OpenDocument - Adv Document Collab SC

Attached is a proposal for improving the existing change tracking specification in ODF 1.2, as previously mentioned.  Robin, please let me know if we should upload this to the wiki.   We’re looking forward to discussing this proposal after people have had a chance to take a look. John has pulled together the bulk of this proposal, so he can answer any specific questions about the details.   Regards, Doug   Doug Mahugh        Lead Standards Professional      Office Interoperability       425-707-1182      blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh   ODF change tracking proposal.odt

Doug,  John, cc all Thanks for getting this proposal to the SC on schedule. Yes, please do upload to the documents section at http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office-collab/documents.php in the Standards folder (it does not seem possible to upload documents to our wiki) We need to have a single way to reference your proposal and the existing one and I suggest: extended-ct-proposal for your proposal to extend the change tracking mechanism generic-ct-proposal for the existing proposal for an xml-generic approach to change tracking (I think it would be wrong to use company names and potentially confusing to use A and B) We have some 60 Use Cases and in order to evaluate the proposals we need to see as many of these as possible as worked examples. Please would you look at these and do as many as you can, and upload in a zip to the Use Cases folder: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office-collab/documents.php Any that you are not able to do, please indicate if they are outside the scope of your proposal or just not yet covered. I think it best to add this info to the wiki page so I have made http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/ChangeTrackingUseCases into a tabular form so for each proposal we can record the status, e.g. 'Completed', 'To Do', 'Out of scope' It would be useful to do something similar for the wiki page on Requirements so I will add a table to that page also. Best regards, Robin On 16/03/2011 19:11, Doug Mahugh wrote: 91D8426D0DE09F4C9E09E1605E7FF08E27DEBF87@TK5EX14MBXC112.redmond.corp.microsoft.com type= cite > Attached is a proposal for improving the existing change tracking specification in ODF 1.2, as previously mentioned.  Robin, please let me know if we should upload this to the wiki.   We’re looking forward to discussing this proposal after people have had a chance to take a look. John has pulled together the bulk of this proposal, so he can answer any specific questions about the details.   Regards, Doug   Doug Mahugh        Lead Standards Professional      Office Interoperability       425-707-1182      blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh   --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robin La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd Change control for XML T: +44 1684 592 144 E: robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com http://www.deltaxml.com Registered in England 02528681 Reg. Office: Monsell House, WR8 0QN, UK

