OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Re: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

  • 1.  Re: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

    Posted 05-06-2007 22:44 

    Thanks, Peter, I had not heard of the
IDABC research project.

    There are also discussions within OASIS
on a new TC to investigate document standards interoperability.  See
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200704/msg00007.html

    This new OASIS proposal is more aligned
to interop between ODF, DocBook, DITA and related formats..  Although
these formats are not at the same level of presentation abstraction, there
should be meaningful level of interop at the structural and perhaps semantic
level (with ODF 1.2 metadata perhaps).

    So I think my proposed subcommittee
could help with that as well.

    -Rob



    peter.vandenabeele.be@gmail.com wrote on 05/06/2007
05:15:15 PM:

    
> On 5/6/07, robert_weir@us.ibm.com <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
    
> > Is there any interest among TC members in pursuing some of these
topics in
    
> > more depth in a subcommittee?
    
>
    
> At the recent IDABC Open Standards meeting (EU DIGIT) a specific proposal
    
> was made to  start a research project into interop between ODF
and other
    
> formats (mainly Microsoft document formats in that proposal). All
attendants
    
> at the meeting pledged in favor of such research work. A specific
    
> proposal will
    
> now be written now and later proposed to the group that decides on
budgets.
    
>
    
> I assume a form of collaboration between the proposed "interop
SC" and the
    
> EU research project would be useful.
    
>
    
> > Possible deliverables of the subcommittee might be a technical
report on
    
> > best practices for interoperability, as well as specific recommendations
for
    
> > accomplishing these goals.
    
>
    
> These lines match very closely to the deliverables proposed in the
upcoming
    
> EU project (but that was more narrowly focussed on Microsoft formats).
    
>
    
> Peter
    
>
    
> --
    
> Peter Vandenabeele
    
> peter AT vandenabeele DOT com
    
> http://www.vandenabeele.com
    
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/petervandenabeele
    
> http://www.oasis-open.org/


  • 2.  RE: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

    Posted 05-07-2007 00:00 
    






    Yes, this 
proposed TC is aimed to interop at semantic level. In other side, UOML TC is 
aimed to interop at layout level for visible use.
    

    Thanks 
Peter for introducing IDABC research project. I'd like to hear the future 
progress of that project.
    

     
    

    -Alex
    

    
  
    
  

    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
    
                                                

    Thanks, Peter, I had not heard of the IDABC research project.

    There are also discussions within OASIS 
  on a new TC to investigate document standards interoperability.  See 
  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200704/msg00007.html

    This new OASIS proposal is more aligned 
  to interop between ODF, DocBook, DITA and related formats..  Although 
  these formats are not at the same level of presentation abstraction, there 
  should be meaningful level of interop at the structural and perhaps semantic 
  level (with ODF 1.2 metadata perhaps).

    So I think my proposed subcommittee could help with that as 
  well.

    -Rob



    peter.vandenabeele.be@gmail.com wrote on 
  05/06/2007 05:15:15 PM:

    > On 5/6/07, robert_weir@us.ibm.com 
  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
    > > Is there any interest among 
  TC members in pursuing some of these topics in
    > > more depth in a 
  subcommittee?
    >
    > At the recent IDABC Open Standards meeting (EU 
  DIGIT) a specific proposal
    > was made to  start a research project 
  into interop between ODF and other
    > formats (mainly Microsoft document 
  formats in that proposal). All attendants
    > at the meeting pledged in 
  favor of such research work. A specific
    > proposal will
    > now be 
  written now and later proposed to the group that decides on budgets.
    >
    > I assume a form of collaboration between the proposed "interop SC" 
  and the
    > EU research project would be useful.
    >
    > > 
  Possible deliverables of the subcommittee might be a technical report 
  on
    > > best practices for interoperability, as well as specific 
  recommendations for
    > > accomplishing these goals.
    >
    > 
  These lines match very closely to the deliverables proposed in the 
  upcoming
    > EU project (but that was more narrowly focussed on Microsoft 
  formats).
    >
    > Peter
    >
    > --
    > Peter 
  Vandenabeele
    > peter AT vandenabeele DOT com
    > 
  http://www.vandenabeele.com
    > 
  http://www.linkedin.com/in/petervandenabeele
    > 
  http://www.oasis-open.org/


  • 3.  Re: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

    Posted 05-07-2007 10:52 
    Dear Alex,

perhaps should we form an Interoperability SC within the UOML TC and
then coordinate back here? I think that there obviously needs to be some
technical, specification work to be done at the strict level of
interoperability, so forming the SC here might be a good choice. Of
course the Adoption TC needs to be involved as well.

