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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oiic-formation-discuss message

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


Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] (1)(d) A list of deliverables, with projected completion dates.


On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:06 AM,  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Another piece I suggest we start working on:  "(1)(d) A list of
> deliverables, with projected completion dates".
>
> However, I'd suggest we discuss this as if it said "a list of prioritized
> list deliverables".  From a practical standpoint, it is impossible to
> project completion dates until we have a good idea who will be joining the
> proposed TC.  Those who do line up to join the TC can huddle before we
> submit the charter and turn the prioritization into projected dates.
>
> So far I've heard the following items (in no particular order)
>
1) A conformance test of ODF documents and implementations, i.e., test
the formal shall's and should's, etc.
2) An Acid-style test of ODF implementations, i.e., feature and
rendering-oriented, essentially highlighting ODF features that are not
widely implemented (or implemented correctly) but are desired (by
whom???)
3) A comprehensive test suite of atomic (single feature) tests
4) A formal profile of ODF for portability and archiving, aka ODF/A
5) A formal profile of ODF for browser-based applications
6) A formal profile of ODF for mobile devices
7) A report on best practices for authoring portable documents
8) A periodic interoperability report on the state of ODF
interoperability, with specific recommendations for implementors.
>
> What did I miss?

1. The list omits my somewhat detailed proposal that this proposed TC
avoid reinventing the wheel and focus its profile development work
within the context of the W3C Compound Document by Reference
Framework's requirements for profile development.
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00068.html>;
see also follow-up post here.
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00088.html>.

3. The list omits my proposal in the same post that ODF profiles be
developed that correspond to the feature sets of the W3C's Web
Integration Compound Document profiles, with an eye on
transformability between ODF and WICD profiles, round-trip
interoperability between less and more featureful implementations of
ODF, and on the emerging convergence of desktop, server, Web, and
mobile device editors and viewers. E.g., Microsoft Office achieves
high fidelity interoperability with Sharepoint Server using OOXML and
from Sharepoint Server to several other Microsoft Web 2.0 applications
using primarily XAML Why should ODF desktop implementations be unable
to round-trip documents with web applications using ODF? The CDRF
interoperability framework was specifically designed for such
purposes.

2. The list omits your counter-proposal that this proposed TC set  as
its workplan "mov[ing] ODF interoperability forward one small step
[none identified] at a time"
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00075.html>;
see also your reply to my follow-up at
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00092.html>.

3. The list omits several items in this proposed TC's formation
scoping notice.
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00001.html>:

a. "To publish test suites of ODF for applications of ODF to check their
conformance with the Standard and to confirm their
interoperability[.]" The "confirmation of interoperability" part seems
to have not made it onto your list.

b. "To provide feedback, where necessary, to the ODF TC on ways in
which the standard could improve interoperability[.]" This item has
been completely omitted.

c. "To produce a set of implementation guidelines[.]" This item is not
unambiguously the same as the list's item 7, a "report on best
practices for authoring portable documents."

d. "To define interoperability with related standards by the creation of
profiles or technical reports[.]" This item is totally missing.

e. "To coordinate, in conjunction with the ODF Adoption TC,  OASIS InterOp
demos related to ODF." This item is totally missing.

f. "The IIC TC may also liaise with other standard bodies whose work
is leveraged in present or future ODF specifications. These include,
but are not limited to, the
W3C and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34." This item is completely missing.

4. In regard to items 3 (a) and (b) above, please add an item to the
effect that this TC will recommend to the OpenDocument TC a clear and
unambiguous specification of "conformity requirements essential to
achieve the interoperability," as required ISO/IEC/JTC 1 Directives,
Annex I, in order to aid in bringing ODF into compliance with the
Directives. <http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink.exe/fetch/2000/2489/186491/186605/AnnexI.html>.

