OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

I request list discussion and inclusion of this proposal on the agenda for the 2010-01-11 ODF TC Coordination Call

1. CONSIDERATIONS

1.1 It appears that time is of the essence in aligning IS 26300 with the OASIS Standard for ODF 1.1.

1.2 It is important to have a stable baseline IS 26300 against which an ODF 1.1 Addendum can be submitted.

1.3 The continuing processing of corrigenda against the unaligned IS 26300 will add substantial delays to the achievement of a stable IS 26300 baseline against which an ODF 1.1 Addendum is to be applied.

2. PROPOSAL

2.1 The ODF TC ceases creation of further addenda against ODF 1.0 and the IS 26300 counterpart, ODF 1.0 second edition.  Further processing of an ODF 1.0 Errata 02 will be suspended.

2.2 With the concurrence of JTC1 (SC34 WG6), the ODF TC will produce an ODF 1.1 Addendum.  That Addendum will reflect the applicable Errata for ODF 1.0 as well as responses to defect reports against IS 26300 that are resolvable with appropriate Errata for ODF 1.1.  The result, when accepted by JTC1 (SC34 WG6) will provide complete alignment with the ODF 1.1 OASIS Standard.

2.3 Remaining open defect reports and any existing and subsequent issues submitted to the ODF TC will be resolved against OASIS ODF 1.1 and the 1.1-aligned IS 26300 specification.  

3. PROGRESSION

3.1 An exception agreement is made with SC34 (WG6) to delay processing of new corrigenda against IS 26300 until the ODF 1.1 alignment is accomplished.  The understanding will be that the addendum will be provided as rapidly as permitted under JTC1 (SC34 WG6) procedures.  Proposed dispositions to WG6 can identify resolutions that will be applied in the alignment rather than as separate IS 26300 corrigenda.

3.2 The ODF TC Prepares ODF 1.1 Errata 01 reflecting all applicable errata from ODF 1.0 Errata 01.  ODF 1.1 Errata 01 also includes responses to other defect reports received against IS 26300 that are resolvable with ODF 1.1 errata.

3.3 On approval of ODF 1.1 Errata 01, a modified edition of the ODF 1.1 specification in which the errata have been applied is created.  Any procedural actions required to have the merged specification be recognized as an authoritative edition of the ODF 1.1 OASIS Standard are taken.

3.4 The merged ODF 1.1 OASIS specification is the basis for creation of the ODF 1.1 Addendum for IS 26300 (with or without merger of corrigenda already accepted against IS 26300 as appropriate for use in an addendum baseline).

3.5 Subsequent defect reports against the unaligned IS 26300 (and ODF 1.0) that arise will be resolved against the specifications for the ODF 1.1-aligned specifications, if not already resolved in the alignment.  Defect reports against ODF 1.1 will be processed in accordance with established maintenance procedures.  (Resolution might well involve deferral to a future edition, such as one related to the in-development ODF 1.2.)

 - Dennis

Dennis E. Hamilton
------------------
NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability 
mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 
http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org 

"Dennis E. Hamilton" 

Rob,

I don't propose that we renege on defect processing but that we apply the
ones we can to a 1.1 errata and bring them back to ISO as the IS 26300
amendment for 1.1.  We could respond with dispositions but agree not to
create more corrigenda until we have the 1.1-aligned IS 26300 to apply them
to.

This might make some delays but it would have 1.1 be the common baseline
(however we agree on equivalence) soonest.  

I'm not sure which is the longest tent pole.  Our six month rule about
errata (once we produced a 1.0 Errata 02) or the time that it takes to move
draft corrigenda through SC34 once approved as errata at OASIS.  I have
assumed that the second would be a greater barrier to accomplishing 1.1
alignment early.  While we're constrained on when we could have more errata
(after 1.0 Errata 02 or 1.1 Errata 01) to the respective OASIS standards, it
seemed like getting 1.1 into that stream was the most effective thing we
could be doing, all else being equal.


1. QUESTIONS I DON'T HAVE ANSWERS FOR

  1.1 Perhaps you know what the calendar setback would be for submitting
1.1-as-amendment before the September 2010 SC34 plenary and could it be done
earlier than that via SC34 WG6?

  1.2 Also, I couldn't find anything in the JTC1 procedures that helped me
understand what the checkpoints and lag times are for processing of a PAS
submission.  Do you have some staging information that applies to that case,
once OASIS makes the submission?