I’ve uploaded our proposal to the Standards folder of the document section here: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41520/extended-ct-proposal.odt   Given that both proposals seem to address the majority of the defined use cases, I think it would be useful to have a discussion about the two general approaches that have been suggested before we get too far into the details of markup examples. I agree that analysis of those details is an important step, but first we need to make a higher-level decision regarding the tradeoffs between a new XML-generic approach and an extension of the existing functionality. I think it would be useful to discuss those tradeoffs among SC members, to determine whether we have consensus on either of the two approaches currently on the table.   What do others think? Should we schedule some time to begin that discussion?   Regards, Doug   From: Robin LaFontaine [mailto:robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 5:50 AM To: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [office-collab] change tracking proposal   Doug,  John, cc all Thanks for getting this proposal to the SC on schedule. Yes, please do upload to the documents section at http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office-collab/documents.php in the Standards folder (it does not seem possible to upload documents to our wiki) We need to have a single way to reference your proposal and the existing one and I suggest: "extended-ct-proposal" for your proposal to extend the change tracking mechanism "generic-ct-proposal" for the existing proposal for an xml-generic approach to change tracking (I think it would be wrong to use company names and potentially confusing to use A and B) We have some 60 Use Cases and in order to evaluate the proposals we need to see as many of these as possible as worked examples. Please would you look at these and do as many as you can, and upload in a zip to the Use Cases folder: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office-collab/documents.php Any that you are not able to do, please indicate if they are outside the scope of your proposal or just not yet covered. I think it best to add this info to the wiki page so I have made http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/ChangeTrackingUseCases into a tabular form so for each proposal we can record the status, e.g. 'Completed', 'To Do', 'Out of scope' It would be useful to do something similar for the wiki page on Requirements so I will add a table to that page also. Best regards, Robin On 16/03/2011 19:11, Doug Mahugh wrote: Attached is a proposal for improving the existing change tracking specification in ODF 1.2, as previously mentioned.  Robin, please let me know if we should upload this to the wiki.   We’re looking forward to discussing this proposal after people have had a chance to take a look. John has pulled together the bulk of this proposal, so he can answer any specific questions about the details.   Regards, Doug   Doug Mahugh        Lead Standards Professional      Office Interoperability       425-707-1182      blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh       --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robin La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd  "Change control for XML" T: +44 1684 592 144  E: robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com       http://www.deltaxml.com       Registered in England 02528681 Reg. Office: Monsell House, WR8 0QN, UK --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Thanks for uploading the proposal, Doug. To be fair to your proposal, I am not sure we can discuss it sensibly until we understand it. Ganesh has already asked for some details about how or whether certain use cases are handled. Therefore I would like to ask you to address all the use cases in the wiki and as a minimum indicate if they are going to be covered or if you consider them out of scope for your proposal. I understand you do not want to complete them all now, but I request that you at least indicate which are covered. For example, it is not clear to me if Spreadsheet H.1 is covered - your introduction suggests that your proposal covers only ODT and none of the other parts of ODF. I agree we need to discuss this and I am arranging conference calls early April to do this, see later email. Best regards, Robin On 18/03/2011 23:24, Doug Mahugh wrote: 91D8426D0DE09F4C9E09E1605E7FF08E27DEF25F@TK5EX14MBXC112.redmond.corp.microsoft.com type= cite > I’ve uploaded our proposal to the Standards folder of the document section here: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41520/extended-ct-proposal.odt   Given that both proposals seem to address the majority of the defined use cases, I think it would be useful to have a discussion about the two general approaches that have been suggested before we get too far into the details of markup examples. I agree that analysis of those details is an important step, but first we need to make a higher-level decision regarding the tradeoffs between a new XML-generic approach and an extension of the existing functionality. I think it would be useful to discuss those tradeoffs among SC members, to determine whether we have consensus on either of the two approaches currently on the table.   What do others think? Should we schedule some time to begin that discussion?   Regards, Doug   From: Robin LaFontaine [ mailto:robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com ] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 5:50 AM To: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [office-collab] change tracking proposal   Doug,  John, cc all Thanks for getting this proposal to the SC on schedule. Yes, please do upload to the documents section at http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office-collab/documents.php in the Standards folder (it does not seem possible to upload documents to our wiki) We need to have a single way to reference your proposal and the existing one and I suggest: extended-ct-proposal for your proposal to extend the change tracking mechanism generic-ct-proposal for the existing proposal for an xml-generic approach to change tracking (I think it would be wrong to use company names and potentially confusing to use A and B) We have some 60 Use Cases and in order to evaluate the proposals we need to see as many of these as possible as worked examples. Please would you look at these and do as many as you can, and upload in a zip to the Use Cases folder: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office-collab/documents.php Any that you are not able to do, please indicate if they are outside the scope of your proposal or just not yet covered. I think it best to add this info to the wiki page so I have made http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/ChangeTrackingUseCases into a tabular form so for each proposal we can record the status, e.g. 'Completed', 'To Do', 'Out of scope' It would be useful to do something similar for the wiki page on Requirements so I will add a table to that page also. Best regards, Robin On 16/03/2011 19:11, Doug Mahugh wrote: Attached is a proposal for improving the existing change tracking specification in ODF 1.2, as previously mentioned.  Robin, please let me know if we should upload this to the wiki.   We’re looking forward to discussing this proposal after people have had a chance to take a look. John has pulled together the bulk of this proposal, so he can answer any specific questions about the details.   Regards, Doug   Doug Mahugh        Lead Standards Professional      Office Interoperability       425-707-1182      blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh       --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robin La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd  Change control for XML T: +44 1684 592 144  E: robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com       http://www.deltaxml.com       Registered in England 02528681 Reg. Office: Monsell House, WR8 0QN, UK --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robin La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd Change control for XML T: +44 1684 592 144 E: robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com http://www.deltaxml.com Registered in England 02528681 Reg. Office: Monsell House, WR8 0QN, UK

