes to attribute to OOXML the status of ISO/TS for three years.   Finally, AFNOR proposes to set up a process of convergence between ISO/IEC 26300 and the OOXML-Core. In order to achieve this, AFNOR will begin the simultaneous revision of ISO/IEC 26300 and of ISO/TS OOXML (subject to the latter being adopted after the aforementioned restructuring), so as to obtain the most universal possible single standard at the end of the convergence process. Any subsequent evolutions will be decided upon at ISO level and no longer at the level of such a group or category of players.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
       
      Here's the meat of the French convergence proposal.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    French experts have determined that it is technically possible to converge ODF and MS-OOXML, into a single, revisable document format standard?

    The plan has four parts:

    "Firstly, to restructure the ECMA standard in two parts so as to differentiate between, on the one hand, a core of essential and simple functionalities to be implemented (OOXML-Core) and, on the other hand, all the additional functionalities required for compatibility with the stocks of existing office document files created by numerous users, which will be gathered within a package called OOXML-Extensions."

    "Secondly, AFNOR proposes to take into account a full series of technical comments submitted to the draft in order to make OOXML an ISO document of the highest possible technical and editorial quality."

    "Thirdly, it proposes to attribute to OOXML the status of ISO/TS for three years."

    Fourth, "Finally, AFNOR proposes to set up a process of convergence between ISO/IEC 26300 and the OOXML-Core. In order to achieve this, AFNOR will begin the simultaneous revision of ISO/IEC 26300 and of ISO/TS OOXML (subject to the latter being adopted after the aforementioned restructuring), so as to obtain the most universal possible single standard at the end of the convergence process. Any subsequent evolutions will be decided upon at ISO level and no longer at the level of such a group or category of players."




    So there you go.  A solution that removes ODF and OOXML from the clam
Gary Edwards

ODF and OOXML - The Final Act - 0 views

www.idm.net.au/story.asp

din fraunhofer harmonization iso odf ooxml opendocument openxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 04 Feb 08 - Cached
  • The format war between Microsoft’s Open Office XML (OOXML) and the open source OpenDocument Format (ODF) has flared up again, right before the looming second OOXML ISO vote in March.
  • “ISO has a policy that, wherever possible, there should only be one standard to maximise interoperability and functionality. We have an international standard for digital documentation, ODF,” IBM’s local government programs executive Kaaren Koomen told AustralianIT.
  • ODF has garnered some criticism for being a touch limited in scope, however, one of its strengths is that it has already been accepted as a worldwide ISO standard. Microsoft’s format on the other hand, has been criticised for being partially proprietary, and even a sly attempt by the software giant to hedge its bets and get in on open standards while keeping as many customers locked into its solutions as possible.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 04 Feb 08
       
      A "touch limited in scope"? Youv'e got to be kidding. ODF was not defined to be compatible with the billions of MSOffice binary (BIN) documents. Nor was it designed to further interoperability with MSOffice.
      Given that there are over 550 million MSOffice desktops, representing upwards of 95% of all desktop productivity environments, this discrepancy of design would seem to be a bit more than a touch limited in scope!
      Many would claim that this limitation was due to to factors: first that Microsoft refused to join the OASIS ODF TC, which would have resulted in an expanded ODF designed to meet the interoperability needs of the great herd of 550 million users; and second, that Microsoft refused to release the secret binary blueprints.
      Since it turns out that both IBM and Sun have had access to the secret binary blueprints since early 2006, and in the two years since have done nothing to imptove ODF interop and conversion fidelity, this second claim doesn't seem to hold much water.
      The first claim that Microsoft didn't participate in the OASIS ODF process is a bit more interesting. If you go back to the first OASIS ODF Technical Committee meeting, December 16th, 2002, you'll find that there was a proposal to ammend the proposed charter to include the statemnt that ODF (then known as Open Office XML) be compatible with existing file formats, including those of MSOffice. The "MSOffice" reference was of course not included because ODF sought to be application, platform and vendor independent. But make no mistake, the discussion that day in 2002 was about compatibility and the conversion of the legacy BIN's into ODF.
      The proposal to ammend the charter was tabled. Sun objected, claiming that people would interpret the statement as a direct reference to the BIN's, clouding the charter's purpose of application, platform and vendor independence. They proposed that the charter ammendment b
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 04 Feb 08
       
