Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Caution and Disclaimer on Interoperability

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

jose lorenzo <hozelda@yahoo.com> wrote on 06/11/2008
06:32:09 PM:

> I just joined today, so please excuse if I am
> repeating material or am a bit off topic.
> 
> "Interoperability" and similar terms should be defined
> precisely and conspicuously.
> 
> In particular, I think a note should be made that
> interoperability does NOT mean that what an office
> suite user visually sees and then saves using one
> "interoperable" or "conformant" application can
be
> rendered faithfully on another such conformant
> application.
> 

Hi Jose,

Welcome to the discussion list! 

I'd say that one definition of interoperability is
that a document appears the same visually on two different conformant ODF
implementations.  But this is not the only definition of interoperability.
 

For example if a document is created visually on one
system using an ODF editor, and then is loaded on a second system which
is defined for the use of the blind, and that system allows the blind user
to read and navigate the document, and access all of the information of
the original, then wouldn't that be considered interoperable?

And if Google is able to index ODF documents, and
maybe some day they or another search engine extracts deeper semantics
from documents using ODF 1.2 RDF metadata, then isn't that interoperability.

And if we write a specification that defines conventions
for mixing ODF and XBRL markup, so that multiple applications can edit
and process these annotations, is that not also interoperability?

You can find many different formal definitions of
interoperability.  The one I like most is IDABC's from their "European
Interoperability Framework":

"Interoperability means the ability of information
and communication technology (ICT) systems and of the business processes
they support to exchange data and
to enable the sharing of information and knowledge."

I know that many on this discussion list are interested
in the visual kind of interoperability, and there is indeed progress that
can be made here.  However, I think that our proposed TC charter should
be broad enough to encompass the full panoply of relevant ODF interoperability
initiatives.  In particular, there has been a lot of hallway talk
at conferences and in casual encounters about ODF/DITA interoperability.
 In other words, interoperability between two standards. 


> I make this last statement because I truly doubt that
> ODF will ever be tied down enough to prevent one
> application, designated as "interoperable" according
> to the ODF standard, from arbitrarily inserting binary
> blobs (or an equivalent mapping into printable
> characters, CDATA, PCDATA, etc) into the document as a
> way to store arbitrary proprietary content, arbitrary
> proprietary application or platform state, arbitrary
> proprietary semantics, etc, bypassing the preferred
> ODF structures (if there even exist any in the
> particular case).
> 

How long did it take HTML/CSS/DOM to become reasonably
interoperable?  It doesn't happen overnight.  It will require
a lot of work, of course, but this is all possible.

When you think of it, ODF itself was impossible --
When ODF started there was a single 95%+ market share dominant company
who had a binary document format that is closely controlled as a strategic
secret.  And now, 5 years later, that same company has announced support
for ODF. 

The market has moved on.  Writing word processors
is not the money maker any more.  Free software does the job just
fine. The profit potential is around adjacent goods, applications that
do other things with documents.  For this to work, we need a high
level of interoperability with ODF.

Think back to the web.  There was not a lot of
money made selling HTTP servers or web browsers.  That, for the most
part, migrated to free software.  But the underlying open standards
like HTTP, HTML, CSS2, DOM, etc., provided the technical foundations for
trillions of dollars of innovation around new products and services, e.g.,
Google.

So I wouldn't underestimate the interest that vendors
have in seeing ODF interoperability improve.  It benefits us.

Regards,

-Rob