here
was strong consensus among Member State administrations on
the
necessity to use ODEF
on
"openness" being the basic criteria of ODEF
and
resulting requirements towards industry players / consequences for
public administrations
There
is a general dissatisfaction with the perspective of having
competing standards;
One
format for one purpose: Administrations should be able to
standardize (internally) on a minimal set of formats;
No
incomplete implementations, no proprietary extensions;
Products
should support all relevant standards and standards used should be
supported by multiple products;
Conformance
testing and document validation possibilities are needed -> in
order to facilitate mapping / conversion;
Handle
the legacy / safeguard accessibility
Rick J provides a nice framework for approachign the "contradiction definition" issue, but fails to provide an expert opinion on MS Ecma 376.
Anyone familiar with Rick's comments in the past will come away from this article much surprised. He went all wobbly when it came time to make the call on MS Ecma 376. This kind of wishy washy opinion is hardly what we've come to expect.
I guess the shill contract incuded much more than pasting up Wikipedia to make Microsoft look like an honest broker of information technologies.
~ge~
Rick J provides a nice framework for approachign the "contradiction definition" issue, but fails to provide an expert opinion on MS Ecma 376.
Anyone familiar with Rick's comments in the past will come away from this article much surprised. He went all wobbly when it came time to make the call on MS Ecma 376. This kind of wishy washy opinion is hardly what we've come to expect.
I guess the shill contract incuded much more than pasting up Wikipedia to make Microsoft look like an honest broker of information technologies.
~ge~