      Will harmonization work? I don't think so. The problem is that the DIN group is trying to harmonize two application specific formats. OpenOffice has one way of implementing basic document structures, and MSOffice another. These differences are directly reflected in the related formats, ODF and OOXML. Any attempts to harmonize ODF and OOXML will require that the applications, OpenOffice and MSOffice, be harmonized! There is no other way of doing this unless the harmonized spec has two different methods for implementing basic structures like lists, tables, fields, sections and page dynamics. Not to mention the problems of feature disparities. If the harmonized spec has two different implementation models for basic structures, interoeprability will suffer enormously. And interoperability is after all the prupose of the standardization effort. That brings us to a difficult compromise. Should OpenOffice compromise it's "innovative" features and methods in favor of greater interoperability with MSOffice and billions of binary documents? Let me see, 100 million OpenOffice installs vs. 550 MSOffice installs bound to workgroup-workflow business processes - many of which are critical to day to day business operations? Sun and IBM have provided the anser to this question. They are not about to compromise on OpenOffice innovation! They believe that since their applications are free, the cost of ODF mandated "rip out and replace" is adequately offset. Events in Massachusetts prove otherwise! On July 2nd, 2007, Sun delivered to Massachusetts the final version of their ODF plug-in for MSOffice. That night, after reviewing and testing the 135 critical documents, Massachusetts made a major change to their ETRM web site. They ammended the ETRM to fully recognize OOXML as an acceptable format standard going forward. The Massachusetts decision to overturn th
  • ...1 more annotation...
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 04 Feb 08
       
      The Burton Group did not recommend that ISO recognize OOXML as a standard! They pointed out that the marketplace is going to implement OOXML by default simply because it's impossible to implement ODF in situations where MSOffice dominates. ISO should not go down the slippery slope of recognizing application-platform-vendor specific standards. They already made that mistake with ODF, and recognizing OOXML is hardly the fix. What ISO should be doign is demanding that ODF fully conform with ISO Interoeprability Requirements, as identified in the May 2006 directive! Forget OOXML. Clean up ODF first.
  • Gary Edwards on 04 Feb 08
     
    Correcto mundo! There should be only one standard to maximise interoeprability and functionality. But ODF is application specific to the way OpenOffice works. It was not designed from a clean slate. Nor was the original 2002 OpenOffice XML spec designed as an open source effort! Check the OOo source code if you doubt this claim. The ONLY contributors to Open Office XML were Sun employees! What the world needs is in fact a format standard designed to maximise interoperability and functionality. This requires a total application-platofrm-vendor independence that neither ODF or OOXML can claim. The only format that meets these requirements is the W3C's family of HTML-XML formats. These include advancing Compound Docuemnt Framework format components such as (X)HTML-5, CSS-3, XForms, SVG and SMiL.. The W3C's CDF does in fact meet the markeplace needs of a universal format that is open, unencumbered and totally application, platform and vendor independent. The only trick left for CDF is proving that legacy desktop applications can actually implement conversions from existing in-memory-binary-representations to CDF without loss of information.
Gary Edwards

EOOXML objections - Grokdoc - 0 views

www.grokdoc.net/...EOOXML_objections

ecma eooxml imported:del.icio.us iso jtc-1 microsft mooxml oasis odf

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Marbux has done some heroic work here, using the GrokDoc Wiki.  The Title is "EOOXML Objections", and it's primary purpose is to help ISO National Body Memebers evaluate the 0ver 6,000 pages of the Microsoft - ECMA Office Open XML Specification for MSOffice. 

    On January 5th, 2007, Microsoft officially submitted EOOXML to ISO under the fast track rules.  Before EOOXML can hit the fast track though, ISO provides members with a 30 day "Contradition Review Phase".   During this brief phase, ISO NB's (national standards body members) muct evaluate the proposal and post their allegations concerning contradictions and inconsistencies with other ISO products - like ODF.

    What Marbux is assembling here is a one stop shop for ISO NB's strugglign to understand the issues at stake.  It's incredible wha the has accomplished in such a short time.  But then, the clock is ticking.  February 5th is a hard and unmovable deadline. 

    The basic contradiction is thatt EOOXML is a subset of ISO existing product, ODF.  Both attempt to do the exact same thing:  provide an XML file format for desktop productivity environments such as MSOffice, OpenOffice, and WordPerfect Office.  What seriously differentiates the two is that ODF was designed expressly to be a universal file format, application and platform independent, able to transition across many different information domains connecting the legacy of desktop productivity to near everything else.  MOOXML on the other hand was designed for MSOffice and the legacy of billions of binary documents that only Micrsoft knows the secrets to converting to XML.  As such, MOOXML is designed to be application and platform bound, with these proprietary dependencies written right into the specification.

