OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

 View Only
Expand all | Collapse all

One strictly conforming document?

  • 1.  One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-02-2009 14:47
    Greetings!
    
    Under Producer Conformance the current proposal states:
    
    ***
    (G1)
    
    A /Conforming OpenDocument/ /Producer/ is a program that creates at 
    least one strict conforming OpenDocument document, and that meets the 
    following additional requirements:
    ***
    
    and
    
    ***
    (G1.2)
    
    It /may/ create conforming OpenDocument documents that are not strict 
    conforming OpenDocument documents, but it /shall/ have a mode of 
    operation where all OpenDocument documents that are created are strict 
    conforming OpenDocument documents.
    ***
    
    That seems to me to exclude the possibility that I might have an 
    application that only produces "...not strictly conforming OpenDocument 
    documents..." which seems like an odd restriction.
    
    Granted that I fully support Michael's notion that the ODF TC should in 
    the future be able to more routinely produce standard extensions to the 
    format, but I also realize there maybe custom uses where there is no 
    desire or need for an standardized extension. Or at least I would prefer 
    to keep that open as a possibility and not to deny applications that 
    substantially rely on ODF 1.2 from being able to claim that they conform 
    to ODF 1.2 (as does their output, to the extent that it does).
    
    Hope everyone is at the start of a great week!
    
    Patrick
     
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    -- 
    Patrick Durusau
    patrick@durusau.net
    Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
    Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
    Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
    Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
    
    


  • 2.  Re: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-03-2009 12:12
    Hi Patrick,
    
    On 02/02/09 15:46, Patrick Durusau wrote:
    > Greetings!
    > 
    > Granted that I fully support Michael's notion that the ODF TC should in 
    > the future be able to more routinely produce standard extensions to the 
    > format, but I also realize there maybe custom uses where there is no 
    > desire or need for an standardized extension. Or at least I would prefer 
    > to keep that open as a possibility and not to deny applications that 
    > substantially rely on ODF 1.2 from being able to claim that they conform 
    > to ODF 1.2 (as does their output, to the extent that it does).
    
    I think it is important that users know whether an application that 
    claims to be ODF 1.2 compliant is able to store documents without 
    extensions, or only documents that contain such extensions. So, if we 
    would give up the requirement that all ODF producers are able to produce 
    strict conforming documents, we at least would need an additional 
    conformance class for producers, so that one can differ between a 
    producer that is able to create strictly conforming documents, and one 
    that isn't. This may be an option, but it doesn't make it easier to 
    understand what the various conformance levels actually mean.
    
    What do you think?
    
    Best regards
    
    Michael
    > 
    > Hope everyone is at the start of a great week!
    > 
    > Patrick
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    
    
    -- 
    Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
    StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
    Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
    D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
    http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
    http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
    
    Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
    	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
    Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
    Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
    Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering
    


  • 3.  Re: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-03-2009 13:03
    Greetings,
    
    2009/2/3 Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
    


  • 4.  Re: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-03-2009 14:15
    Bob,
    
    You say below:
    
    > My preference would still be very much for the single strict
    > conformance class for documents, with no foreign elements except in
    > the agreed upon locations.  I will shift extremely reluctantly (wild
    > horses ...) towards a mish-mash of conformance permutations.
    Well, but the shift is to the "stricter" conformance so the burden of 
    establishing that need in on those who desire it.
    
    A conformance clause does not have the talisman like quality that seem 
    to be desired to distinguish between applications.
    
    Users will always have the responsibility of evaluating claims of 
    conformance. Or to put it another way, conformance clauses are not 
    self-executing.
    
    For that matter, users really should be evaluating their *requirements* 
    and not conformance clauses of standards.
    
    And as I said in my presentations in South Africa last summer, 
    conformance to a standard is a necessary but not sufficient condition 
    for interoperability.
    
    If you want that in terms of conformance to ODF 1.2, consider a set of 
    strictly conforming ODF documents that use different semantics for their 
    content. Sure the documents are "interchangeable" from the standpoint of 
    the ODF standard, but if they are being exchanged between a hospital and 
    a central health authority, that interchangeability is all but useless 
    in the face of differing semantics. Meets the "strict ODF 1.2 
    conformance clause" test but not the user requirement for interoperability.
    