5. .  In regard to item 3(d) above and to all profiles produced by the
proposed TC, please add to the list (For purposes of this paragraph
and its subparagraphs, "exit criterion" means a requirement that must
be complied with prior to a profile being submitted to the OASIS
membership as a candidate OASIIS standard):

a. That each and every such profile be submitted to the OASIS
membership as a candidate OASIS standard with this proposed TC
nominated as the profile's maintainer;.

b. As an exit criterion, that each and every such profile before being
submitted to the OASIS membership for adoption as an OASIS standard
"clearly and unamiguously specifty the conformity requirements
essential to achieve the interoperability within the meaning of the
ISO/IEC/JTC 1 Directives, supra.

c. As an exit criterion, that each and every such profile fully comply
with ISO/IEC/JTC 1 Directives, supra, and the Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade, as applicable,
<http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/tbt_01_e.htm>,
and with all other applicable competition law such as Sherman Act
section 1, 15 U.S.C. 1, and Article 81 of the Treaty on European Union
and the Treaty Establishing the European Community as set forth in the
consolidated version.
<http://europa.eu/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/c_325/c_32520021224en00010184.pdf>.
  However, I propose that rather than just fulfilling the requirements
of the Agreemnt on Technical Barrier Trade's Best Practices section,
<http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/tbt_02_e.htm#ann_3>,
that the profiles meet the fulfill the more rigorous requirements for
international standards and technical regulations, so that the profile
specifications are ready to become international standards and
technical regulations.

d. As an exit criterion, that each and every such profile be fully
implemented in at least two Different Information Technology Systems,
at least one of which must be licensed under a free and open source
software license recognized as compatible with the Gnu General Public
License ("GPL") by the Free Software Foundation, as maintained by that
organization at
<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses>
or be licensed under the GPL itself. For purposes of this paragraph,
tjhe phrase "Different Information Technology Systems" requires that
at least one implementation must not be a clone of the same code base,
such as OpenOffice.org, StarOffice, and Lotus Symphony.

e. As an exit criterion, that each and every such profile have fully
developed and validated conformance and interoperability assessment
procedures.

f. As an exit criterion, that the developers of each of the
implementations described in paragraph 5(d) demonstrate that their
implementations have achieved full fidelity round-trip
interoperability with each other.

g. As an exit criterion, that one implementation identified in
paragraph 5(d) above that is licensed under a GPL or GPL-compatible
license be designated by the proposed TC as the reference
implementation for that profile.

h. As an exit criterion, that each and every such profile clearly and
unambiguously require that no extended version of a profile shall be
claimed as conformant with the same profile, as required by the
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade..

i. As an exit criterion, that each and every such profile clearly and
unambiguously require that no implementation be deemed conformant if
it is incapable of round-tripping documents with conformant
implementations without loss of fidelity.

j. As an exit criterion, that each and every such profile that
supersets another such profile must clearly and unambiguously require
that conformant status is denied to any implementation of a superset
specification that does not process each and every subset profile's
content as if it were the superset profile content.

E.g., a conformant implementation of a more featureful desktop word
processor profile that supersets a mobile device word processor
profile must round be capable of round-tripping documents with a
conformant implementation of the mobile device word processing profile
with edits at each end of each trip, in the manner the W3C Compound
Document by Reference Framework requires for interoperability: "A
conformant user agent of a superset profile specification must process
subset profile content as if it were the superset profile content."
<http://www.w3.org/TR/CDR/#conformance>)

k. As an exit criterion, each and every such profile must specify RFC
2119 as the defining standard for requirements key words.
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt>.

This is for compatibility with nearly every other XML standard in
existence and to begin working out of the interoperability mess
created in the ODF standard when ISO/IEC/JTC 1 switched ODF 1.0 from
RFC 2119 to ISO/IEC Guidelines definitions, gutting EVERY mandatory
interoperability requirement in the ODF standard by the switch from
the modal RFC 2119 definition of "may" and "optional"  --- which
includes two "must" interoperability requirements --- to a definition
that gives "may" and "optional" their common and ordinary meaning of
"permission." This was a blunder of monumental proportions,
particularly given that ISO/IEC Directives allow incorporation by
reference of non-ISO/IEC standards and as nearly as I can tell from
extensively studying the ODF TC email archives from that period, the
JTC 1 Editor for ISO/IEC 26300 OpenDocument --- Patrick Durusau ---
didn't bother even asking the ODF TC about the consequences of
dropping EVERY mandatory interoperability requirement in the standard
before he made that switch.)

6. Please add to the list the development of a profile that matches as
closely as is feasible the requirements specified by IDABC and other
European Union governments at the Open Document Exchange Formats
Workshop 2007 and the Advancing eGovernment Conference.
<http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6474>.

I may have more later.

Best regards,

Paul Merrell, J.D. (Marbux)




-- 
Universal Interoperability Council
<http:www.universal-interop-council.org>


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