    One of the more important elements of the Marbux arguments is that the OpenDocument Foundation's daVinci Plugin and InfoSet Engine - API prove conclusively
Graham Perrin

Next round of ODF vs OOXML… « CyberTech Rambler - 0 views

ctrambler.wordpress.com/...next-round-of-odf-vs-ooxml

shared by Graham Perrin on 12 May 09 - Cached
  • approval of an standard that wasn’t ready
  • no one at ISO listened
  • The whole OOXML thing is a collection of mistakes
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • in the time frame taken to approve it
  • by National Body to trust that BRM has influence
  • by BRM for not attending to every concerns of national bodies
  • for not incorporating BRM resolutions in the published standard
  • OOXML is fundamentally intended to document a format for a pre-existing technology and feature set of recent proprietary systems.
  • years for IS29500 to have a really good debugged version
  • years for ODF to have a good, complete debugged version
  • the nature of big standards
  • sad about OOXML meeting
  • Apple, Oracle and British Library did not even bothered to turn up
  • Paul Merrell on 13 May 09
     
    Found myself blocked from commenting on that blog entry for some reason. Here's the comment I tried to post. @ctrambler "Between vendor-heavy or user-heavy, I choose vendor-heavy. It is after all, a office document format designed for office application. Linking with other systems is important, but it is not the ultimate aim." That statement bespeaks lack of familiarity with what an IT standard *IS.* But it is a lack of familiarity shared by all too many who work on IT standards. Standards are about uniformity, not variability. An international standard must by law specify [i] all characteristics [ii] of an identifiable product or group of products [iii] only in mandatory "must" or "must not" terms. WTDS 135 EC - Asbestos, (World Trade Organization Appellate Body; 12 March 2001; HTML version), para. 66-70, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds135_e.htm And IT standards in particular must "clearly and unambiguously specify all conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability." ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, (5th Ed., v. 3.0, 5 April 2007) pg. 145, http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0856rev.pdf Absent such specifications, a standard is a standard in name only. A standard is intended to establish a market in standardized goods, creating economic efficiency and competition. This is perhaps most simply illustrated with weights and measures, where a pound of flour must weigh the same regardless which vendor sells the product. But we can also see it in the interoperability context, e.g., with standardized nuts, bolts, and wrenches. Absent sufficient specificity to enable and require interoperability, ODF and OOXML create technical barriers to trade rather than promoting competition. And the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade unambiguously requires that national standardization bodies "shall ensure that technical regulations [includes international standards] are not prepared, adopted or applied with a v
  • Paul Merrell on 13 May 09
     
    (continuation). . And the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade unambiguously requires that national standardization bodies "shall ensure that technical regulations [includes international standards] are not prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade." http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.htm#articleII So while I agree that linking IT systems may not invariably be the ultimate goal, sufficient specificity in an IT standard to do so is in fact a threshold user and legal requirement. Otherwise, one has vendor lock-in and definition of the standard is controlled by the vendor with the largest market share, not the standard itself. Neither ODF nor OOXML met than threshold for eligibility as international standards and still do not. In both cases, national standardization bodies voted to adopt the standards without paying heed to fundamental legal and user requirements.
Gary Edwards

Microsoft, Apple, and Google: How three tech giants have evolved in the 21st Century | ... - 0 views

www.zdnet.com/in-the-21st-century-7000032953

Office-365 wordSDK Microsoft-Cloud Google-cloud Apple-cloud

shared by Gary Edwards on 27 Aug 14 - No Cached
  • In 2002, the Desktop Platforms division accounted for 33 percent of Microsoft's total revenue. That percentage has been steadily dropping, and in fiscal 2013, the corresponding division (which now includes Microsoft's Surface hardware) was responsible for only 25 percent of the company's steadily rising total revenue. Server products, Office and other desktop applications, and cloud services increased steadily during that time. Looking at operating income (what's left of revenue after you subtract expenses) tells a more interesting story. From 2002 through 2004, Windows was the dominant contributor to Microsoft's profits, accounting for as much as 89 percent of total operating income. But that began changing in 2005 as those investments in enterprise software and cloud services began to pay off.
  • Gary Edwards on 27 Aug 14
     
    "Over the past week, I've been blowing the virtual dust off more than a decade's worth of annual reports from Microsoft, Apple, and Google. My goal was to follow the money and figure out how each company's business has changed over the past decade. Consider this a follow-up to my February post, "Apple, Google, Microsoft: Where does the money come from?" My tally starts with financial results for 2002, the year after Microsoft signed a historic consent decree that settled the U.S. v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. It was also the first full year after the introduction of the iPod, which was the first step on Apple's transformation from a PC company to one that revolutionized mobile computing and communication. The earliest annual report I could find for Google was from 2003, the year before its big IPO. In Microsoft's case, the question I was most interested in was "How dependent is the company on Windows?" The Windows monopoly began crumbling as soon as the settlement was signed (although it's debatable how much influence that lawsuit had on the market). Over the past 10 years, Microsoft has shifted its reporting structures a few times, making it hard to draw perfect comparisons over time. But the chart below, which shows revenue from the desktop versions of Windows and related products, is close enough."
Gary Edwards