Regards,

Charles-H. Schulz.

ALex Wang a écrit :
> Yes, this proposed TC is aimed to interop at semantic level. In other
> side, UOML TC is aimed to interop at layout level for visible use.
> Thanks Peter for introducing IDABC research project. I'd like to hear
> the future progress of that project.
>  
> -Alex
>
>     
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 4.  Re: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

    Posted 05-07-2007 12:36 
    Greetings!

For reasons I detail below I think interoperability is the *next* issue 
but I would caution that we need to be mindful of the TC charter rules 
in OASIS. I am not sure that any TC actually has a charter that would 
cover a "standard" for interoperability. I don't think any of those for 
ODF or the UOML charter would cover it.

I suspect that a new TC with both specific and 'future' standards 
against which interoperability standards could be specified would be 
required. Besides, it would provide a more "neutral" meeting place for 
the various format supporters to meet.

It would take a lot of hard work but a TC that is sponsored by *all* the 
major format proponents I think would start with a high degree of 
credibility in the world of technology. Noting that the issue would be 
*mapping* and not sniping about the choices made by any particular format.

As many of you know, I urged an EU panel back in March to make a mapping 
between XML document formats a prerequisite for adoption of any XML 
format for office documents a prerequisite for adoption as an ISO 
standard. Some of you may not be old enough to remember conversion 
software that touted their abilities to convert between literally 
hundreds of diverse formats in the "bad old days." I do. We are close to 
having XML based archival formats and we should not screw that up by 
having data islands with inconsistent mappings between XML based formats.

Hope everyone is at the start of a great week!

Patrick

Charles-H. Schulz wrote:

>Dear Alex,
>
>perhaps should we form an Interoperability SC within the UOML TC and
>then coordinate back here? I think that there obviously needs to be some
>technical, specification work to be done at the strict level of
>interoperability, so forming the SC here might be a good choice. Of
>course the Adoption TC needs to be involved as well.
>
>Regards,
>
>Charles-H. Schulz.
>
>ALex Wang a écrit :
>  
>
>>Yes, this proposed TC is aimed to interop at semantic level. In other
>>side, UOML TC is aimed to interop at layout level for visible use.
>>Thanks Peter for introducing IDABC research project. I'd like to hear
>>the future progress of that project.
>> 
>>-Alex
>>
>>    
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 5.  RE: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

    Posted 05-07-2007 19:02 
    Hi Patrick,
That's a pitty not meet you in joint TC meeting at OASIS Symposium.  I
have uploaded the slides and demo for this TC meeting. The main topic is
to realize interop via UOML.
In fact, interop is the main purpose of the charter of proposed TC, it
is at semantic level.  For UOML TC, the main reason to define a
operatiing interface standard is for use of interop, it is at layout
level( http://www.oasis-open.org/events/symposium/2006/slides/Wang.pdf).
I believe that maping to a different format is not reliable. An unify
operating interface is more feasible and can meet market requirement.
I support to form a new SC within this TC, with the help of Adoption TC
and UOML TC, maybe also including the new proposed TC.

-Alex


    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 6.  Re: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

    Posted 05-07-2007 19:22 
    Alex,

ALex Wang wrote:

>Hi Patrick,
>That's a pitty not meet you in joint TC meeting at OASIS Symposium.
>
Sorry I wasn't present. But I had promised my wife a vacation long 
before that meeting was set. ;-)

>  I
>have uploaded the slides and demo for this TC meeting. The main topic is
>to realize interop via UOML.
>In fact, interop is the main purpose of the charter of proposed TC, it
>is at semantic level.  For UOML TC, the main reason to define a
>operatiing interface standard is for use of interop, it is at layout
>level( http://www.oasis-open.org/events/symposium/2006/slides/Wang.pdf).
>I believe that maping to a different format is not reliable. An unify
>operating interface is more feasible and can meet market requirement.
>I support to form a new SC within this TC, with the help of Adoption TC
>and UOML TC, maybe also including the new proposed TC.
>
>  
>
I will have to look at your proposal but correct me if I am wrong but 
isn't the UOML TC operating under RAND?

I think the division between structure and presentation, although 
softening over the years in a number of respects, was the right decision 
beginning with ISO 8879.

