Skip to main contentdfsdf

Gary Edwards's List: Interoperability and The Quest For A Universal File Format

  • ODF Interoperability Problems

    The current ISO standard 26300 (ODF 1.1 ... 2005) was not written for the purposes of interoperability. Many believe ODF 1.2 will address these problems. But it's been four years since ISO approval of ODF 1.1, with no end in sight. These bookmarks reference the problems with ODF interoperability.

    • Summary Statement:  Hey, this is an excellent plan!  We can fully support this effort, even though the ISO National Bodies still have to work their way through the treacherous big vendor consortia controlled channels of OASIS ODF and Ecma 376.  Bringing the big vendor applications to heel is not going to be easy.  Merging ODF and MS-OOXML however is a worthwhile effort - one that the conversion and translator plug-in communities have been working on for the past three years!  It can be done!  And all it takes is five generic elements added to the existing ODF 1.2 specification ........
    • AFNOR has recommended to ISO adopting an approach enabling it to guarantee – using ISO processes – mid-term convergence between Open Document Format (ODF) and OfficeOpen XML (OOXML), as well as the stabilisation of OOXML on a short-term basis.
    • Firstly, to restructure the ECMA standard in two parts so as to differentiate between, on the one hand, a core of essential and simple functionalities to be implemented (OOXML-Core) and, on the other hand, all the additional functionalities required for compatibility with the stocks of existing office document files created by numerous users, which will be gathered within a package called OOXML-Extensions. Secondly, AFNOR proposes to take into account a full series of technical comments submitted to the draft in order to make OOXML an ISO document of the highest possible technical and editorial quality. Thirdly, it proposes to attribute to OOXML the status of ISO/TS for three years. 
       
      Finally, AFNOR proposes to set up a process of convergence between ISO/IEC 26300 and the OOXML-Core. In order to achieve this, AFNOR will begin the simultaneous revision of ISO/IEC 26300 and of ISO/TS OOXML (subject to the latter being adopted after the aforementioned restructuring), so as to obtain the most universal possible single standard at the end of the convergence process. Any subsequent evolutions will be decided upon at ISO level and no longer at the level of such a group or category of players.
      • Here's the meat of the French convergence proposal.

    • French experts have determined that it is technically possible to converge ODF and MS-OOXML, into a single, revisable document format standard?



      The plan has four parts:



      "Firstly, to restructure the ECMA standard in two parts so as to differentiate between, on the one hand, a core of essential and simple functionalities to be implemented (OOXML-Core) and, on the other hand, all the additional functionalities required for compatibility with the stocks of existing office document files created by numerous users, which will be gathered within a package called OOXML-Extensions."



      "Secondly, AFNOR proposes to take into account a full series of technical comments submitted to the draft in order to make OOXML an ISO document of the highest possible technical and editorial quality."



      "Thirdly, it proposes to attribute to OOXML the status of ISO/TS for three years."



      Fourth, "Finally, AFNOR proposes to set up a process of convergence between ISO/IEC 26300 and the OOXML-Core. In order to achieve this, AFNOR will begin the simultaneous revision of ISO/IEC 26300 and of ISO/TS OOXML (subject to the latter being adopted after the aforementioned restructuring), so as to obtain the most universal possible single standard at the end of the convergence process. Any subsequent evolutions will be decided upon at ISO level and no longer at the level of such a group or category of players."










      So there you go.  A solution that removes ODF and OOXML from the clamy big vendor hands of both OASIS and Ecma, and puts the future of a "single revisable document" in the hands of ISO national bodies.

      IMHO, this is a winner.  If they (the ISO national bodies) can control the big application vendors, this will work.  And it's actually quite reasonable.

      They can't even begin to solve the technical challenge of convergence until they separate ODF from OpenOffice and OOXML from MSOffice.  The French have proposed their plan for separating OOXML from MSOffice, by creating a basic OOXMl-Core, and legacy compatible OOXML-Extensions.  Okay, but what about separating ODF from OpenOffice?

      ODF failed in Massachusetts for the love of five lousy generic elements we called the iX "interoeprability enhancements".  That's all it takes to convert existing MSOffice documents, applications and processes to ODF. 

      The five generics dealt with document structure fundamentals that were implemented differently in MSOffice and OpenOffice.  The generics are for lists, fields, tables, sections and page dynamics (breaks).

      There is also the problem with both ODF and OOXML that "compatibility-conformance" is optional.  Meaning, there is no requirement that compliant applications preserve the document markup of other applications.  Bye bye "round trip" fidelity!

      These implementation differentials break the high fidelity "round trip" conversion required by MSOffice bound workgroup-workflow business processes.  And with near 500 million MSOffice workgroups out there, this is hardly a trivial problem.  For Massachusetts, California, Denmark and Belgium this is an ODF show stopper.

