[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, <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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>