  1.3 With regard to the OASIS policies and procedures for submissions to
another standards body, the question seems to be whether submission of an
amendment for 1.1 alignment triggers that process, especially provision 1c
on conduct of an OASIS Interop Demonstration.  I agree this might be a
show-stopper.

2. MAKING THE AMENDMENT

  2.1 I'm assuming that creating a version of 1.1 that has the errata
applied is a production matter and not something that requires processing of
a new committee specification and taking the update through the OASIS
Standard approval process.  Even if it were to require an OASIS ballot, that
is apparently a thirty-day deal if I am reading the TCScheduler spreadsheet
correctly.

  2.2 I don't understand the exact process for taking such a 1.1 to SC34 as
an amendment to IS 26300, and I'm not clear how a "diff" is handled, unless
we mean some sort of change-tracking version that has been "diff"ed against
IS 26300 (that is, 1.0 edition 2?) so we see deletions and insertions
against 26300?

  2.3 I agree that this might be constrained by the OASIS policy (see 1.3,
above) and we should find out how that impacts the presumption of simplicity
for this approach.

3. WITH REGARD TO ODF 1.2 AT JTC1

  3.1 My wildly-optimistic trial calendar for approval of ODF 1.2 suggests
that we couldn't be making a PAS submission of an ODF 1.2 OASIS standard to
JTC1 before October, 2010, and I didn't even consider the
three-independent-implementations requirement.  I don't understand the
timeline for the submission within JTC1 so I don't feel comfortable making
allowance for JTC1 procedural requirements and how they fit on a calendar of
SC34 plenary cycles, etc.  I do feel quite safe in assuming we wouldn't see
an ISO/IEC version before 2011.  

  3.2 I don't know how to compare an amendment timeline with that for a new
PAS submission, but I speculate that a 1.1 amendment could be a year ahead
of ODF 1.2 being approved and published at JTC1.  Maybe more, unless the PAS
submission of a new version of an existing standard is very streamlined.
Any information you or others have on that would be very helpful.

 - Dennis





                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/201001/msg00024.html
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 10:04
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [office] Proposal: Align IS 26300 to ODF 1.1 instead of 1.0
maintenance

"Dennis E. Hamilton" 

"Dennis E. Hamilton" 

Thanks,

This is very helpful.  I need to digest it further and see how to
calendarize the various cases.

Meanwhile, a clarification.  I wasn't thinking of the three
statements-of-use condition for becoming an OASIS Standard but the stronger
requirement which apparently applies before JTC1 submission of either a
1.1-amendment or an ODF 1.2 OASIS Standard.  

In the document you linked to in your first reply, 

"Dennis E. Hamilton" 

HI Dennis, I just thought of a way to finesse the procedures a bit, so the 
concurrent errata are not an issue.

It would go something like this:

1) Give JTC1 ODF 1.1 as-is.  Don't apply any errata at all.  It will 
contain regressions compared to ODF 1.0

2) Although OASIS cannot vote in the amendment ballot, as an liaison we 
can submit ballot comments. We would submit comments that essentially 
reflect all outstanding errata.

3) As part of the ballot resolution process in SC34, the ISO text is 
updated to include our submitted errata.  No additional OASIS public 
review or approval needed at that point, since it is entirely on the ISO 
side.

4) However, at the end of the JTC1 procedure we adopt the changes made 
there as Approved Errata on ODF 1.1.

This doesn't really eliminate any work.  We still need to do Approved 
Errata in OASIS,   But what it does do is push that Approved Errata work 
to the end of the schedule, rather than put it up front .  The end-to-end 
time is the same, but it allows us to accelerate the submission of the 
amendment, which effectively increases the interval between the 
publication of ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.2.  It is still close, and I have note my 
concerns there, but it is a little better if we stage it as above.

Note that with this approach the 2nd and 3rd defect reports (and even 
future defect reports) are not a problem.  We just need to ensure that we 
submit ballot comments that bring 1.1 into synch with any OASIS Approved 
Errata that exist as of the end of the FPDAM ballot.  Although the 
submission will contain regressions, the published amendment would not.

What do you think?

-Rob



From:
"Dennis E. Hamilton" 

Rob,

I will have to think about it a bit but this sounds like an interesting 
approach and one that the first steps could be done more quickly than 
alternative approaches.

I do think that ODF 1.1 "as is" should be expressed as an automated diff 
against ISO 26300 with a clean text to accompany it as amendment.

