Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

This very funny satire builds on some harsh realities. The ODF chickens have come home to roost, and it isn't pretty. Very funny, yes. But not pretty for those who continue to believe that somehow ODF is a standard worthy of their support. The flip side of the coin is that using the same critieria of interoperability, OOXML is worthless. The sad truth is that both ODF and OOXML are applicaiton specific formats that will continue to defy and defeat all efforts at interoperability. Inparticular, it's the presentation layers of ODF and OOXML that remain bound to the layout engines and feature sets of their originating applications. Just as the presentation layers defy interoperability, they will also defeat harmonization. The only way to harmonize two application specific formats is to harmonize the originating applications. And Microsoft, Sun and IBM are not about to do that. The links in this satire are stunning!!! They shout loudly as to how Microsoft is going to respond to the ECIS anti trust allegations. So when you stop laughing, make certain you track down the links and read through the various OASIS ODF archive threads. IBM and Sun had their chance to fix ODF interoperability. Now it may be too late.

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

Intriguing?  Rob Weir knows full well that the Foundation proposed this exact same feature set as part of the da Vinci Plug-in design for Massachusetts, July of 2006!!!!!!!!!

The Complete Feature list of the da Vinci plug-in for MSOffice that was proposed and signed off on by CIO Louis Gutierrez in early August of 2006 was well known by IBM's representatives who were working hand in hand with us at the time: Rob Weir, Don Harbison and Doug Heintzman. 

Louis Gutierrez had asked IBM and Oracle to create a "benefactors Group" to overcome the challenge that Massachusetts ITD did not have a budget.  IBM and Oracle selected Google, Sun, Novell, Intel, and Nokia as key benefactors.  The group was provided with the complete feature set and roadmap for da Vinci development. 

The da Vinci roadmap was the schedule announced by Louis Gutierrez in his mid year report, August 17th, 2006.

The da Vinci plug-in feature set, in order of priority, consisted of:
ODF iX Approval at OASISPlug-in for MS WORDAccessibility Interface for all ODF documents in MS WordPDF - ODF iX Digital Signature containerPlug-in for MS ExcelInteroperability Wizard for OpenOfficePlug-in for PowerPointXForms InterfaceThe roadmap we provided Louis and the "benefactors" was sceduled out with deliverables, test periods, and cost per deliverable.  The buy-in per "benefactor" was set at $350,000, and i

Archives of all OASIS ODF TC disussions.  Does not include Metadata, Formula or Accessibility lists

"Clearly the Press Announcement today from Microsoft will bring about another wave of discourse on the future of document formats. " Jason Matusow presents the long-term view of the announcement's significance.

Marbux on metadata and the language of universal interoperability: Few people are aware of the raging debate that has pushed ODF to the edge. The OASIS ODF TC is split between those who support Universal Interoperability, and those who insist on continuing with limited ODF interoperability.

ODF (OpenDocument), formally known as Open Office XML, began it's standards life in the fall of 2002 when Sun submitted the OpenOffice file format to OASIS for consideration as a office suite XML fiel format standard. The work on ODF did not start off as a clean slate in that there were near 600 pages of application specific specification from day one of the standards work. The forces of universal interop have sought for years to separate ODF from the application specific features and implementation model of OpenOffice that began with those early specification volumes, and continues through the undue influence Sun continues to have over the ODF specification work.

Many mistakenly believed that submission of ODF to ISO and subsequent approval as an international standard would provide an effective separation, putting ODF on the track of a truly universal file format.

Marbux is one of those Universal Interop soldiers who has dug in his heels, cried to the heavens that enough is enough, and demanded the necessary changes to ODF interoperability language.

This post he recently submitted to the OASIS ODF Metadata SC is a devastating rebuttal to the arguments of those who support the status quo of limited interoperability.

In prior posts, marbux argues that ISO directives demand without compromise universal interoperability. This demand is also shared by the World Trade Organization directives regarding international trade laws and agreements. Here he brings those arguments together with the technical issues for achieving universal interop.

It's a devastating argument.

Surprising post from Sun's Michael Brauer supporting the mandatory "shall - must" preservation of the metadata XML:id. Preservation of metadata information is critical to the high fidelity "round trip" interoperable exchange of ODF documents.

Marbux is currently locked into a raging interoperability battle with the ODF Metadata Sub Committee where it's been proposed that preservation of metadata be optional!

The entire thread is located here:
ODF-Metadata-Proposal-22August2007

This is one worth watching. The fight to limit ODF interoperability continues. Marbux is a distinguished Universal Interoperability expert with a blazing background in International Trade Agreements and anti trust based on interoperability violations.

Eben explains that the process behind the GPL3 is actually a newly christened collaborative legislation process that uniquely supercedes nations, treaties and the traditions of legialative law making.  He traces the evolution of the disemination of ideas. the protection of ideas, and the rise of digitized representation - computerized ideas.

It's a wonderfully sweeping speach that takes collaborative community possibilities far beyond the realm of software.  I'm left wondering if this same approach can be used to re invent the open standards process?   Just as big vendors have come to control and stifle innovation in software through the assertion of property ownership of mathmatical ideas, open standards are similarly under the command and control of these same big vendors. 

The GPL3 process may in fact be a model for a new open standards process.  And it comes non too soon!

~ge~

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"?

In this 2006 article Nick Carr lays out the history of office productivity applications, arguing the Office 2.0 is really Office 3.0 - the generation where desktop productivity office suites mesh with the Web. This article is linked to The Office question, December 18, 2007

While the workgroup failed to decide between "choice" (Microsoft's mantra) and "openness" (the ODF mantra), predictably punting this question to a new Electronic Records Committee, it did issue a number of interesting findings, the most important of which reads as follows: In the office suite format debate, there currently is no compelling solution for the State's openness needs. The State needs open standards and formats. Simultaneously, the State needs electronic records to be preserved in their original formats whenever possible. Many Request for Public Comments commenters, particularly in response to the e-discovery questions, stated preserving a record in the same format as it was created results in a more faithful record and diminishes the possibility of expensive e-discovery disputes. This is important to ensure future generations of New Yorkers can access the permanently valuable electronic records being created today. Moreover, State Archives emphasizes creating records in open formats makes it easier to preserve their essential characteristics and demonstrates they are authentic (i.e., they were created in the course of State government business and have not been altered without proper authorization). I imagine that the workgroup must have found some level of solace in arriving at the one conclusion that all the experts seem to agree on: that electronic documents should be published using the same format in which they are created. If this principle held true for state documents, it would reduce the job of the new Electronic Records Committee to deciding between three alternatives: (1) require all state agencies to create and publish their documents in OOXML, (2) require all state agencies to create and publish their documents in ODF, or (3) allow each agency to decide which of these formats, OOXML or ODF, they will use in creating and publishing their documents. Unfortunately, this central assumption is incorrect, and adopting it as a basi

Jon Bosak on the recent New York State decision to support both ODF and OOXML. Jon makes an important distinction between application editable formats such as ODF and OOXML, and, publishing formats like PDF. He does not cover HTML-CSS as either an editing or publishing format even though it is clearly used as both to the tune of over 4 billion documents. Goog arguments from a world reknown expert.