Group items tagged

Short slide deck of Barbara Held's February 28th, 2007 EU IDABC presentation. She introduces ODEF, the "Open Document Exchange Format" which is designed to replace both ODF and OpenOfficeXML. ComputerWorld recently ran a story about the end of ODF, as they covered the failure of six "legislative" initiatives designed to mandate ODF as the official file format. While the political treachery surrounding these initiatives is a story in and of itself, the larger story, the one that has world wide reverberations, wasn't mentioned. The larger ODF story is that ODF vendors are losing the political battles because they are unable to provide government CIO's with real world solutions. Here are three quotes from the California discussion that really say it all: "Interoperability isn't just a feature. It's the basic requirement for getting your XML file format and applications considered"..... "The challenge is that of migrating our existing documents and business processes to XML. The question is which XML? OpenDocument or OpenXML?" ....... "Under those conditions, is it even possible to implement OpenDocument?" ....... Bill Welty, CIO California Air Resource Board wondering if there was a way to support California legislative proposal AB-1668. This is hardly the first time the compatibility-interoperability issue has challenged ODf. Massachusetts spent a full year on a pilot study testing the top tier of ODF solutions: OpenOffice, StarOffice, Novell Office and IBM's WorkPlace (prototype). The results were a disaster for ODF. So much so that the 300 page pilot study report and accompanying comments wiki have never seen the light of day. In response to the disastrous pilot study, Massachusetts issued their now infamous RFi; a "request for information" about whether it's possible or not to write an ODF plugin for MSOffice applications. The OpenDocument Foundation responded to the RFi with our da Vinci plugin. The quick descriptio

Commission v. MIcrosoft Redux.

Hey, great comments! 

referred from http://identi.ca/notice/14365521

There must be something in the air.  The end user inspired idea that applications should be able to exchange documents perfectly preserving the presentation (man percieved appearance as opposed to machine interpreted layout-rendering) is gaining a rabid momentum.

Yesterday it was the Intel ODF Test Suite results falling into the hands of Microsoft, who is now using the results to argue that OpenOffice doesn't fully support - implement ODF.  The Intel ODF Test Suite is notable in that the test is near 100% about comparative  "presentation" :: an object to object ocmparison of a KOffice document to an OpenOffice rendering of that document and vice versa.

Today we have the EU IDABC hosting a continent wide conference discussing the same  issue :: the "exchange" of ODF documents.  They've even gone so far as to coin a new term; ODEF - OpenDocument Exchange Format!

This morning i also recieved an invite to join a new OASIS discussion list, "The DocStandards Interoperability List".  The issue?  The converision and exchange of documents between different standards.

And then there is the cry for help from Sophie Gautier.  This is an eMail that has worked it's way up to both the OASIS ODF Adoption TC and OASIS ODF Mainline TC discussion lists.  The problem is that Microsoft is presenting the Intel ODF Test Results to EU govenrments.  Sophie needs a response, and finds the truth hard to fathom.

Last week the legendary document processing expert Patrick Durusau jumped into the ODF "Lists" embroglio with his concern that the public has a different idea about document exchange - interoperability than the ODF TC.  A very different idea.  The public expects a visual preservation of the documents presentation qual

ODF officially died on February 28, 2007, at the Advanced eGovernment Conference in Berlin.  Hellow ODEF

Microsoft Watch Joe Wilcox is on the job.  This particular hgihlighted quote speaks volumes.  The USA anti trust settlement famously allowed Microsoft to commercialize interoperability through expensive licenses -  $8 Million per year for just the basic package.

It looks like the EU would force those interoperability API's out into the open.  I wonder how this position will impact the November 12 th hearing on lifting the USA anti trust oversight?  We have the EU saying the monopolist is illegally maintaining their monopoly through various interop barricades.  And, the USA about to declare that the interop barricades no longer exists, therefore, the monopolist should be free to wreck havoc. 

The stage looks set for a vey dramatic final act.