Why Microsoft Azure could have the last laugh in the cloud wars | CITEworld - 0 views

www.citeworld.com/...t-laugh-in-the-cloud-wars.html

rdsdk Office-365 Cloud-Productivity-Platform

shared by Gary Edwards on 20 Aug 14 - No Cached
  • Venture capitalist Brad Feld recently wrote an interesting post predicting the end of Amazon's dominance of the cloud computing market, and concluded, "it’s suddenly a good time to be Microsoft or Google in the cloud computing wars." I'd go one step farther. Using Feld's arguments, I'd say that Microsoft is in the driver's seat. More like this The dark side of the cloud price wars between Amazon, Google, and Microsoft The rise, fall, and rehabilitation of Internet Explorer Microsoft, Apple, and Google battle for the mobile enterprise Featured Resource Presented by Citrix Systems 10 essential elements for a secure enterprise mobility strategy Best practices for protecting sensitive business information while making people productive from Learn More First, the price war. Microsoft and Google are on approximately equal ground when it comes to cutting prices -- both have highly profitable core businesses that they can use to subsidize a price war in cloud infrastructure, even to the point of sustaining losses for a while to gain market share. Amazon does not. 
  • Second, the quality argument. Like Feld, we've also pointed out that there are niche cloud providers that do a better job than the big guys at providing infrastructure-as-a-service for specific verticals, but when you move all the way up the stack to full software-as-a-service applications, Microsoft has an edge among the big three with Office 365.
  • Google has been making inroads into smaller businesses with Google Apps for almost a decade now, Microsoft remains the standard in the biggest and most profitable business customers -- as this recent investigation from Dan Frommer at Quartz showed, only one company in the Fortune 50 uses Google Apps. (That company happens to be Google itself.) 
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • The third argument, support, is mostly a wash. While Amazon's support may be terrible (I have no evidence of this, but I'm taking Feld's word for it), Microsoft and Google and their respective ecosystem partners do a decent job of supporting customers on their stacks.
  • But then comes the fourth argument. Feld points out that once companies get to $200,000 per month of cloud-infrastructure spend, it's actually significantly cheaper to build their own data centers
  • Microsoft is the only one of the big three players with an on-premise offering -- Windows Server and the rest of the Microsoft infrastructure family. Maybe the exact break-even point will change as the cloud price wars continue, but Microsoft has the most pieces customers would need to move from all-cloud to a hybrid or on-premise solution. Or, for that matter, for existing on-premise customers to begin experimenting moving some workloads to the cloud.
  • There's one more point favoring Microsoft. Google's core business is selling online advertising. That business makes up about 90% of Google's revenue, and it has enviably high operating margins -- around 30%, based on Google's 2011 financial report. (I picked 2011 because that was before Google bought Motorola Mobility, which changed the margin structure.)
  • It's unclear how the Google Cloud Platform helps that business. Are customers using Google's cloud somehow more likely to advertise with Google? I don't see it. Are Google advertising customers demanding to run other workloads on Google technology? I don't see it.
  • Meanwhile, while Azure almost certainly offers lower margins than, say, on-premises Windows Servers, it's necessary -- customers are moving workloads to the cloud, and Microsoft needs a competitive offering there to keep them on the Microsoft stack so they continue to buy other Microsoft products. Plus, as I argued in point four, today's Azure customers could become tomorrow's on-premise Microsoft infrastructure customers.
  • In other words, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Engine both lower the profit margins of their parent companies. But Azure is clearly strategic while Cloud Engine, as far as I can tell, is not. Who's more likely to keep investing in and improving its cloud? 
  • right now, Microsoft's chances look pretty good to me. No wonder they put the cloud guy in charge of the company.
Gary Edwards

Rough Type: Nicholas Carr's Blog: The Office question - 0 views

www.roughtype.com/...the_office_ques.php

shared by Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07 - Cached
  • As I argued in my post Office Generations last year, we're in the early stages of the "hybrid phase" of personal productivity applications, when most people will use web apps to extend rather than replace their old Office apps. This phase will play out over a number of years as the web technologies mature, at which point it will become natural to use purely web-based apps (with, probably, continued local caching of data and program code). What this means is that Microsoft has a good opportunity to maintain Office's dominance during the switchover by pursuing what it calls its "software plus services" strategy. But Microsoft should be anything but complacent right now. Maintaining market dominance does not necessarily mean maintaining traditional levels of profitability. The biggest threat posed by online alternatives may well be to undermine Microsoft's pricing power - a trend we're already seeing in the student market.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07
       