Robin,   Yes, I agree it would be helpful to understand which use cases are intended to be covered. John will provide this information, as he mentioned in his response to Ganesh.   I'm also glad to see the calls scheduled for April 5 and April 12, and am looking forward to the discussion. High-level decisions such as whether or not to abandon the existing change-tracking functionality in ODF will have significant impact on ODF users who have created such documents, as well as ODF implementers who have implemented change tracking in the past.   Ganesh, in your work to implement the generic-ct-proposal, have you implemented the use cases that you've mentioned? If so, it might be helpful for the SC to hear any thoughts you have on the experience of implementing them. It would also be interesting to hear feedback from those who have not implemented either proposal.   Regards, Doug     From: Robin LaFontaine [mailto:robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 9:12 AM To: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [office-collab] change tracking proposal   Thanks for uploading the proposal, Doug. To be fair to your proposal, I am not sure we can discuss it sensibly until we understand it. Ganesh has already asked for some details about how or whether certain use cases are handled. Therefore I would like to ask you to address all the use cases in the wiki and as a minimum indicate if they are going to be covered or if you consider them out of scope for your proposal. I understand you do not want to complete them all now, but I request that you at least indicate which are covered. For example, it is not clear to me if Spreadsheet H.1 is covered - your introduction suggests that your proposal covers only ODT and none of the other parts of ODF. I agree we need to discuss this and I am arranging conference calls early April to do this, see later email. Best regards, Robin On 18/03/2011 23:24, Doug Mahugh wrote: I’ve uploaded our proposal to the Standards folder of the document section here: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/41520/extended-ct-proposal.odt   Given that both proposals seem to address the majority of the defined use cases, I think it would be useful to have a discussion about the two general approaches that have been suggested before we get too far into the details of markup examples. I agree that analysis of those details is an important step, but first we need to make a higher-level decision regarding the tradeoffs between a new XML-generic approach and an extension of the existing functionality. I think it would be useful to discuss those tradeoffs among SC members, to determine whether we have consensus on either of the two approaches currently on the table.   What do others think? Should we schedule some time to begin that discussion?   Regards, Doug   From: Robin LaFontaine [ mailto:robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com ] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 5:50 AM To: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [office-collab] change tracking proposal   Doug,  John, cc all Thanks for getting this proposal to the SC on schedule. Yes, please do upload to the documents section at http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office-collab/documents.php in the Standards folder (it does not seem possible to upload documents to our wiki) We need to have a single way to reference your proposal and the existing one and I suggest: "extended-ct-proposal" for your proposal to extend the change tracking mechanism "generic-ct-proposal" for the existing proposal for an xml-generic approach to change tracking (I think it would be wrong to use company names and potentially confusing to use A and B) We have some 60 Use Cases and in order to evaluate the proposals we need to see as many of these as possible as worked examples. Please would you look at these and do as many as you can, and upload in a zip to the Use Cases folder: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/office-collab/documents.php Any that you are not able to do, please indicate if they are outside the scope of your proposal or just not yet covered. I think it best to add this info to the wiki page so I have made http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/ChangeTrackingUseCases into a tabular form so for each proposal we can record the status, e.g. 'Completed', 'To Do', 'Out of scope' It would be useful to do something similar for the wiki page on Requirements so I will add a table to that page also. Best regards, Robin On 16/03/2011 19:11, Doug Mahugh wrote: Attached is a proposal for improving the existing change tracking specification in ODF 1.2, as previously mentioned.  Robin, please let me know if we should upload this to the wiki.   We’re looking forward to discussing this proposal after people have had a chance to take a look. John has pulled together the bulk of this proposal, so he can answer any specific questions about the details.   Regards, Doug   Doug Mahugh        Lead Standards Professional      Office Interoperability       425-707-1182      blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh       --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robin La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd  "Change control for XML" T: +44 1684 592 144  E: robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com       http://www.deltaxml.com       Registered in England 02528681 Reg. Office: Monsell House, WR8 0QN, UK --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robin La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd  "Change control for XML" T: +44 1684 592 144  E: robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com       http://www.deltaxml.com       Registered in England 02528681 Reg. Office: Monsell House, WR8 0QN, UK --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Would it be worth having three meetings? There is always the risk that in any given meeting, we mix information sharing with questions and criticism and debate in an unbalanced way. I know that this is difficult enough to moderate in a face-to-face meeting, but near impossible to do so over the phone. However, we could structure the meeting time in such a way to give everyone the opportunity to make their case. For example: 1) At first meeting, have one proponent present their proposal. They walk us through their entire proposal, targeting 30-45 minutes. Questions may be asked for clarification, but this is not the opportunity for criticism. Give the presenter the space to lay out their proposal. 2) At second meeting, have the proponent of the other proposal do the same, again targeting 30-45 minutes, with questions for clarification. 3) At the third meeting, then (hopefully) we're all well-informed and we can debate the proposals. The Chair would keep the debate balanced, ensuring that each SC member has a fair opportunity to offer their comments. Ideally, the Chair himself would not be an active proponent in the debate. If this is not possible then we could appoint an alternative chair, pro tempore, for this particular meeting, to allow all proponents the full ability to participate in the debate. -Rob