Interoperability of presentation (or as you say in your slides 
post-typesetting) may well meet a market need and be interesting as well 
from a technical standpoint, but I don't think it would meet what I 
consider to be the needs of interoperability. Particularly if the 
"operating interface standard" is the property of a particular vendor.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick


>-Alex
>
>
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 7.  RE: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

    Posted 05-07-2007 20:02 
    Hi Patrick,
Is ISO 8879 SGML?
SGML try to separate semantic content(structure) and presentation, but
it can't work well in any condition. An example is HTML, which based on
SGML, inherited the same theory at begining, but have to add many
presentation elements after begining.
Maybe you pay attention to interop at semantic level only, the new
proposed TC will meet your requirment.
UOML is never the property of a particular vendor. It is open. Think
about Java, if SUN gave up all IPR at begining, I believe MS will dirty
it and the world will under the control of .NET, the same as Windows and
Office today.

-Alex


    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 8.  Re: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

    Posted 05-07-2007 20:28 
    Alex,

Alex Wang wrote:

>Hi Patrick,
>Is ISO 8879 SGML?
>  
>
Yes, sorry, I spend too much time on standards committees. ;-)

>SGML try to separate semantic content(structure) and presentation, but
>it can't work well in any condition. An example is HTML, which based on
>SGML, inherited the same theory at begining, but have to add many
>presentation elements after begining.
>  
>
Err, well, XML (which really is based on SGML) seems to work fairly well.

To say that HTML was "based" on SGML is true but only in a very limited 
sense of the word.

HTML has "structure" only in a very limited sense of the word. It really 
is about presentation. There have been efforts to fix that but not very 
successfully.

>Maybe you pay attention to interop at semantic level only, the new
>proposed TC will meet your requirment.
>  
>
Well, you haven't defined "semantic level" but I presume from your 
slides you mean presentation semantics.

That is one way to look at the semantics of a document and they all have 
presentation semantics. But it isn't the only view.

>UOML is never the property of a particular vendor. It is open. Think
>about Java, if SUN gave up all IPR at begining, I believe MS will dirty
>it and the world will under the control of .NET, the same as Windows and
>Office today.
>
>  
>
The question is whether any implementor can implement the technology 
that is to be standardized without paying fees for some critical part of 
the technology.

Calling something "open" which is only available under RAND is an abuse 
of the term "open." Unless by "open" you mean that no claims will be 
asserted against any implementor of the technology.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

>-Alex
>
>
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 9.  RE: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

    Posted 05-08-2007 00:32 
    Dear Patrick,

There exist many kinds of point of view of XML. For me, XML is a
mealanguage that has ability to describe anything. It is similiar as
alphabet, you can compose English, or French, or Chinese
Pinyin(phoneticism), or mathmatical formula, but it is nonsense that
alphabet is a world-wide language. Regarding XML, you can say a
XML-based language (e.g. ODF) seperate struture and presentation well,
but never XML itself.
Further discussion about XML will be out of our goal, let's stop here.
What I said "semantic" is what you said "structure".  I tried to define
it by "semantic content(structure)". Sorry for my poor English, it often
makes misunderstanding.
I agree with you that there are many kinds of meaning of  "open". Like
Java, many people believe that Java is open but the others deem it  the
property of SUN. So does "RAND". The IPR policy of UOML try to balance
the open degree, it is 99.99% as what you want, although not 100% by
now. Further discussion about it will also be out of our goal, we can
continue this discussion 1-by-1. I hope you can give us some advices on
it.

-Alex


    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 10.  Re: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

    Posted 05-08-2007 03:29 
    Alex, RAND is a big barrier to the extent it would impact ODF. It's
widely implemented by free and open source software (FOSS) with
licensing that does not permit RAND ingredients. And many of those
apps have so many developers who have contributed code that it simply
isn't feasible to locate all of them to sign papers necessary to
change the software licenses, let alone persuade them to do so.

So the bottom line here is that there are legal aspects to
interoperability as well as technical aspects; that is, unsolvable
interoperability barriers can exist at the legal level as well as the
software level.  IPR conflicts are becoming far more common as the
number of standards increase. So while I still am not sure such
problems could be overcome, I am quite certain that to the extent an
IPR conflict exists, it isn't feasible to change the ODF IPR. So it
would be your project that would have to have its IPR scheme altered.

I don't say that intending any disrespect for your project's IPR or
intending to imply that ODF's IPR scheme is superior (although I have
a personal preference for non-encumbered technology). It's just that I
don't see any feasible way to change the ODF IPR scheme.