    Hope you are having a great day!
    
    Patrick
    
    Bob Jolliffe wrote:
    > Greetings,
    >
    > 2009/2/3 Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
    > 


  • 5.  Re: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-03-2009 14:49
    Patrick Durusau 


  • 6.  Re: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-03-2009 15:38
    Rob,
    
    robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
    > Patrick Durusau 


  • 7.  RE: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-03-2009 16:16
    It's worth noting that the ODF metadata mechanisms don't allow for the use of a private/custom schema to tag content within a document.  And that use case has value to many users.  So if we decide that ODF won't be able to support those types of scenarios, for whatever reason, we should not be surprised to find that users who need such capabilities will look elsewhere.
    
    Consider the trivial example of a pre-existing document, created years ago, which needs to be logged in to a content management system that requires an abstract to be identified for each document.  If the format of the document is HTML, then a div with class="abstract" can be used to tag the appropriate paragraph(s) as the abstract.  If the format of the document is DOCX, a customXml element with element="abstract" can be used for the same purposes.  In both cases the document content remains valid HTML or WordprocessingML, while the user adds the custom semantics required for their purpose.  The custom semantics can be (and should be) ignored by others.  The user is free to innovate quickly, and does not have to think in terms of a tradeoff between strict compliance and flexibility/business value.  They can, and do, have the best of both worlds in such scenarios: strict compliance to a standard, and freedom to innovate quickly for their own specialized purposes.
    
    I think ODF would benefit from being as supportive of such scenarios as HTML, IS29500 and other formats already are.  No committee can anticipate every possible class of extension that users might find useful, so I think the format itself should allow for clean, simple tagging of content according to schemas that may never be standardized, and may never be widely known or used.  Done correctly, such tagging puts no burden on simple interoperability between word processors (which typically ignore it), but can enable other types of interoperability that many people find valuable.
    
    - Doug
    
    
    


  • 8.  Re: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-03-2009 17:01
    Dear Doug,
    
    Le 3 févr. 09 à 17:15, Doug Mahugh a écrit :
    
    > It's worth noting that the ODF metadata mechanisms don't allow for  
    > the use of a private/custom schema to tag content within a  
    > document.  And that use case has value to many users.  So if we  
    > decide that ODF won't be able to support those types of scenarios,  
    > for whatever reason, we should not be surprised to find that users  
    > who need such capabilities will look elsewhere.
    
     From a purely commercial point of view, I have both customers and  
    prospects who consider the ability to use custom schemas as an  
    unwelcome feature. Customers (but again, mine may not be yours) wants  
    predictability, and they also want one file format to be used for what  
    it's best. Custom schemas are therefore not so much a must have  
    feature for ODF, but rather is a disctinctive capability of XML. By  
    taking a look at most of the other TCs inside the OASIS consortium,  
    you will see that XML is all about that: creating new kinds of  
    specialized markup languages, and it ultimately amounts to design a  
    custom schema that will be agreed by the rest of the standard  
    development stakeholders.
    
    >
    >
    > Consider the trivial example of a pre-existing document, created  
    > years ago, which needs to be logged in to a content management  
    > system that requires an abstract to be identified for each  
    > document.  If the format of the document is HTML, then a div with  
    > class="abstract" can be used to tag the appropriate paragraph(s) as  
    > the abstract.  If the format of the document is DOCX, a customXml  
    > element with element="abstract" can be used for the same purposes.   
    > In both cases the document content remains valid HTML or  
    > WordprocessingML, while the user adds the custom semantics required  
    > for their purpose.  The custom semantics can be (and should be)  
    > ignored by others.  The user is free to innovate quickly, and does  
    > not have to think in terms of a tradeoff between strict compliance  
    > and flexibility/business value.  They can, and do, have the best of  
    > both worlds in such scenarios: strict compliance to a standard, and  
    > freedom to innovate quickly for their own specialized purposes.
    