      It's all about interoperability and functionality without disruption to existing business processes.
Gary Edwards

OASIS ODF: List Proposal Enhancement Vote Deadline on Wednesday | Gary Edwards - 0 views

lists.oasis-open.org/...msg00001.html

odf openxml oasis list-enhancement

shared by Gary Edwards on 04 Jun 09 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 04 Jun 09
     
    Thanks to Paul for digging this up. Who would have guessed that years later, these same issues hang like a dark shroud on the future of ODF? Note also that June 1st of 2007 was the cut off date for ODF 1.2 proposals and recommendations. The OpenFormula and Metadata SC's were rushing to make the cutoff. The List Enhancement proposal itself was just one of many enhancements submitted by Florian Reuter in November of 2006, designed to greatly improve ODF compatibility with MSOffice "ODF". By November of 2006, thanks largely to the Massachusetts Pilot Study, there were a number of ODF plug-ins for MSOffice. All were capable of producing perfectly compliant ISO 26300 ODF, but falling far short of public expectations of high fidelity interop with OpenOffice ODF. Sound familiar? Everyone knew that it was only a matter of time before Microsoft was pressed into providing MSOffice ODF support. There was no doubt that they would face the exact same interop challenges as the many independent plug-in efforts. Hence the stepped up efforts by many at the OASIS ODF to "fix" ISO 26300! At the time of the List Enhancement Proposal, we had increasing evidence from the many pilot studies that ODF was impossible to implement in business and workgroup environments where the MSOffice productivity environment was the defining platform. ODF was not designed to be compatible with MSOffice or the binary documents so critical to business processes bound to this environment. OpenXML was designed exactly to be compatible with these environments. Unless ODF fixed it's compatibility/interoperability problems there was no way for the independent plug-ins to provide a reasonable ODF implementation alternative to OpenXML. And even if Microsoft did produce an MSOffice ODF compliant with ISO 26300, these productivity environments would remain entirely locked. The world expected ODF to be compatible, interoperable, Web ready, and fully capable of cracking open the iron grip Mic
Gary Edwards

Standardization by Corporation | Can big application vendors be stopped from corrupting... - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/;jsessionid=lpZyhV8gwAfQR3UXAr

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

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • 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.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    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
Gary Edwards

PlexNex: HUMOR: Interoperability, Choice and Open XML - 0 views

fussnotes.typepad.com/...interoperabilit.html

iso microsoft msoffice oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • reflects the functionality in those products.
  • It is important to recognize that ODF and Open XML were created with very different design goals and that they are only two of many document format standards in use today, each of which has characteristics that are attractive to different users in different scenarios
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Sam really nailsit with this satirical commentary on the spliny whiny letter Microsoft wrote begging the world to reconsider the proprietary application and platform bound Microsoft Office Open XML file format as an international standard for office productivity suites.
Gary Edwards

What Oracle Sees in Sun Microsystems | NewsFactor Network - 0 views

www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml

openoffice java sun oracle ibm da-vinci massachusetts

shared by Gary Edwards on 29 Apr 09 - Cached
  • Citigroup's Thill estimates Oracle could cut between 40 percent and 70 percent of Sun's roughly 33,000 employees. Excluding restructuring costs, Oracle expects Sun to add $1.5 billion in profit during the first year after the acquisition closes this summer, and another $2 billion the following year. Oracle executives declined to say how many jobs would be eliminated.
  • Citigroup's Thill estimates Oracle could cut between 40 percent and 70 percent of Sun's roughly 33,000 employees. Excluding restructuring costs, Oracle expects Sun to add $1.5 billion in profit during the first year after the acquisition closes this summer, and another $2 billion the following year. Oracle executives declined to say how many jobs would be eliminated.
  • Gary Edwards on 29 Apr 09
     
    Good article from Aaron Ricadela. The focus is on Java, Sun's hardware-Server business, and Oracle's business objectives. No mention of OpenOffice or ODf though. There is however an interesting quote from IBM regarding the battle between Java and Microsoft .NET. Also, no mention of a OpenOffice-Java Foundation that would truly open source these technologies.

    When we were involved with the Massachusetts Pilot Study and ODF Plug-in proposals, IBM and Oracle lead the effort to open source the da Vinci plug-in. They put together a group of vendors known as "the benefactors", with the objective of completing work on da Vinci while forming a patent pool - open source foundation for all OpenOffice and da Vinci source. This idea was based on the Eclipse model.

    One of the more interesting ideas coming out of the IBM-Oracle led "benefactors", was the idea of breaking OpenOffice into components that could then be re-purposed by the Eclipse community of developers. The da Vinci plug-in was to be the integration bridge between Eclipse and the Microsoft Office productivity environment. Very cool. And no doubt IBM and Oracle were in synch on this in 2006. The problem was that they couldn't convince Sun to go along with the plan.

