RE: [opendocument-users] New question (2): Reference implementation?

["Cody, John (OFT)" <John.Cody@oft.state.ny.us>]

Rob:

If you will indulge me just for a brief discussion here, I would like to hear the reasoning.  The conclusions are presented so affirmatively as to exclude any possible alternative interpretation.  As such, I am presuming there is case law supporting the irrefutable conclusion, or other legal support (e.g. statutory definitions of reference implementations, or something of the like).  I am really trying to understand this question, so anything I am provided on point to the conclusions will help.  (Now of course, there might not be any definitive legal support provided, which is a definitive answer in its own way).

So please, just a brief exposition before we move on?  Thanks, John


===============================================

John C. Cody, Associate Counsel
Office of the NYS Chief Information Officer/NYS Office for Technology
http://www.oft.state.ny.us
[The statements expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect the policies, practices or opinions of my employer or anyone else.  Nothing herein constitutes legal advice - if you need legal advice, please consult your own attorney.]

-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 8:03 PM
To: opendocument-users@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [opendocument-users] New question (2): Reference implementation?

marbux <marbux@gmail.com> wrote on 05/17/2009 07:00:36 PM:


> <http://www.universal-interop-council.org/node/41>. Notably, there is
> no conformity requirement specifying that things must be done as
> OpenOffice.org does, so the clear answer is that there is no reference
> implementation. The question was not ambiguous as Rob suggests.
>

I think you have that backwards, Paul.  A reference implementation (RI)does not define conformance, and is not referred to in a conformance clause.  An RI is a model implementation, open to inspection, that implements a standard fully, and conforms to that standard.  I don't think you'll find it mentioned in JTC1 Directives because it is not really a part of the formal international standardization system.

In any case, just because you, or Dave, do not like a conformance clause, doesn't mean it ceases to exist.  There are a lot of things I don't like, but they still exist, much to my perpetual annoyance.  In any case, the text, as written, has been approved by OASIS twice and by ISO once.  I value your opinion, as always, but yours is not the only interpretation on the subject.  We've debated this many times, and it ends with my observation that if we took your interpretation of of WTO requirements, then there would have no valid tech standards at all today.  And then you quote from "A Man for All Seasons" and so on, and so on.  Why don't we just pretend we've already gone through that dance already, agree to disagree, and move on to the next topic.

-Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opendocument-users-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opendocument-users-help@lists.oasis-open.org



This e-mail, including any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments.  Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system.