Andy Updegrove weighs in on the wave of ODF legislative failures first decribed by Eric Lai and Gregg Keizer compiled the grim data in a story they posted at ComputerWorld last week titled  Microsoft trounces pro-ODF forces in state battles over open document formats.


Andy believes that it is the failure of state legislators to do their job that accounts for these failures.  He provides three reasons for this being a a failure of legislative duty.  The most interesting of which is claim that legislators should be protecting CIO's from the ravages of aggressve vendors. 


The sad truth is that state CIO's are not going to put their careers on the line for a file format after what happened in Massachusetts.


Andy puts it this way, "
  

And second, in a situation like this, it is a cop out for legislatures to claim that they should defer to their IT departments to make decisions on open formats.  You don't have to have that good a memory to recall why these bills were introduced in the first place: not because state IT departments aren't a good place to make such decisions, but because successive State CIOs in Massachusetts had been so roughly handled in trying to make these very decisions that no state CIO in his or her right mind was likely to volunteer to be the next sacrificial victim.
As both Peter Quinn and Louis Gutierrez both found out, trying to make responsible standards-related decisions whe

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 g

Uh?  The ODF failure in Massachusetts doesn't count as evidence that ODF was not designed to be compatible with existing MS documents or interoperable with existing MSOffice applications?

And it's not just the da Vinci plug-in that failed to implement ODF in Massachusetts!  Nine months later Sun delivered their ODF plug-in for MSOffice to Massachusetts.  The next day, Massachusetts threw in the towel, officially recognizing MS-OOXML (and the MS-OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in) as a standard format for the future.

Worse, the Massachusetts recognition of MS-OOXML came just weeks before the September 2nd ISO vote on MS-OOXML.  Why not wait a few more weeks?  After all, Massachusetts had conducted a year long pilot study to implement ODF using ODF desktop office sutie alternatives to MSOffice.  Not only did the rip out and replace approach fail, but they were also unable to integrate OpenOffice ODF desktops into existing MSOffice bound workgroups.

The year long pilot study was followed by another year long effort trying to implement ODF using the plug-in approach.  That too failed with Sun's ODF plug-in the final candidate to prove the difficulty of implementing ODF in situations where MSOffice workgroups dominate.

California and the EU-IDABC were closely watching the events in Massachusetts, as was most every CIO in government and private enterprise.  Reasoning that if Massachusetts was unable to implement ODF, California CIO's totally refused IBM and Sun's effort to get a pilot study underway.

Across the pond, in the aftermath of Massachusetts CIO Louis Guiterrez resignation on October 4th, 2006, the EU-IDABC set about developing their own file format, ODEF.  The Open Document Exchange Format splashed into the public discussion on February 28th, 2007 at the "Open Document Exchange Workshop" held in Berlin, Germany.

Meanwhile, the Sun ODF plug-in is fl

Contact: Gerd Schürmann Fraunhofer Institute FOKUS Tel +49 (0)30 3463 7213 gerd.schuermann@fokus.fraunhofer.de Berlin

At a recent meeting in Berlin, The DIN Fraunhoffer Institute pushed forward with the EU project to harmonize ODF and OOXML. Microsoft and Novell attended the harmonization effort. Sun and IBM did not. This in spite of invitations and pleas to cooperate coming into Sun and IBM from government officials across the European continent. We've long insisted that inside the OASIS ODF Technical Committee walls there have been years of discussions concerning ODF compatibility with the billions of MS binary documents, and ODF interoperability with MSOffice. Sun in particular has been very clear that they will not compromise OpenOffice application innovations to improve interoperability with MSOffice and MSOffice documents. The infamous List Enhancement Proposal donnybrook that dominated OASIS ODF discussions from November 20th, 2006, to the final vote in April of 2007, actually begins with a statement from Sun arguing that application innovation is far more important than market demands for interoperability. The discussions starts here: Suggested ODF1.2 items The first of many responses declaring Sun's position that innovation trumps interop, and that if anyone needs to change their application it should be Microsoft: see here DIN will submit a "harmonization" report with recommendations to ISO JTC1. I wonder if IBM and Sun will continue to insist on government mandated "rip out and replace" solutions based on their ODF applications when ISO and the EU have set a course for "harmonization"?