    I would argue this to be a "dangerous" feature for a number of reasons:
    - on the level of the usage scenarios, you cannot strictly  
    circumscribe the actual distribution and editing of documents.  
    Therefore, you could end up by having issues resulting of concurrent  
    modifications and clutter created by the documents circulation (aka  
    the network effect).
    - what about safety?
    - if you really need a custom schema, you are essentially breaking the  
    interoperability. If you have the need to create a custom schema, then  
    you have the need to spread it around, wether in your organisation or  
    outside your organisation. And this is just a simple binary scenario:  
    inside your org, outside it. I'm not talking about real collaboration  
    here.
    - precisely because you need to spread your document with your custom  
    schema, then you may want to agree with other stakeholders (your  
    suppliers, for instance) on exactly what your schema is. And then you  
    end up with two questions: why not simplify the file format to include  
    only what you need and last but not least, what applications will be  
    able to process your custom schema and / or your new file format?
    
    All this looks a bit far-fetched to me...
    
    
    >
    >
    > I think ODF would benefit from being as supportive of such scenarios  
    > as HTML, IS29500 and other formats already are.  No committee can  
    > anticipate every possible class of extension that users might find  
    > useful, so I think the format itself should allow for clean, simple  
    > tagging of content according to schemas that may never be  
    > standardized, and may never be widely known or used.  Done  
    > correctly, such tagging puts no burden on simple interoperability  
    > between word processors (which typically ignore it), but can enable  
    > other types of interoperability that many people find valuable.
    
    See the points above: I'd rather say that there are not many users who  
    have this need and when they do, they usually end up using an ad-hoc  
    or industrially designed file format based on XML that does one thing  
    well: to describe, encapsulate and represent their data in their own,  
    specific way. By then you won't need ODF. You need to change to  
    something else, in my humble opinion.
    
    Best,
    Charles-H. Schulz.
    
    
    >
    >
    > - Doug
    >
    >
    > 


  • 9.  RE: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-03-2009 17:19
    Doug Mahugh 


  • 10.  Re: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-08-2009 01:10
    Doug,
    
    Doug Mahugh wrote:
    > It's worth noting that the ODF metadata mechanisms don't allow for the use of a private/custom schema to tag content within a document.  And that use case has value to many users.  So if we decide that ODF won't be able to support those types of scenarios, for whatever reason, we should not be surprised to find that users who need such capabilities will look elsewhere.
    >
    >   
    To others: Doug and I have had some off-list traffic on this issue and I 
    wanted to share my response to Doug's questions here.
    
    Take the following example (using ISO 29500 markup):
    
    
    
    The trick to realizing how to do this in ISO 26300 is to understand that 
    what is at issue is the marking of locations in the text stream and 
    *not* foreign elements or attributes. The "customXML" element is defined 
    by ISO 29500 so in no case is it a "foreign" element.
    
    Here is how I would do the same thing in ISO 26300:
    
    


  • 11.  Re: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-08-2009 17:39
    Patrick Durusau 


  • 12.  RE: [office] One strictly conforming document? - Raising the Floor, not the Ceiling?

    Posted 02-03-2009 22:35
    Hi Bob,
    
    This is probably a good place for me to make this comment more emphatically.
    
    I find it distressing that we are distracted by a red herring considering
    what someone might do with the allowance for foreign elements and attributes
    and think by lowering the ceiling from where ODF 1.0/IS 26300/ODF 1.1 place
    it is a blow for interoperability.
    
    I say this because the *FLOOR* (the minimum level for conformance) of all
    ODF specification is so low that there is no assurance, by specification, of
    a minimum level of common conformance among implementations whatsoever.
    (Although processors are obligated to accept schema-valid ODF documents,
    they are not required to provide semantics for any of it and only chance and
    good intentions have whatever semantics that are provided be more-or-less
    compatible.)
    
    What this says is that the only interoperability that is achieved at this
    time is by (1) reliance on a common code base with OpenOffice.org and/or (2)
    all implementers seeing what other implementations do (with some apparently
    being more attentive to this than others).  So prudence and good intentions
    by implementers is the only factor that gives rise to interoperable use of
    ODF at this point in ODF history.  The specification and abstract concerns
    about where the ceiling is has nothing to do with whatever interoperability
    there is, and it seems likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future.
    