I like this idea, Rob. I'll be leaving for Prague after tomorrow and won't be back in the office until Monday 4/4, so I'd prefer to cover our proposal on the 4/12 call if possible, to have some time to prepare after my trip. Regards, Doug
Original Message----- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [ mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com ] Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:00 AM To: Doug Mahugh Cc: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org; Robin LaFontaine Subject: RE: [office-collab] change tracking proposal Would it be worth having three meetings? There is always the risk that in any given meeting, we mix information sharing with questions and criticism and debate in an unbalanced way. I know that this is difficult enough to moderate in a face-to-face meeting, but near impossible to do so over the phone. However, we could structure the meeting time in such a way to give everyone the opportunity to make their case. For example: 1) At first meeting, have one proponent present their proposal. They walk us through their entire proposal, targeting 30-45 minutes. Questions may be asked for clarification, but this is not the opportunity for criticism. Give the presenter the space to lay out their proposal. 2) At second meeting, have the proponent of the other proposal do the same, again targeting 30-45 minutes, with questions for clarification. 3) At the third meeting, then (hopefully) we're all well-informed and we can debate the proposals. The Chair would keep the debate balanced, ensuring that each SC member has a fair opportunity to offer their comments. Ideally, the Chair himself would not be an active proponent in the debate. If this is not possible then we could appoint an alternative chair, pro tempore, for this particular meeting, to allow all proponents the full ability to participate in the debate. -Rob

I agree with your suggestion, Rob, and clearly this means that we will need another meeting scheduled for Tues 19th of April, which I will book. You would certainly be the best person to chair the meeting on the 19th, so that I can take a more active part in the discussion. Would you be willing and available to do this? I am OK to chair the other meetings. We will also need to be able to share a screen so that we can see a presentation. Would IBM be able to provide this facility to us as well? One thing that I would like to avoid is repeating the presentations to the TC in the event that we are not able to reach consensus. Therefore it is very important that we develop documentation which highlights the advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches, which the TC can use to make its decision, if this is needed.  This documentation will also be a useful record of our discussions. Robin On 22/03/2011 17:19, Doug Mahugh wrote: 91D8426D0DE09F4C9E09E1605E7FF08E27E0FC27@TK5EX14MBXC112.redmond.corp.microsoft.com type= cite > I like this idea, Rob. I'll be leaving for Prague after tomorrow and won't be back in the office until Monday 4/4, so I'd prefer to cover our proposal on the 4/12 call if possible, to have some time to prepare after my trip. Regards, Doug
Original Message----- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [ mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com ] Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:00 AM To: Doug Mahugh Cc: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org ; Robin LaFontaine Subject: RE: [office-collab] change tracking proposal Would it be worth having three meetings? There is always the risk that in any given meeting, we mix information sharing with questions and criticism and debate in an unbalanced way. I know that this is difficult enough to moderate in a face-to-face meeting, but near impossible to do so over the phone. However, we could structure the meeting time in such a way to give everyone the opportunity to make their case. For example: 1) At first meeting, have one proponent present their proposal. They walk us through their entire proposal, targeting 30-45 minutes. Questions may be asked for clarification, but this is not the opportunity for criticism. Give the presenter the space to lay out their proposal. 2) At second meeting, have the proponent of the other proposal do the same, again targeting 30-45 minutes, with questions for clarification. 3) At the third meeting, then (hopefully) we're all well-informed and we can debate the proposals. The Chair would keep the debate balanced, ensuring that each SC member has a fair opportunity to offer their comments. Ideally, the Chair himself would not be an active proponent in the debate. If this is not possible then we could appoint an alternative chair, pro tempore, for this particular meeting, to allow all proponents the full ability to participate in the debate. -Rob -- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robin La Fontaine, Director, DeltaXML Ltd Change control for XML T: +44 1684 592 144 E: robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com http://www.deltaxml.com Registered in England 02528681 Reg. Office: Monsell House, WR8 0QN, UK