    Sun of course owned both Java and OpenOffice, and thought they could build a better ODF plug-in for OpenOffice (and own that too). A year later, Sun actually did produce an ODF plug-in for MSOffice. It was sent to Massachusetts on July 3rd, 2007, and tested against the same set of 150 critical documents da Vinci had to successfully convert without breaking. The next day, July 4th, Massachusetts announced their decision that they would approve the use of both ODF and OOXML! The much hoped for exclusive ODF requirement failed in Massachusetts exactly because Sun insisted on their way or the highway.

    Let's hope Oracle can right the ship and get OpenOffice-ODF-Java back on track.

    "......To gain
Gary Edwards

Collaboration and Content Strategies Blog: Free Report on ODF/OOXML Available - 0 views

ccsblog.burtongroup.com/...blogger-guy-cre.html

burtongroup cdf desmond odf okelly ooxml opendocument xhtml

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08 - Cached
  • The overall document summary: Industry debate about the relative merits of OpenDocument Format (ODF) and Ecma 376 Office Open XML (OOXML) highlights the significance of the productivity application market shift from binary and proprietary file formats to vendor- and product-independent Extensible Markup Language (XML) models. The competitive stakes are huge, and the related political posturing is sometimes perplexing. In this overview, Research Directors Guy Creese and Peter O’Kelly introduce ODF, OOXML, and related World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards, and project their implications for future productivity applications.
Gary Edwards

OpenDocument Lawn Jockey Knowledge base - 0 views

opendocument.xml.org/...21

iso oasis odef odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • he OpenDocument Format (ODF) is an open XML-based document file format for office applications to be used for documents containing text, spreadsheets, charts, and graphical elements. The file format makes transformations to other formats simple by leveraging and reusing existing standards wherever possible. As an open standard under the stewardship of OASIS, ODF also creates the possibility for new types of applications and solutions to be developed other than traditional office productivity applications.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    The Knowledge Base description and history of OpenDocuemnt
Gary Edwards

Odf - Converters & the ODF Zero Interop problem - 0 views

odf-converter.sourceforge.net/features.html

microsoft mooxml oasis odf officeopenxml opendocument openxml sun

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • The ODF-Converter translates OpenXML documents (.DOCX) to Open Document Format (.Open Document Format) (and conversely) for Open XML processing applications. You will find below the list of unsupported features which may be due to standard compatibility issues, or to the translator itself (see rendering issues as discussed in the blog)...
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Explosive compatibility - interoperability study concerning ODF and MOOXL!  This has Florian's signature written all over it, and it goes right to the heart of the matter.

    David A. Wheeler submitted a comment to the OASIS ODF TC outlining his concerns with this publication.  He suggests that a few minor changes to ODF could greatly improve compatibility - interop issues.  He also figures out that OpenOffice - ODF has more features than MSOffice - MOOXML.  Wha the doesn't ge is that it is these new and innovative features that continue to increase the difficulties of implementing ODF in real world business process workgroups!

    David also ignores the fact that the TC jus tvoted down the Novell "LIt Enhancement Proposal" which was specifically designed to address the compatibility - interop issues outlined in this odf-converter blog!  Given a choice, the ODF TC members chose the new and innovative features of the interop breaking Sun-KOffice "List Enhancement Proposal".   

    The List Enhancement Proposal discussion was so contentious and focused on personal destruction as to represent a total break down of the ODF concensus process.  There is no way that either the Foundation or Novell will ever contribute another compatibility - interop enhancement proposal given the personal assault and determined oppostion of Sun to compatibility - interoperability initiatives.

    The hard lesson the Foundation learned is that if you oppose Sun, you'll get booted out of OASIS!

    The lesson Novell learned is that they are better off working through Ecma 376 to resolve these issues that the public demands be addressed.

    Notice the last line in David's comment, "In any case, the MUCH, MUCH longer list of problems with Microsoft XML format isn't our problem." 

    During the contentious List Enhancement Proposal and the compatibility - interop related Metadata RDF/XML discussions, ODF members freque
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    These are the same guys who just voted against the Novell List Enhancement Proposal that did exactly what the odf-converter blog claims needs to be done if the compatibility-interop problems are to be resolved!
Gary Edwards

Evermore Integrated Office - 0 views

www.evermoresw.com/...index.jsp

california davinci interop iso massachusetts oasis odef odf ooxml opendocument politics xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • EIOffice includes the features found in Microsoft Office, plus a number of productivity features found nowhere else.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Homepage for EIOffice, a complete JAVA clone of MSOffice.  This stuff is excellent!  Easily surpasses OpenOffice in terms of file format conversion and compatibilitiy.  EIOffice is fully capable of "round tripping" documents with MSOffice users without compromising fideltiy.  Supports UOF but not ODF or MOOXML
Gary Edwards

Sun Supports OOXML as an ISO Standard? - 0 views

www.computerworld.com/...article.do

iso odef odf ooxml openwave xhtml xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - No Cached
  • Sun Microsystems Inc., largely considered an avowed opponent of Open XML because of its own development and support for the competing, ODF-based StarOffice suite, found itself in the unexpected position of stating its support for ratifying Open XML -- albeit after some changes in the proposal are made.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Quote: Sun Microsystems Inc., largely considered an avowed opponent of Open XML because of its own development and support for the competing, ODF-based StarOffice suite, found itself in the unexpected position of stating its support for ratifying Open XML -- albeit after some changes in the proposal are made. "We wish to make it completely clear that we support DIS 29500 becoming an ISO Standard and are in complete agreement with its stated purposes of enabling interoperability among different implementations and providing interoperable access to the legacy of Microsoft Office documents," Jon Bosak, a Sun representative to V1, wrote in an e-mail to other committee members over the weekend. "Sun voted No on Approval because it is our expert finding, based on the analysis so far accomplished in V1, that DIS 29500 as presently written is technically incapable of achieving those goals, not because we disagree with the goals or are opposed to an ISO Standard that would enable them." Sun "found itself in the unexpected position of stating its support for ratifying OOXML"?  What???? This is the official position of Sun?

    For the near five years that i have been a member of the OASIS ODF TC, Sun has opposed
Graham Perrin

A Deluge of Facts KOs OOXML (Office Open XML) | Fanatic Attack - 2 views

www.fanaticattack.com/...kos-ooxml-office-open-xml.html

ODF Microsoft OOXML

shared by Graham Perrin on 21 Oct 08 - Cached
  • Microsoft is still hiding the migration tables
  • Those tables simply are not provided in the specifications, despite the stated goal that Microsoft is doing so openly.
    • Graham Perrin
      Graham Perrin on 21 Oct 08
       
      I wonder whether this remains true.
  • OOXML is custom fit for Microsoft’s products only
Gary Edwards

Just how much bigger AWS is compared its next competitor may surprise you | Network World - 0 views

www.networkworld.com/...mpetitor-may-surprise-you.html

wordSDK Office-365

shared by Gary Edwards on 19 Aug 14 - No Cached
  • For reference, Microsoft's latest quarterly earnings statement does not break out revenue for Azure specifically, and it breaks up revenue for its different cloud products into different commercial and licensing categories. One of those categories, the commercial division had cloud services revenue that doubled in the quarter, growing $367 million, mainly from Office 365 commercial sales.
  • Brandon Butler — Senior Writer Senior Writer Brandon Butler covers the cloud computing industry for Network World by focusing on the advancements of major players in the industry, tracking end user deployments and keeping tabs on the hottest new startups. He contributes to NetworkWorld.com and is the author of the Cloud Chronicles blog
  • Email him at bbutler@nww.com
  • Gary Edwards on 19 Aug 14
     
    "Amazon.com came out with its quarterly earnings last week and Technology Business Research analyst Jillian Mirandi crunched the numbers of how much of a lead AWS has on its competitors in the public cloud market. The numbers are striking. AWS broke $1.1 billion in quarterly revenues for cloud IaaS in the first quarter of 2014. The company's next closest competitor in the cloud IaaS market, IBM, came in at $350 million. That's almost a three-fold lead for AWS compared to the nearest competitor, according to TBR. Behind IBM, Microsoft and Google close out the top four public cloud IaaS providers, but those latter two companies only generated about $30 million in cloud IaaS revenue last quarter, TBR estimates."
Gary Edwards

Microsoft pushes Trade Secrets Bill - 1 views

thestack.com/...trade-secrets-act-2015-support

Trade-secret-legislation Microsoft Patents Microsoft-Patent-Consortium

shared by Gary Edwards on 09 Dec 15 - No Cached
  • A spokesman for the Microsoft On The Issues website has expressed the company’s support for new legislation that would reform the legal framework for companies wishing to protect their trade secrets in a cloud-centric world where such information is frequently forced to reside on networks. In the post Microsoft’s Assistant General Counsel of IP Policy & Strategy Jule Sigall rallies behind business and academic concerns supporting the proposed Defend Trade Secrets Act 2015 (DTSA), which goes before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee today. Sigall, who is also Associate General Counsel for Copyright in Microsoft’s Legal & Corporate Affairs department, makes an ardent case for reform of the current legislation, as furnished by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA). UTSA’s provisions are argued to be fractured, and rendered ineffective both by the inability of plaintiffs to pursue suits in federal courts (despite trade secret infractions being Federal by nature), and by the fact that not all states have adopted or instituted all the measures provided by the legislation. Additionally the limited provision for redress in international cases of trade secret theft are to be addressed.
  • Sigall presents the case of Microsoft’s Cortana AI as an example of why new legislation is necessary: ‘[Behind] Cortana sits a vast amount of technology developed or enhanced in-house by Microsoft – voice recognition; language translation; reactive and predictive algorithms that can synthesize context, location and data, and interface with the vast resources of the Bing search engine index; and a complex array of cloud servers to crunch and serve data in real time. This technology represents tens of thousands of hours of research, trial and error, and continued improvement as Cortana is adapted for new devices and new scenarios’
  • Sigall argues that better protection procedures for trade secrets, the only form of IP which currently lacks comprehensive cover in law, is essential for start-ups whose ideas, business plans and even customer lists may constitute the only marketable value of a company that is just in the stage of consolidating. ‘A trade secret is unique among forms of intellectual property in how it is legally protected. While it is a federal crime to steal a trade secret, a business that has its trade secrets stolen must rely on state law to pursue a civil remedy. Owners of copyrights, patents, and trademarks can go to federal court to protect their property and seek damages when their property has been infringed, but trade secret owners do not have access to such a federal remedy.’
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • Defend Trade Secrets Act 2015 contains [PDF] significant material from its doomed predecessor of 12 months ago, and one of its boldest initiatives is the extension of ex parte seizures, instituted in UTSA in a more limited form (particularly in the 1985 amendment to the Uniform Law Commission’s 1979 initial legislation). An ex parte seizure provides a kind of restraining order or injunction on disputed information, or even the dissemination of knowledge about whether the information is disputed, and places it under federal protection on the plaintiff’s behalf.
  • Microsoft had a hard time adjusting to the open source revolution, particularly in regard to the PC/Mac Office product which at one time represented the most successful and ubiquitous software in the world, and the many legal and semantic wrangles over the closed-source nature of Office formats such as Word led ultimately to a hybridised open source .docx format which is still argued to not be the OpenXML that was promised.
  • According to Sigall the state-by-state system currently in place was ‘simply not built with the digital world in mind’, and calls for ‘A uniform, national standard for protection’ which does not stop at state lines or even national borders.
  • In practical terms this seems likely to extend the circumstances under which information about leaks, hacks or thefts of information can be made the subject of gag orders for legal reasons, since it brings trade secrets into the same legal framework as other forms of intellectual property which enjoy more comprehensive coverage and recourse in law. The bill would also extend the purview of the 1996 Economic Espionage Act to take in a more rigorously conceived concept of ‘trade secrets’.
  • Even with the issues clear, the risk of disproportionate or over-reaching response in the event of the new bill passing successfully through congress in 2016 (it is unlikely to pass this year) is clear enough that the lack of network discussion about it is quite surprising. Essentially DTSA represents the same kind of proposed ‘judicial fast track’ – though in favour of corporations instead of governments – that has outraged so many commenters in the wake of the November 13th Paris attacks.
  • Silence in court Amongst its more quotidian clauses, the Defend Trade Secrets Act 2015 effectively offers corporate plaintiffs increased opportunity to federalise disputed private material in cases involving trade secrets, with all the penalties for infraction associated with that change of status – and far greater scope for sub judice orders likely to contain and conceal future breaches of information.
  • Eric Goldman of the Santa Clara University School of Law has just published a paper outlining the risks of extending ex parte seizures in the manner that DTSA 2015 proposes. Goldman writes that ‘the Seizure Provision does not solve many, if any, problems. In light of the remedies already available to trade secret owners in ex parte temporary restraining orders (TROs), the Seizure Provision purports to apply to only a narrow set of additional circumstances. In exchange for that modest benefit, the Seizure Provision creates the risk of anti-competitive seizures and seizures that cause substantial collateral damage to innocent third parties. To discourage such abuses, the Act imposes procedural safeguards and creates a cause of action for wrongful seizures. Unfortunately, those safeguards are miscalibrated to achieve the desired protections against abusive seizures.’
  • Paul Merrell on 09 Dec 15
     
    Lots of possible Constitutional issues lurking. The Constitution creates only two types of intellectual property, patents and copyrights. "(P)roperty interests . . . are not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law." Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 US 986 (1984), https://goo.gl/ZljO1H (trade secrets case). The traditional source of rights in trade secrets have been state law. Thus there is a state's rights issue lurking in this legislation, a question whether the federal government is invading the States' police power, an "our federalism" question.
« First ‹ Previous 41 - 60 of 77 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page