      So what's the problem with adding five lousy generics to the ODF specification? 

      It's simple.  Nothing goes into ODF unless OpenOffice supports and implements that feature.  And OpenOffice is unable to support and implement these five generics unless there are significant changes made to the internal layout engine - implementation model. 

      The iX "interoperability enhancements" wouldn't degrade in any way the current OpenOffice conversion fidelity between MS binaries and xml docs, and ODF.  But they wouldn't improve that fidelity either.  The impact on OpenOffice conversion fidelity would be neutral. 

      Where the iX proposals would have an impact is on emerging ODF applications that would design their layout engines to perfectly implement ODF within the new iX interoperability framework.

      In the past year Florian Reuter submitted for discussion no less than five iX based proposals to the OASIS ODF TC members.  The first three iX proposals were submitted on behalf of the OpenDocument Foundation, and were signed off on by Massachusetts CIO Louis Gutierrez.  A fourth iX proposal was presented in November of 2006 on behalf of Florian's new employer, Novell.  And in February of 2007, the fifth iX proposal, also known as the RDF interoperability framework, was submitted to the OASIS ODF Metadata SC.

      A sixth "iX interoeprability framework" is in the works.  It's designed to bring ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.2 into conformance with




      ISO/IEC
      JTC 1 Directives
      5th ed., v. 3.0, pp. 11, 145 (PDF), that mandate interoperability. 

      The ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives for interop conformance requirements are uncompromising.  ODF 1.0 somehow slid through ISO without being held to account.  Interestingly, in May of 2006, ISO specifically refused to grant ODF an exception to interop conformance requirements.

      Here's a brief taste of what ODF 1.1, 1.2 and MS-OOXML face:

      ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives unequivocally require that standards "specify clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability." Since ODF v. 1.2 is intended to become an ISO draft standard, this TC must shoulder the task the Directives place upon it. The Directives provide in relevant part:

      These Directives shall be complied with in all respects and no deviations can be made without the consent of the Secretaries-General.
      ............

      A purpose of IT standardization is to ensure that products available in the marketplace have characteristics of interoperability, portability and cultural and linguistic adaptability. Therefore, standards which are developed shall reflect the requirements of the following Common Strategic Characteristics:

          * Interoperability;
          * Portability;
          * Cultural and linguistic adaptability.


      Interesting huh?  There is the possiblity that come February, MS-OOXML will be put on the three year AFNOR plan.   Next up for ISO/IEC consideration will be ODF 1.1 and/or ODF 1.2.  Maybe by May of 2008? 

      Given the interoperability challenges facing both ODF and MS-OOXML, the world could easily find itself without an ISO approved desktop document standard.

      Although ODF 1.1 was OASIS approved in January of 2007, it has yet to be presented to ISO for consideration.  Meanwhile, ODF 1.2 is in it's final stages before it too goes before OASIS.  Shipping versions of OpenOffice.org, StarOffice, and Novell Office implement ODF 1.2 aspects.  We're way beyond ISO approved ODF 1.0 here!

      I like the French plan.  It's doable.  But speaking as someone who has been there, the ISO national bodies are going to have to wrestle the big vendors to get both an interoperable document standard, and, conforming applications.

      The expected February fireworks are just the start.  For sure there will be no lack of entertainment in 2008.

      ~ge~
      - Gary Edwards on 2007-09-25
    • SUMMARY: The OpenDocument Foundation  proposes that the OASIS Office TC begin now to create an  interoperability framework for inclusion in OpenDocument v. 1.2. This  document, one of a series of planned proposals, proposes first steps towards a  comprehensive interoperability framework and OpenDocument conformance  requirements.  This proposal is designed to bring ODF v. 1.2 into compliance with current ISO Interoperability Requirements.
    • The OpenDocument Foundation "Universal Interoperability Framework" Proposal has not been submitted to the OASIS ODF TC as of this bookmarking.  But this version is complete except for a closing summation.
      - Gary Edwards on 2007-09-27
    • Good discussion on IBM's recent release of OpenOffice as Lotus Symphony. OpenOffice Community Marketing Lead, John McCreesh, steps into it though with an errant quote. Sadly, i have to take him to task. - Gary Edwards on 2007-09-19
  • Dec 18, 07

    Great post exposing the sanctimonious bag of blather Rob Weir. Jesper calls out Rob Weir, exposing the deceitful tactics Wier uses to destroy individuals and corporate competitors, all the while posing as an arrogant and self righteous arbiter of interop and document expertise. This is very funny stuff. Especially where Rob joins in, defending his arrogant bloviating through personal attacks on anyone who might disagree with him. I called him a liar, and i've got mountains of eMails, non-disclosure agreements and meeting notes/schedules to prove it. Facing an avalanche of evidence proving his lack of candor, and inspite of ethics challenge that has become synonymous with his name, Rob soldiers on with even more slander, lies and inuendo. Very funny

    • I posted a lengthy comment here summarizing a few of the more glaring aspects of my relationship with Rob Weir and IBM. It's very much a response to the devastating Rob Weir post, "Cracks in the Foundation".