    I think lowering the ceiling is going to accomplish zip, and I see no reason
    to move it as a safeguard against a hazard that has not been experienced,
    especially when it involves complex conformance statements that seem to
    reduce interoperability even further by allowing more variations for which
    there is no clarification in the specification (e.g., what is a text
    document with no content.xml file and what momentous concern has us
    recognize a single Math XML file as ODF?).
    
     - Dennis
    
    PS: Producers that do not produce strictly conforming documents are
    *already* defined to be conforming producers under a reasonably well-crafted
    definition.  That part of the definition has been there since OASIS ODF 1.0
    in 2005 and I must presume that the folks who put it that way though it
    accomplished an useful purpose.    It might be valuable to say more about
    what it means to have a (strictly) conforming document after any foreign
    elements have been eliminated by the specified procedure, but the intension
    of the statement seems pretty clear.  At the moment, there is no normative
    strictly conformant document, and I also agree that there should be.
    
    PPS: I think it is great for a procurement policy to require that a producer
    make (or be configurable to make, or be defaulted to make)
    strictly-conformant documents only.    That is, to be operated as a
    strictly-conforming producer.  You can then work on what it takes for those
    to actually provide usefully interoperable and interchangeable documents.
    That is very valuable.  At the moment, there is no strictly-conforming
    conformance in the ODF 1.0..1.1 pantheon, and it will be good to bake that
    case into the specification.  But I see no reason to lower the ceiling that
    is already there.  I do think it is of great value to provide another
    ceiling that you feel more comfortable with for procurement purposes,
    although I wonder how you qualify products with respect to the floor.  I
    have my installation of OpenOffice.org 3.0 set to produce only ODF 1.1
    documents for that reason as well, although there is no
    strictly-conforming-only option at the moment.  It seems to me that far more
    will be accomplished for interoperability by procurement requirements with
    teeth in them than anything the ODF TC will provide in the short term, with
    or without a ceiling that allows for foreign elements and attributes in a
    particular way.
    
    


  • 13.  RE: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-03-2009 23:24
    Since the current ODF 1.0/IS 26300/ODF 1.1 specifications only define
    (normative) conformance that allows for foreign elements (among others), and
    you are successfully requiring strict conformance in your procurement
    policies, it seems to me that you are not disturbed, as a practical matter,
    in obtaining strictly-conformant products.  
    
    I would think that having strict conformance normatively-defined in the ODF
    specification, while preserving the current overall definition, would
    support your case by a specification-defined quality.  If you don't want the
    other kind around, so be it, but I don't think having the TC do that work
    for you will solve your problem.  
    
     - Dennis
    
    


  • 14.  Re: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-04-2009 11:11
    Hi Dennis
    
    Clearly you have far more time to devote to to this discussion than I
    so you will forgive me if my response is brief.  I am trying to
    understand where this strong demand for the use of foreign elements is
    really coming from.  I've heard about the X standing for extensible,
    the fact that html has a 
    element and an ongoing appeal to the metaphor of floors and ceilings. Somehow none of it is convincing. Is there a real use case out there which is perhaps threatened by "lowering the ceiling" as you would put it? I am wondering whether there is a known implementation, or planned implementation, which will rely heavily on this allowance - or "promise" as i have heard it most recently described. If so, maybe we should be discussing in more concrete terms. 2009/2/3 Dennis E. Hamilton


  • 15.  RE: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-04-2009 23:37
    Bob,
    
    I do have thoughts on ways that foreign elements might be very useful.
    
    But that is not the basis for my arguing for perpetuation of the ceiling
    that is established with ODF 1.0/IS 26300/ODF 1.1.  Although I would be
    disappointed to see removal of the opportunity for foreign elements as part
    of a compliant document, I can live with that, if the guidance about what to
    do with them remains the same as for ODF 1.0/IS 26300/ODF 1.1.
    
