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] DIN technical report / follow up from todays call

For the record, a week has passed and I have received no response to this request for additional information.


Robert Weir/Cambridge/IBM

02/01/2008 05:03 AM

"Ziesing, Jan" <Jan.Ziesing@fokus.fraunhofer.de>, jan.dittberner@din.de
dwheeler@dwheeler.com, "Florian Reuter" <freuter@novell.com>, office@lists.oasis-open.org
RE: [office] DIN technical report / follow up from todays callLink

Hi Jan & Jan,

Maybe one of you, or Florian, can help answer some questions:

1) What are the planned formal deliverables of the DIN translation WG?
2) Is there a public archive of mailing list discussions for the WG?  Meeting minutes?
3) How are decisions made for what is included in the report?  I assume liaisons would not have voting rights?
4) By when are you expected to complete your report?  
5) Would it be possible for the ODF TC to review a current draft of the report?  Is there something posted publicly?
6) Who are the current members of the WG, and their affiliations?  Is this posted someplace?

I think having answers to the above would be useful to the ODF TC members, to help us evaluate whether a liaison relationship makes sense here.  

I also hope that you appreciate the fact that there are many requests for our attention, from ISO, from the ODF Adoption TC, from other OASIS TC's, from ODF implementors, from conferences seeking speakers, etc. We're also working hard on completing ODF 1.2.  So I need to make sure that a liaison relationship would be the best use of our scarce time.  



"Ziesing, Jan" <Jan.Ziesing@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote on 01/31/2008 12:48:13 AM:

> Hello everyone,
> As I notice from your Emails an official liaison between the DIN
> translation working group and the ODF TC at the OASIS could be
> interesting. Personally I would appreciate such a liaison very much.
> I fear though that there could be a little mistake, as the secretary
> of the DIN, Jan Dittberner, and I have the same forename. ;)
> I am only coordinating the activities towards the technical report
> at Fraunhofer FOKUS, which is the currently most important
> contributor of the DIN working group.
> Jan Dittberner as secretary of the working group and Gerd Schürmann
> as chair of the NI-34 would be the right persons to contact for an
> official liaison though. Here are their contact details:
> Jan Dittberner
> jan.dittberner@din.de
> Burggrafenstr. 6
> 10787 Berlin
> Tel: +49 30 2601-2017
> Fax: +49 30 2601-42017
> Gerd Schürmann
> Gerd.Schürmann@fokus.fraunhofer.de
> Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31
> 10589 Berlin
> Tel: +49 30 3463 7213
> Fax: +49 30 3463 8000
> Best regards,
> Jan Ziesing
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>    Jan Henrik Ziesing
>    Fraunhofer Institut FOKUS
>    Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31
>    10589 Berlin
>    Germany
>    Phone: +49 30 3463-7312
>    Fax:   +49 30 3463-8000
>    Email: jan.ziesing@fokus.fraunhofer.de
>    URL:  
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Florian Reuter [
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 8:29 PM
> To: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
> Cc: dwheeler@dwheeler.com; Ziesing, Jan; office@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [office] DIN technical report / follow up from todays call
> Hi,
> the WG is busy working on a first draft. This'll include mainly work
> in Wordprocessing. Spreadsheet and Presentation is
> still in the very early work. So help from the ODF TC would be great
> --- and a liaison would make sense IMHO.
> To give you an idea why help from the ÓDF TC would be needed I'll
> briefly outline some questions which arose:
> * Need for more use-cases, i.e. feasable interop scenarios
> * Discussions of unspecified behaviour (e.g numbering in 1.0,
> spreadsheet formulas, compatibilty options, etc.) and
> their impact on interop scenarios
> * Questions regaring generic settings like  e.eg. form:control-
> implementation="ooo:com.sun.star.form.component.Form", or
> tweaking a la
> * Possible interop problems not handled by the specs (e.g. graphics,
> WMF, EMF, SVM, etc.) or e.g. font metrics and font
> embedding.
> As you see there are a lot of overlapping areas with eg. the "ODF
> interop" we dealt with in the workshop in Barcelona.
> [This issue is hosted in the Adoption TC, right? Maybe this TC is
> also suited as a liaison partner?]
> I personally would not feel comfortable with the role of the
> "offical" liaison person since I also participate in the
> EMCA TC which has a liaison itself with the working group (the
> offical liaison person here is Rex Jaeschke (the editor
> of the ECMA spec)). Having someone like Patrick or youself [since
> you deal a lot with inner ODF interop] would really be
> great. For me wearing three hats seems too difficult. [Althought if
> there is trust in the TC that I can handle that I'll
> surely do it.]
> It would also be great if David (and his group) could give the WG a
> head start in the formula issue.
> ~Florian
> >>> <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> 01/28/08 6:52 PM >>>
> Hi Florian,
> What is the status of this report?  Is the research complete?  Has the
> report already been drafted?  A liaison typically make working together
> easier between two organizations and encourages information exchange.  So
> what work remains for this technical report?  If DIN merely wants us to
> review and comment, then a liaison is not necessary.  You could submit the
> draft or questions on the draft to the ODF public comment list.  But if
> there is more sustained collaboration proposed, then a liaison may be
> appropriate.
> It is like making a subcommittee.  If something requires a group of people
> to meet off-line for a short period of time (say less than 3-4 months)
> then we typically don't bother creating a formal subcommittee.  Too much
> overhead.  Similarly, if the technical report is almost done, then a
> liaison might be overkill.  But if some long-term collaboration is
> proposed, then a liaison is more appropriate.
> Does this make sense?   Anyone disagree with this?
> If we think a formal liaison is appropriate then you'll want to review the
> OASIS policy on TC Liaisons here:  
> We can vote to have someone be a liaison from the ODF TC to the DIN WG,
> The DIN WG can also appoint one of their members to be a liaison to the
> ODF TC, and join OASIS for that purpose.
> What is easiest is if we have a person who is already a member of both
> committees.  Then that same person could be made the liaison in both
> directions.  I think the logical person would be you, right?
> -Rob
> "Florian Reuter" <freuter@novell.com>
> 01/28/2008 11:39 AM
> To
> <Jan.Ziesing@fokus.fraunhofer.de>, <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>
> cc
> <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>, <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Subject
> [office] DIN technical report / follow up from todays call
> Hi,
> as a follow up from our call today wrt. the DIN TR mapping between ODF and
> OOXML I had a short chat with Jan. He is the chair of the DIN working
> group.
> As discussed in the TC call today Jan would be interrested in a liaison
> with the ODF TC.
> ~Florian
> (P.S. Sorry for the short message ---- but since I broke my arm I can only
> to short one-handed notes...)
> ---------------------------------To unsubscribe from this mail list,
> you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
> at:

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