European Union Anti Trust action against Microsoft. Begins with 1998 complaint from Sun involving browsers and Java. Extends through DRM and digital media players. Great discussion of key terms such as interoperabiltiy, interfaces, system call, platfor

European Union Anti Trust action against Microsoft. Begins with 1998 complaint from Sun involving browsers and Java. Extends through DRM and digital media players. Great discussion of key terms such as interoperabiltiy, interfaces, system call, platfor

European Union Anti Trust action against Microsoft. Begins with 1998 complaint from Sun involving browsers and Java. Extends through DRM and digital media players. Great discussion of key terms such as interoperabiltiy, interfaces, system call, platfor

Microsoft's proposed undertaking for resolving the ECIS complaint to the European Commission regarding its office productivity software can be downloaded from this linked web page. I've given it a quick skim. Didn't see anything in it for anyone but competing big vendors. E.g., no profiling of data formats for interop of less and more featureful implementations, no round-tripping provisions. Still, some major concessions offered.

Thus spoke the little Dutch Boy, his finger in the dike, his confidence large.  Meanwhile, people with half a brain were heading for the high ground.  California, Texas, Massachusetts and the EU IDABC come to mind.  Hello bob!  Can you say ODEF?

The chuckleheads at Sun's StarOffice/OpenOffice Hamburg office respond to Florian's comprehensive lis tof suggestions to greatly improve ODF interoperability. 

Make no mistake about it. Microsoft is absolutely right about three things: .... Compatibility with existing file formats is not an ODF concern. .... Sun controls the OASIS ODF TC. .... Sun makes certain that ODF is bound tightly to the OpenOffice feature set. Sun's view of interoperability is that of a one way street. Documents can be converted into ODF-OOo/SO, but they are guaranteed to break during any kind of document routing or round tripping. This is also the reason why the Sun "external" plugin for MSOffice fails. One way conversion simply isn't enough to crack the hold MSOffice has on critical day to day business processes. The only way to that is with a conversion process able to maintain high level fidelity while round tripping. As the EU IDABC has figured out, the ODF-OOo/SO specification is loaded with interoperability break points. That's why they are turning to ODEF, which can be seen as a version of ODF that is truly application independent and optimized for interoperability. ~ge~

Joe Wilson of Microsoft Watch knocks another one out of the park. Why is it that so few in the media get it? Or anyone else for that matter? Matt Assay gets it. But few understand the Vista Stack and the importance of OOXML in the transition of the monopoly base from MSOffice to the Vista Stack. No doubt the arrogance of those who dare challenge Microsoft is both a necessary blessing and guaranteed curse. Take for instance the widely held assumption that Microsoft invented MS-XML (OfficeOpenXML) in response to OpenDocument (ODf). This is false, misleading and will inevitably result in a FOSS death spiral in the face of a Vista Stack juggernaut. But it sure does feel good.

Joe Wilson at Microsoft Watch points out the real reason for MS-XML, and why ISO approval of OOXML is so important. Microsoft needs OOXML approved as an international standard because OOXML is the binding model for the emerging Vista Stack of loosely coupled but information integrated applications.

The Vista Stack model converges desktop, server, device and web information systems using OOXML-Smart Documents, .NET 3.0 and the XAML presentation layer as the binding components.

The challenge for Microsoft is to migrate existing MSOffice bound business processes, line of business integrated apps, and advanced add-ons to the Exchange/SharePoint Hub. Once the existing documents, applications (MSOffice) and processes are migrated to the E/S Hub, they can be bound tightly to the rest of the Vista Stack.

Others see OOXML as some sort of surrender or late recognition that the salad days of MSOffice are over. They jubilantly point to Web 2.0, Office 2.0 and rise of the LiNUX Desktop as having ushered in this end of monopoly for MSOffice. Like the ODf champions, these people are similarly sadly mistaken!

While they celebrate, Microsoft is quie