    My basis for keeping the current ceiling and the foreign-element conditions
    is with regard to the promise that represents (as far as I am concerned).  I
    have responded about that here
    


  • 16.  RE: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-04-2009 23:55
    In the Expanded RDF Deployment example, below, there is an incomplete
    attribute entry.  I meant for it to say
    
       It would be useful to use 


  • 17.  Re: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-03-2009 13:43
    Michael,
    
    Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote:
    > Hi Patrick,
    >
    > On 02/02/09 15:46, Patrick Durusau wrote:
    >> Greetings!
    >>
    >> Granted that I fully support Michael's notion that the ODF TC should 
    >> in the future be able to more routinely produce standard extensions 
    >> to the format, but I also realize there maybe custom uses where there 
    >> is no desire or need for an standardized extension. Or at least I 
    >> would prefer to keep that open as a possibility and not to deny 
    >> applications that substantially rely on ODF 1.2 from being able to 
    >> claim that they conform to ODF 1.2 (as does their output, to the 
    >> extent that it does).
    >
    > I think it is important that users know whether an application that 
    > claims to be ODF 1.2 compliant is able to store documents without 
    > extensions, or only documents that contain such extensions. So, if we 
    > would give up the requirement that all ODF producers are able to 
    > produce strict conforming documents, we at least would need an 
    > additional conformance class for producers, so that one can differ 
    > between a producer that is able to create strictly conforming 
    > documents, and one that isn't. This may be an option, but it doesn't 
    > make it easier to understand what the various conformance levels 
    > actually mean.
    >
    > What do you think?
    >
    Well, but the difficulty may be in your statement: "I think it is 
    important that users know whether an application that claims to be ODF 
    1.2 compliant is able to store documents without extensions, or only 
    documents that contain such extensions." That really isn't the purpose 
    of a conformance clause. A conformance clause is supposed to define what 
    a conforming application must or must not do. It is not a guide to or 
    restriction on what a conforming application must inform a potential 
    user about its conformance.
    
    In other words I would like to distinguish between our 1) defining of 
    conformance for ODF documents and the applications that process them 
    from 2) defining what any conforming application (that is one that meets 
    our conformance requirements) says about its conformance.
    
    The former is a proper concern of this TC, the latter (at least in my 
    opinion) is not. The latter strays into marketing strategies and other 
    concerns.
    
    Hope you are having a great day!
    
    Patrick
    
    
    
    > Best regards
    >
    > Michael
    >>
    >> Hope everyone is at the start of a great week!
    >>
    >> Patrick
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    
    -- 
    Patrick Durusau
    patrick@durusau.net
    Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
    Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
    Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
    Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
    
    


  • 18.  Re: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-03-2009 14:34
    Patrick Durusau 


  • 19.  Re: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-03-2009 15:04
    Rob,
    
    robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
    > Patrick Durusau 


  • 20.  Re: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-03-2009 16:05
    Patrick Durusau 


  • 21.  Re: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-03-2009 16:10
    On 02/03/09 16:03, Patrick Durusau wrote:
    > Rob,
    > 
    > robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
    >> Patrick Durusau 


  • 22.  RE: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-04-2009 05:51
    Michael and Patrick,
    
    I think this is a very useful exchange.
    
    Based on this and some other analysis I have been doing, I think it is
    important to define a strictly-conforming producer.  
    
    That strikes me as much better than saying that a conforming producer must
    be able to produce strictly-conforming documents under various conditions.
    The capabilities can obviously be combined in a single producer/processor
    implementation, but now we don't have to make up rules about how such
    implementations provide for selection of which producer, etc., so long as
    the strictly-conforming producer is discretely usable somehow.  And people
    who want always-strictly-conforming producers can obtain just those, or use
    whatever options there are to limit an implementation to exclusive use of
    its non-strict producer.
    
    I'm also aligned with the independence of this from anything that ends up in
    in-line or in-package RDF metadata.
    
     - Dennis
    
    


  • 23.  RE: [office] One strictly conforming document?

    Posted 02-04-2009 06:04
    Oops,
    
    I meant to say, and thought I fixed "And people who want
    always-strictly-conforming producers can obtain just those, or use whatever
    options there are to limit an implementation to exclusive use of
    its *strict* producer."  
    
    There seems to be no reason to distinguish consumers although I can see
    someone wanting to know they are accepting only strictly-conformant
    documents.  That sounds like a nice implementation-feature opportunity that
    the ODF specification does not have to say anything about.
    
     - Dennis