Robin LaFontaine <robin.lafontaine@deltaxml.com> wrote on 03/23/2011 06:39:06 AM: . . > > We will also need to be able to share a screen so that we can see a > presentation. Would IBM be able to provide this facility to us as well? > I'll see what I can do. I know we have members dialing in from several continents, and not all of us are on Windows. So it might be safest for presenters to update their slides to the SC's doc repository the day before the meeting, so we can all retrieve them. -Rob

> Ganesh, in your work to implement the generic-ct-proposal, have you > implemented the use cases that you've mentioned? If so, it might be helpful > for the SC to hear any thoughts you have on the experience of implementing > them. It would also be interesting to hear feedback from those who have not > implemented either proposal. The current status of implementation for the use-cases I had mentioned are Complex Delete Merges - Fully Implemented Multiple and Overlapping Changes - Partially Implemented Table Cell Splits and Merges - Not Yet Implemented (Foundation code for this feature done) The current status of implementation-completeness is primarily a result of task scheduling and time constraints and is very much a work-in-progress ( to reach the eventual goal of full implementation ). The complex delete merge scenarios were a bit tricky to implement and verify and I have already requested for an enhancement in the spec to simplify this area further. But to be fair to the specification, the use-cases themselves difficult to change-track and I'm happy to see that it is at-least feasible to implement these use-cases by the generic-ct-specification. It is for the same reason that I wanted to see how these use-cases were going to be handled by the extended-ct-specification. I'm not sure whether John's suggestion that we could look at simple delete changes implementation to get an idea of the complexity and feasibility to complex delete changes implementation is valid. This is a different beast altogether and I would still like to see these use-cases specifically addressed by the extended-ct-specification ( along with multiple and overlapping change tracking ). Regards, Ganesh

Doug, John, I assume that you also considered interoperability with MS Office in your proposal. So do the extensions you propose cover all the CT features of MS Office? Regards, Frank On 16.03.2011 20:11, Doug Mahugh wrote: 91D8426D0DE09F4C9E09E1605E7FF08E27DEBF87@TK5EX14MBXC112.redmond.corp.microsoft.com type= cite > Attached is a proposal for improving the existing change tracking specification in ODF 1.2, as previously mentioned.  Robin, please let me know if we should upload this to the wiki.   We’re looking forward to discussing this proposal after people have had a chance to take a look. John has pulled together the bulk of this proposal, so he can answer any specific questions about the details.   Regards, Doug   Doug Mahugh        Lead Standards Professional      Office Interoperability       425-707-1182      blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh   --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- Frank Meies Software Developer Phone: +49 49 23646 500 Oracle OFFICE GBU ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Nagelsweg 55 20097 Hamburg ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603 Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V. Rijnzathe 6, 3454PV De Meern, Niederlande Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697 Geschäftsführer: Jürgen Kunz, Marcel van de Molen, Alexander van der Ven Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment