Enterprisey thoughts – John Gøtze
Posts tagged Openization
Get the ODF Monograph
04 years ago
UPGRADE, the European Journal for the Informatics Professional, has just published an Open Document Format Monograph.
The monograph is published on behalf of CEPIS by Novática (ATI, Spain), in English and in Spanish. The English version is available online: download as PDF, see content and summaries. The Spanish version is out in print and soon online.
I warmly recommend the monograph’s articles. I’m of course pleased about my contribution (announced earlier), but recommend reading several of the others first.
These are the articles:
OpenDocument Standard for Digital Documents
Jesús Tramullas-Saz and Piedad Garrido-Picazo, Guest Editors
Open by Design: The OpenDocument Format Standard for Office Applications
Erwin Tenhumberg, Donald Harbison, and Rob Weir
Is OpenDocument an Open Standard? Yes!
David A. Wheeler
OpenDocument Hidden Traps and their Side Effects on Free/Open Source Software
Marco Fioretti
ISO-26300 (OpenDocument) vs. MS-Office Open XML
Alberto Barrionuevo-GarcÃa
Interoperability: Will the Real Universal File Format please Stand Up?
Sam Hiser and Gary Edwards
ODF: The Emerging Document Format of Choice for Governments
Marino Marcich
Promotion of the Use of Open Document Formats by the IDA and IDABC Programmes
Miguel A. Amutio-Gómez
A Brief History of Open Standards in Denmark
John Gøtze
Standard Open Formats and Libre Software in the Extremadura Public Administration
Luis Millán-Vázquez de Miguel
ISO confirms
04 years ago
In a statement to me (on behalf of Danish Version2), ISO’s Manager of Communication Services, Roger Frost, has cordially confirmed Computerworld’s story. Not that I doubted Computerworld’s Eric Lai, but I just wanted to make sure.
Frost writes:
ISO and IEC are to issue ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (ECMA-376) “Office Open XML File Formats” in the near future for a five-month fast-track ballot by the participating members of the ISO/IEC joint technology committee ISO/IEC JTC 1, Information technology, and by all member bodies of ISO and IEC.
Interestingly, Frost also notes:
At the same time, comments made by JTC 1 member bodies on the document during the 30-day review prior to acceptance for fast-tracking processing, along with the response to these comments from the fast-track proposal submitter, Ecma International, will be made available to the JTC 1 members and ISO and IEC member bodies. The national body comments and Ecma’s response are not available from ISO or IEC or JTC 1. It is up to the individual organizations whether they wish to release their comments or response.
In the interest of an open process (hey, we’re talking about open standards here!), I hope all national bodies will publish their responses. Some have “leaked” already of course, but it would be good for the process to show a bit much more openness.
I talked to the chairman of the Danish subcommitte, professor Mogens Kühn Pedersen from Copenhagen Business School today, and he told me that the Danish subcommittee will meet on Tuesday next week. I have suggested to Mogens that he asks the committee for permission to publish the Danish response.
The Fast And The Furious
34 years ago
Computerworld writes that ISO on Saturday agreed “to put Open XML, the document format created and championed by Microsoft Corp., on a fast-track approval process that could see Open XML ratified as an open, international standard by August”.
According to CW, an e-mail sent Saturday by Lisa Rachjel, the secretariat of ISO’s Joint Technical Committee (JTC-1) on Information Technology, states that “the Open XML proposal, along with comments and criticism by nations that have already reviewed it, will be put on ISO’s 5-month balloting process”.
ISO has not yet confirmed this. Their press officer, Roger Frost, told me that he expects to have information about the next step in the process by tomorrow.
So, it seems that Microsoft has succeded in pushing the agenda, and the only interpretation I can make of this is that ISO accepts that the balloting does not necessarily end with an unanimous vote. CW writes: “For a proposed standard to be approved by the ISO, no more than one-third of JTC-1, or 10 countries, can vote against it. Meanwhile, no more than one quarter of ISO’s 157 members that cast their vote — non-JTC-1 member countries may abstain — can vote against it.”
I now foresee, and will by all means contribute to, a continious campaign for members states to vote against the approval of the substandard “standard”. Voting against the approval should not be seen simply as a vote against Microsoft, but should be based on the solid fact that EOOXML is flawed, heck even Microsoft acknowledges this.
By pushing the fast-track, those who care about the standard of standards are forced to vote against the approval, since balloting is binary (yes/no), and a yes-vote would mean that the as-is Ecma-standard is endorsed. At the end of the day, it’s a vote about the credibility of international standards and about the legitimacy of international standardization processes.
Assessing Standards
04 years ago
Following up on my recent blog entry, Mandatory Open Standards in Denmark, I want to draw attention to further reports published by the National IT and Telecom Agency as background material to the main report. These materials are all in English.
First is a report called Research about OpenXML, ODF & PDF made for the Danish government by Norwegian consultancy house Ovitas AS.
The criteria covered in the research report include three main areas:
1. Openness (open documentation, rights, open interface, open meeting, consensus, due process)
2. Market issues (penetration, maturity, implementation)
3. Business potentials (functional and non-functional requirements, security, potentials and architecture)
In conclusion, they write:
The conclusion of this preliminary research is that both OpenXML and ODF qualify as viable candidates for open standards for editorial document formats based on the criteria used in this research. PDF is currently controlled by Adobe Systems but has a unique worldwide take up.
“Viable candidates”? Hmmm. Nevertheless, the report is a fairly balanced analysis, which on several accounts makes it very clear, that there are big differences between the standards. One could, reasonably I’d argue, ask how the conclusion is supported by the research. I miss the substantial argument for how low a barrier one should have for what is and what isn’t a viable candidate.
It is worth noting that the hearing report in appendix A (only in Danish) has a quite thorough outline of how standard assessments should be conducted. The Norwegians does note that their work was done in parallel to the development of this outline, so I suppose we can’t blame them. But one would expect more from the Danish administration then. What is missing is exactly the specific “scores” for, or evaluations of, various detailed issues. If we assume such scores are red/yellow/green, my bet is that OOXML would have quite a few yellows if not reds, which would need some explaining in order to make the conclusion valid.
More serious research
The government commissioned a research project about “Open Standards and their Early Adoption” in 2005-06. This was conducted by Professor Mogens Kühn Pedersen and Vladislav V. Fomin from Department of Informatics at Copenhagen Business School, and their final report is also available (download report, literature review and delphi survey). The report’s executive summary:
Standards have proven themselves indispensable to the industrial revolution. How are standards developed today? What does the economics of standards tell about the impact of standards upon economic growth and productivity? Do standards influence industry innovation? How are the standardization processes in the field of ICT taking place? How and why do open standards differ from other types of standards? How may open standards influence ICT government policy and the reverse: How will government need to take action in the face of the international trend toward open standards in ICT?
The reports perhaps raises more questions than they answer. But read them you must.
