| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Profiles: suggested use-cases
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- To: <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:21:59 -0400
marbux <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on 06/29/2008
> I object strenuously to the lack of specificity in your proposed
> language. E.g., you said you want "profiles" but you have
> defined the term to my knowledge. I want to know what you mean by
> "profiles." Do you want your vision of profiles to clearly
> unambiguously specify the conformity requirements essential to achieve
> the interoperability? If you do, great, we've agreed on something.
> if your vision of profiles doesn't include the interop conformity
> requirements, we are not in agreement and we have something we need
> talk about.
I've sent out the ISO definition for a profile, twice.
The Wikipedia definition was also posted. I'd be happy with
either one. I've also posted links to several existing profiles at
the W3C. It is difficult for anyone to continue to claim that the
word "profile" is undefined.
As an OASIS deliverable, any profile issued by the
proposed TC would conform to OASIS TC policy, clause 2.18 with respect
to conformance clauses.
I do not acknowledge your tortured logic that suggests
other mandatory requirements on the TC's output. You are free to
argue your points, of course, and make them the consensus view. But
you are not able to put constraints on our work beyond what you can persuade.
> Another example: If improving the interoperability of ODF
> implementations means to you that we are to create a set of profiles
> that specifies the interop conformity requirements as above and
> submits them for adoption as OASIS standards, then you and I have
> agreed on something. If on the other hand, what that means to you
> an ongoing Interop Camp hackfest not directed to development of a
> standard, then I have very big objections and we need to talk about
The traditional term is "Plugfest" not "Hackfest".
OASIS also has a framework for an OASIS Interop Demo event, and I'd
expect that the proposed TC, perhaps along with the ODF Adoption TC, might
want to organize one or more of these, to showcase the results of our efforts.
> 1. Tsze-lu said, 'The ruler of Wei has been waiting for you, in order
> with you to administer the government. What will you consider the
> first thing to be done?'
> 2. The Master replied, 'What is necessary is to rectify names.'
> 3. 'So, indeed!' said Tsze-lu. 'You are wide of the mark! Why must
> there be such rectification?'
> 4. The Master said, 'How uncultivated you are, Yu! A superior man,
> regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve.
> 5. 'If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the
> truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of
> things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.
> 6. 'When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and
> music will not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish,
> punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not
> properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.
> 7. 'Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names
> uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may
> carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires, is just
> that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.'
> Be a superior man, Rob.
"Tsze-kung asked, saying, 'What do you say of a man
who is loved by all the people of his village?' The Master replied, 'We
may not for that accord our approval of him.' 'And what do you say of him
who is hated by all the people of his village?' The Master said, 'We may
not for that conclude that he is bad. It is better than either of these
cases that the good in the village love him, and the bad hate him.'"
(Analects, bk. xiii., c. xxiv.)
> We would still be in the exact same boat. I
> > think you misperceive the nature of interoperability, and the
> > problems and equally practical solutions that are needed to move
> Forward toward what, Rob? And what do you mean by "interoperability."
> Is it application-level interop or standards-based interop?
You start with conformance testing, looking at the
relationship of the application to the standard. But that is the
beginning, not the end of interoperability work. You continue the
job by looking at how applications exchange documents. That is what
real users see, right? It would be silly not to look at this.
> > I'm looking to form an ODF IIC TC in order to develop the kinds
> > tools needed by ODF implementors (and others) to improve conformance
> > documents and applications, and to improve interoperability among
> This sounds like application-level interop rather than standards-based
> interop. You know that there are virtually no conformance requirements
> as to elements and atributes not already tested by validation against
> the schema after all foreign elemtns and attributes are removed, that
> is unless you want to drop back to OASIS ODF 1.0. Is there any more
> your desire for conformance testing than smoke and mirrors? Please
> address what it is you propose to test that is not already tested
> validation against the schema after all foreign elments and attributes
> are removed.
As I've stated before, conformance testing is the
start, not the end of interoperability.
> > Those who are interested in this task will join in this
effort, and those
> > who are not will ignore it. I see no sense in turning this
into an "us
> > versus them" battle. It is only "us" here.
> There is no "us" before there is consensus. My consensus
> minimum that you be far more specific in the mission statement for
> this TC. IBM embraced and extended TTS back in the 50s and 60s. TTS
> was the last word processing open standard that I've worked
> had competing, fully interoperable implementations. IBM has had over
> four decades to achieve another open word processing standard with
> competing, fully interoperable implementations.
Us = at least 5 OASIS members. I'd like to have
many more than 5. But consensus is the cherry on the sundae. Nice
to have, but not mandatory.
> There ain't no "us" before I see a sign that IBM is rowing
> interop rather than away from it. You have not given me that sign.
You do not know how much that saddens me to hear,
> Those who participate in the
> > effort already want to see interoperability improvements, so
> > concentrate on that rather than the unnecessary task of convincingthem
> > such efforts are necessary.
> "Interop improvements" is neither a specific goal nor a
work plan for
> achieving that goal. It is a mere excuse for not disclosing either
> specific goal or a workplan for achieving that goal. I want both in
> the charter and I am not unreasonable in insisting on that. Have you
> never heard of Management by Objectives?
Correct, the proposed charter will need these details.
But it seems you are not arguing against the details, but that you
have a fundamental difference with the high level goals that I have expressed.
> Either you have a more specific objective or you ask only for my
> trust. You do not have my trust. Is that clear enough?
Again, I'm so sorry.
> > I know you desperately want interoperability improvements.
> Wrong. I want a standard that fully specifies the conformity
> requirements essential to achieve interoperability. I want *fully*
> interoperable and competing implementatiions. I want vendors competing
> for my business who do not lock me into their apps. I am not alone.
> have no interest in "interoperability improvements." It
> meaningless phrase.
Well, this is obviously quite a wish list, and more
I dare say than any one TC is going to deliver for you. I suggest
we focus on what subset of things an IIC TC can do.
> > already have the major vendors involved. Trying to turn
this into a stick
> > to be used against "big vendors" will only backfire
and ensure that the
> > effort never occurs.
> Some are content with replacing a monopoly with a collusive oligopoly.
> I am not. Had I never achieved success in toilet-training
> multinational corporations, I might give your last words more weight.
> But I have long experience in correcting corporate abuse. All that
> happened is that Microsoft is being dragged from a monopoly into an
> oligopoly. I care not only about the horizontal market shared by the
> the big vendors; I also care about the vertical markets where the
> proverbial two guys in a garage are denied market entry by interop
> Show me that IBM, Sun, and Microsoft have on their agenda interop
> between the small vendors' implementations and the big vendors'
> implementations. "Improving interoperability" tells me nothing
> than the fact that there is an agenda that has not been disclosed.
The agenda will be set by those who join the TC. If
small vendors participate, then their vote will be equal to IBM's. One
person, one vote is how OASIS operates. And even vendors who do not join
will benefit from the output of the TC, both directly, by using the specifications,
test suites and profiles we develop, but also by the resulting more lucrative
market for ODF-based products of all varieties and sizes.
Improved interoperability benefits all ODF vendors.
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]