As I said, need to think about it but this might be a viable option.

Thanks!

Patrick

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> HI Dennis, I just thought of a way to finesse the procedures a bit, so the 
> concurrent errata are not an issue.
>
> It would go something like this:
>
> 1) Give JTC1 ODF 1.1 as-is.  Don't apply any errata at all.  It will 
> contain regressions compared to ODF 1.0
>
> 2) Although OASIS cannot vote in the amendment ballot, as an liaison we 
> can submit ballot comments. We would submit comments that essentially 
> reflect all outstanding errata.
>
> 3) As part of the ballot resolution process in SC34, the ISO text is 
> updated to include our submitted errata.  No additional OASIS public 
> review or approval needed at that point, since it is entirely on the ISO 
> side.
>
> 4) However, at the end of the JTC1 procedure we adopt the changes made 
> there as Approved Errata on ODF 1.1.
>
> This doesn't really eliminate any work.  We still need to do Approved 
> Errata in OASIS,   But what it does do is push that Approved Errata work 
> to the end of the schedule, rather than put it up front .  The end-to-end 
> time is the same, but it allows us to accelerate the submission of the 
> amendment, which effectively increases the interval between the 
> publication of ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.2.  It is still close, and I have note my 
> concerns there, but it is a little better if we stage it as above.
>
> Note that with this approach the 2nd and 3rd defect reports (and even 
> future defect reports) are not a problem.  We just need to ensure that we 
> submit ballot comments that bring 1.1 into synch with any OASIS Approved 
> Errata that exist as of the end of the FPDAM ballot.  Although the 
> submission will contain regressions, the published amendment would not.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -Rob
>
>
>
> From:
> "Dennis E. Hamilton" 

Rob,

Thanks for continuing to ponder on this along with Jamie Clark's useful
follow-up.  I think this is a very creative solution and we should pursue
it.

Patrick,

It sounds like the automated DIFF plus a clean version is the ticket.  It's
a little weird that both would be submitted as PDFs, but have to be made
using editable forms.  As long as we can pull that off, it should all work.

 - Dennis

THREE CONCERNS

1. For immediate attention: The Corrigendum that corresponds to our ODF 1.0
Errata 01 is out there somewhere as approved IS 26300 updates and there is
potentially going to be what version control systems call an update
collision.  We will have to get the timing right on that for the
"regression" to work.  (I think it is a matter of whether the copy of IS
26300 that goes into the diff has the corrigenda applied or not.)

2. For the end-game: We will have to be *extremely* careful and meticulous
in ensuring that we have (technical) alignment of IS 26300 and ODF 1.1 at
the end of this dance, with no unintended regression in ODF 1.2 on its
achievement of OASIS Standard.

3. If the OASIS Board of Directors doesn't grant us an exception (and I'd be
surprised if they didn't) or maybe for planning either way (to shed critical
path), we could go ahead and look at having the requisite Interoperability
Demonstration early this year, even if it ends up being only ceremonial.  It
should be easily accomplished (though I haven't read the guidelines) in
terms of available ODF 1.1-supporting independent implementations.  There
does not seem to be an appropriate ODF Plugfest event early enough for
piggy-backing this (since the FOSDEM event limits participation to
open-source implementations), but perhaps dates in Brussels contiguous with
the FOSDEM 2010 conference period might work?  For better lead time, the
tentative Plugfest in Spain might serve better:

"Dennis E. Hamilton" 

Rob,

I need a couple of clarifications for my understanding, please.  (OH. And I
meant WG6.  I must have been reading too many tweets about a WG4 call being
held today.)

I don't understand the technicalities about subdivision.  What is a
subdivision and why would we need to ask for one?  Also, why would we need a
New Work Item (NP) at JTC1, with 90-day ballot for that?

Finally, you mention, in later note

Dennis,

General rule, depends on what you want to have happen, is that documents 
must be filed at least 30 days prior to the meeting. So, plenty of time, 
depending upon what action is to be taken.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Rob,
>
> I need a couple of clarifications for my understanding, please.  (OH. And I
> meant WG6.  I must have been reading too many tweets about a WG4 call being
> held today.)
>
> I don't understand the technicalities about subdivision.  What is a
> subdivision and why would we need to ask for one?  Also, why would we need a
> New Work Item (NP) at JTC1, with 90-day ballot for that?
>
> Finally, you mention, in later note
> 

"Dennis E. Hamilton"