      - Gary Edwards on 2007-12-18
  • May 09, 09

    Marbux nails it again in the comments section of this obscure review. In particular, he sites <i>Shah, Rajiv C. and Kesan, Jay P.,</i><b> Lost in Translation: Interoperability Issues for Open Standards - ODF and OOXML as Examples</b>
    (September 2008),
    Link to paper on SSRN (compatibility fidelity comparisons of ODF implementations testing only a very small set of word processing features).

    <i>"...Switching documents, I go through similar travails
    with the published ODF 1.1 specification, using both the PDF and ODT versions.

    Bottom line: I can't get either document into WordPerfect X3 or X4 using any rich text format. So I convert the document to plain text using Symphony and get my work done.

    That is the real state of ODF interoperability. There is no such thing. But that does not stop the vested interests from claiming that there is. E.g.:"</i>

  • May 08, 09

    From Notes2Self 2006 post we discover once again that ODF Interop problems are not new. Back in early February 2005, top ranking OASIS Executive James Clark made <a href="http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/200502/msg00000.html">a comment</a> to the OASIS OpenDocument technical Committee about the lack of interoperability for spreadsheet documents:
    <br><br>
    <i>".... I really hope I'm missing something, because, frankly, I'm speechless.  You cannot be serious. <b>You have virtually zero interoperability for spreadsheet documents.</b> OpenDocument has the potential to be extraodinarily valuable and important standard. I urge you not to throw away a huge part of that potential by leaving such <b>a gaping hole in your specification</b>...".</i>

    Claus Agerskov further commented that this provided a means of creating lock-in (my emphasis)
    <br><br>
    <i>"OpenDocument doesn't specify the formulars used in spreadsheets so every spreadsheet vendor can implement formulars in their own way without being an open standard. This way a vendor can create lock-in to their spreadsheets"</i>

  • May 06, 09

    We Tried. Did you?
    I've got five years into ODF, one of only three original members to last that long. In the past year, we've been involved in five major proposal submissions to improve ODF compatibility with existing file formats and interoperability with existing applications. What else would you have us do?

  • Sep 01, 09

    Interoperability through antitrust - is there a legal foundation in place capable of pulling this off?  This article is a lengthy study and comparative analysis of the legal foundation in the USA and Europe.  Microsoft is of course the target.

    Excerpt: Microsoft has incorporated products, such as browsers and media players, into its operating system, behavior that again amounts to technological tying. It has also improved its server software by heightening the degree to which servers employing that software can interact. By raising the level of interaction among servers equipped with its software, Microsoft has so integrated work group servers as to enable groups of small servers to approach the capacities of mainframe computers. The European competition-law authorities see both matters as problematic. The integration of the media player has been condemned as tying; and the heightened server interaction has been faulted for failing to provide the interoperability that rival server software requires in order to participate on an equal footing with Microsoft server software in Windows work groups. Microsoft’s integration (at least in the view of the European antitrust authorities) also raises issues of essential facilities, and of the role of antitrust in achieving interoperability.

    . We have now reached a moment in time in which both the American and European laws are sufficiently developed to warrant reflection and comparison. That is the task approached in this article. 

    Three part study:  Part I -The European approach.  Part II-USA decisions regarding Microsoft tying.  Part III-comparison of USA and European approaches to product integration (tying).

  • Jun 04, 11

    Brian is once again writing about OpenOffice and ODF, this time in the aftermath of Oracle's decision to cut OOo loose and turn it over to Apache instead of The Document Foundation.  Good discussion - features a lengthy comment from the mighty Marbux where he vigorusly corrects the river of spin coming out of IBM.  Worth a careful read!


    excerpt: IBM seems to maneuver itself to any open source project that suits its needs, and for whatever reason they have decided to hitch their wagon to Oracle's star (or vice versa). With this historical context, there is really little surprise in Oracle's decision to go with the Apache Software Foundation, because IBM was probably influencing the decision.

    My second question doesn't have a definitive answer--yet. But it needs to be answered.

    It is simply this: how will OpenOffice.org remain relevant to end users?

1 - 12 of 12
20 items/page
List Comments (0)