Best regards,

Marbux


  • 11.  RE: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

    Posted 05-08-2007 12:17 
    Marbux,
The RAND terms of UOML is very similiar as RF mode. You can't find it
because OASIS delete the detailed terms from the charter. I believe it
can meet the requiement  of FOSS.  I'd like to have further discussion
with you individually on this topic.

-Alex


    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 12.  Re: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

    Posted 05-08-2007 13:11 
    Dear Alex,

perhaps it would be useful to show the terms of RAND charter of UOML to
the members of this TC?

Cheers,

Charles-H. Schulz.


Alex Wang a écrit :
> Marbux,
> The RAND terms of UOML is very similiar as RF mode. You can't find it
> because OASIS delete the detailed terms from the charter. I believe it
> can meet the requiement  of FOSS.  I'd like to have further discussion
> with you individually on this topic.
>
> -Alex
>
> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 13.  Re: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

    Posted 05-09-2007 02:38 
    I'd be glad to chat, Alex. But it would be helpful if you could
provide a link to the IPR language for UOML so I can look at that
before we chat.

Best regards,

Marbux


On 5/8/07, Alex Wang


  • 14.  Re: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

    Posted 05-08-2007 12:00 
    Alex,

Alex Wang wrote:

>Dear Patrick,
>
>There exist many kinds of point of view of XML. For me, XML is a
>mealanguage that has ability to describe anything. It is similiar as
>alphabet, you can compose English, or French, or Chinese
>Pinyin(phoneticism), or mathmatical formula, but it is nonsense that
>alphabet is a world-wide language. Regarding XML, you can say a
>XML-based language (e.g. ODF) seperate struture and presentation well,
>but never XML itself.
>Further discussion about XML will be out of our goal, let's stop here.
>What I said "semantic" is what you said "structure".  I tried to define
>it by "semantic content(structure)". Sorry for my poor English, it often
>makes misunderstanding.
>  
>
Hmmm, hard to say that XML is "out of our goal" since the formats for 
the most part we are discussing are written in XML.

If you want to interchange presentation, why not use SVG or XSL-FO? SVG 
can represent photographs so I am fairly sure it could represent any 
document. I don't know of any XSL-FO based viewers (directly to screen) 
but that may just be ignorance on my part.

>I agree with you that there are many kinds of meaning of  "open". Like
>Java, many people believe that Java is open but the others deem it  the
>property of SUN. So does "RAND". The IPR policy of UOML try to balance
>the open degree, it is 99.99% as what you want, although not 100% by
>now. Further discussion about it will also be out of our goal, we can
>continue this discussion 1-by-1. I hope you can give us some advices on
>it.
>  
>
Yes but "balance" in this context means that some one who owns a 
critical part of what is to be standardized is trying to create a market 
by standardization. I have seen such efforts before and I have very 
little sympathy for them. One of the purposes of standards is to define 
a level playing field for everyone who wishes to use a standard. 
Installing a $gatekeeper$ by standardization who controls access may be 
consistent with a pay-for playing field but that limits implementations 
to those willing to pay-to-play.

I don't object to people writing commercial software or marketing the 
same. But, I don't care for the use of standards as a marketing tool.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

>-Alex
>
>
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 15.  RE: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

    Posted 05-08-2007 12:59 
    Patrick,
It's sure that XML topic is closely related to this TC. "out of our
goal" means out of the topic of forming an interoperability
Subcommittee. "How about an interoperability Subcommittee?" is the
subject of these mails.
If SVG or XSL-FO could work, there was no need of PDF, even XPS. You are
expert of document format, but it seems you know little about
layout-based document, which I have been studying for 17 years.

I tried to use the example of Java to explain what "balance" means. Sun
kept some IPR of Java ten years ago, give up some of them today, it is
the "balance". Yes, Sun want to create a market by Java, but I don't
think this is the reason that you have very little sympathy for Sun. I
respect Sun, J2EE is more popular than .NET, while Windows, IE, MS
Office becomes the owner of the world.

I was told "share everything", "free for everything"  ever since I was
born. I am a Chinese, this is the Communist Party's education. This kind
of education still exists in North Korea, and now in OASIS. We treat IPR
in extremeness attitude, thus a commercial topic becomes a politics
topic. I don't think it is a good manner.

Before you decide to refuse any kind of RAND, please consider: Is it
better if the world is under the control of .NET?

-Alex



    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


Related Content