Skip to main content

Home/ Document Wars/ Group items tagged IBM

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
7More

untitled - 0 views

www.dpawson.co.uk/...090612.html ODF specificity quality testability
shared by Paul Merrell on 18 Jun 09 - Cached
  • Most (quality) specifications provide clear instructions using those magic words SHALL, SHALL NOT, and MAY where those words have a defined meaning for an implementor. Paragraphs are clearly identified as either normative or informative. That way an implementor knows what they must and may implement to claim conformance against a specification. This approach has been well established over time as a sensible way for spec writers and implementors to work
  • Most (quality) specifications provide clear instructions using those magic words SHALL, SHALL NOT, and MAY where those words have a defined meaning for an implementor. Paragraphs are clearly identified as either normative or informative. That way an implementor knows what they must and may implement to claim conformance against a specification. This approach has been well established over time as a sensible way for spec writers and implementors to work That is the way quality specifications are written. For example, ISO/IEC's JTC 1 Directives (link to PDF) requires that international standards designed for interoperability "specify clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability." With that clarity, conformance is testable and can provide confidence of interoperability. A suite of tests may be developed and applied to an implementation to determine which tests pass, which fail, and hence arrive at an objective pronouncement on conformance of an implementation against the entirety of the specification.
  • In a quality specification, it should be feasible to select a normative paragraph, identify a conformance test for it, and make a clear statement that this test proves that an implementation meets (or fails to meet) that requirement. Call it a test plan: define the tests (test specification), define the expected set of results, and define what constitutes a "pass" of each test that establishes conformance. The plan then provides the matrix of test spec against requirement. Simple.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Rob Weir of IBM chaired (apology for the misuse of that last word) the formation list and then simply announced what the charter would be rather than seeking consensus among the list participants. As part of this process before that charter was produced and while I still naively believed that consensus was a goal, I sat down with ODF 1.1 and did a paragraph-by-paragraph review for testability. The numbers were quite revealing. I completely reviewed only the first four major sections and found very few clear requirements. The majority were mere statements with no normative language used to identify what was required or optional. Implementors would have to make their own interpretation.
  • It's ironic that the chair viewed as good news the fact that there were far fewer testable paragraphs than he had predicted. But his prediction of 10,000 test cases is probably far closer to how many testable paragraphs there should be; my counts were actually bad news.
  • All of the above leads to the interesting question of just how the chair expects to accomplish much that is useful in regard to ODF conformance testing before the specification is amended to tighten up the language and add clear requirements. The syntax conformity is already handled by validation against the schema, but the semantics are woefully under-specified.
  • Summary: ODF 1.1 isn't verifiable as a specification. From a fairly cursory review of the latest draft, ODF 1.2 will follow the same path. With OASIS now being more demanding regarding conformance requirements on every specification and with ISO/IEC taking a closer interest in liaison with the ODF TC, I find it hard to see how the ODF TC co-chairs can maintain this view toward verification.
4More

Is ODF designed to be not implementable without source code? - Wouter - 0 views

blogs.code-counsel.net/...Post.aspx
shared by Alex Brown on 02 Jun 09 - Cached
  • How come I am the one to notice how deficient ODF really is?
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 02 Jun 09
       
      "But mummy, he's not *wearing* any clothes ..."
  • Gary Edwards on 02 Jun 09
     
    Exactly! It's not that ODF is under-specified. It's that ODF can't be fully specified until OpenOffice is completely documented and capable of supporting expected features. There is this famous quote from Sun's Svante Schubert that pretty much says it all; "Nothing goes into the ODF specification unless it's supported by OpenOffice". The statement was made at a meeting of the OASIS ODF Metadata SC while discussing the controversial use of "XML ID". IBM's Elias Torres, of RDFa fame, was passionately arguing that use of the XML ID should be left open to all developers. Sun had taken the position that XML ID should be limited to only a handful of elements supported by OpenOffice. The discussion acutally got far worse than the quote would indicate. Elias compromised his arguments suggesting that we should allow developers to have at it with XML ID for at least one year, and then revisit the issue. This suggestion lead to a discussion of how developers implementing elements with metadata would notify the metadata sub committee of their use case. A discussion list was proposed. The idea being that developers would send in their use cases and the oligarchs on the sub c would approve or disprove. Incredibly, this suggestions was shot down by Bruce d'Arcus (OpenDocument Foundation). Bruce thought that any developer needing metadata support for particular elements should have to join the OASIS ODF Metadata SC like everyone else before their needs would be considered. ( i.e. - like the other oligarchs). At the next weeks meeting, Rob Weir showed up with a list of 14 spreadsheet related elements that IBM needed XML ID support for. Sun representatives Svante Schubert and Michael Brauer immediately approved the use, agreeing that OpenOffice would support that implementation. This how things work at OASIS ODF. Ever wonder why SVG or XForms support in ODF is so limited? It's because the specification directly reflects the limits of the OpenOffice implement
  • Gary Edwards on 02 Jun 09
     
    Sorry. Diigo cut my comment off about half way through. I've complained to Wade and Maggie about this problem, especially how it impacts and cripples the "Group Auto-Blog Post" feature . Months have gone by. Yet still the issue remains.
1More

IBM Lotus Symphony - Buzz: Lotus Symphony 1.3 is HERE - 0 views

symphony.lotus.com/...web_DisPlayPlugin
shared by Jesper Lund Stocholm on 18 Oct 09 - Cached
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 18 Oct 09
       
      Hmmm ... I wonder how much of OOXML they have implemented - 10% ?
9More

An Antic Disposition: Asking the right questions about Office 2010's OOXML support - 1 views

www.robweir.com/...ht-questions-about-office.html
shared by Alex Brown on 17 Nov 09 - Cached
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 17 Nov 09
       
      ... and we can expect similar censure for people claiming to support "ODF"?
  • Remember, the conformance language of OOXML is so loose that even a shell statement of "cat foo.docx > /dev/null" would qualify as a conformant application.
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 17 Nov 09
       
      Think you're confusing ODF and OOXML here Rob; hint - look at OOXML "application descriptions"
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • But that is not what WG4 was recently told in Seattle, where they were told that Office would not write out Strict documents until Office 16
  • In other words, will Office 2010 be "strictly conformant" with the ISO/IEC 29500:2008 standards?
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 17 Nov 09
       
      interesting made up concept, this "strictly conformant", for a standard which contains an extensibility mechanism ...
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 17 Nov 09
       
      err, news to me ... and I was at the meeting.
  • To do otherwise is to essentially specify a require for the use of Microsoft Office and Microsoft Office alone.
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 17 Nov 09
       
      or any of those other applications which support that format (including some from IBM even) ...
8More

Google is stealing away Microsoft's future corporate customers - Quartz - 0 views

qz.com/...fts-future-corporate-customers wordsdk Office-365 Cloud-Productivity-Platform
shared by Gary Edwards on 20 Aug 14 - No Cached
  • This says two things. First, Microsoft and other vendors like IBM still have a tight grip on the largest companies.
  • Gartner analyst Tom Eid—who predicts that enterprise email alone will be a $5 billion global industry this year, growing about 10% from last year—confirms this. He estimates that Microsoft still commands 75% of the market’s spending, versus about 3% to 5% for Google.
  • Still, its legacy business of licensing software to corporations—the one under attack—generated $42 billion in highly profitable sales last fiscal year, barely growing.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Microsoft has entered cloud-based email and apps markets, and said in its most recent earnings report that commercial Office 365 subscription sales—which includes email as well as Office apps—grew more than 100% year-over-year.
  • Microsoft has long dominated the corporate-software market, and its new CEO Satya Nadella has set his sights on owning all things related to productivity and the cloud. But Google—fueled by its search-advertising business and consumer popularity—has been coming on strong for years with lower-priced, cloud-based services such as email and calendars, productivity apps, video hangouts, and storage. And among certain types of customers, it is succeeding. + For a snapshot of Google’s progress, Quartz looked up the email-hosting MX records for 150 companies across three general size categories: the “Fortune 50″ largest US companies; a group of mid-size tech and media companies, both public and private; and 50 startups from the last Y Combinator incubator class in Silicon Valley. The results are…exactly what you might expect!
  • Among the Fortune 50, only one company—Google—had its mail records pointed at Google’s servers.
  • But Google is capturing Microsoft’s future customer base.
  • Gary Edwards on 20 Aug 14
     
    "Microsoft has long dominated the corporate-software market, and its new CEO Satya Nadella has set his sights on owning all things related to productivity and the cloud. But Google-fueled by its search-advertising business and consumer popularity-has been coming on strong for years with lower-priced, cloud-based services such as email and calendars, productivity apps, video hangouts, and storage. And among certain types of customers, it is succeeding. + For a snapshot of Google's progress, Quartz looked up the email-hosting MX records for 150 companies across three general size categories: the "Fortune 50″ largest US companies; a group of mid-size tech and media companies, both public and private; and 50 startups from the last Y Combinator incubator class in Silicon Valley. The results are…exactly what you might expect! "
« First ‹ Previous 101 - 108 of 108
Showing 20▼ items per page