OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?


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-----
>From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] 
>Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 8:35 PM
>To: Charles-H. Schulz
>Cc: ALex Wang; robert_weir@us.ibm.com; peter@vandenabeele.com;
>office@lists.oasis-open.org; peter.vandenabeele.be@gmail.com
>Subject: Re: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?
>
>
>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-----
>>>   *From:* robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com]
>>>   *Sent:* Monday, May 07, 2007 6:44 AM
>>>   *To:* peter@vandenabeele.com
>>>   *Cc:* office@lists.oasis-open.org; peter.vandenabeele.be@gmail.com
>>>   *Subject:* Re: [office] How about an interoperability 
>>>Subcommittee?
>>>
>>>
>>>   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/
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Patrick@Durusau.net
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work! 




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]