RE: [oiic-formation-discuss] Charter and Deliverables: the "State of Interoperability" assessment activity

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

Rob Weir asked:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200808/msg00014.
html

Re: 1c. Scope of Work addition

> You introduced the word "survey" which was not in the original text.  
> It might not be a survey, right? Maybe this can be generalized? 
> Maybe "reviews"?

Yes. Or how about "appraisal"?  I was trying to avoid the use of assessment
and any confusion with the "conformance assessment specification" which is a
different output (though could figure in future appraisals).  I couldn't
think of anything better than review when I wrote the suggestion. 

Re: 1d. List of Deliverables addition

> Or is it more of a "plan of record" for the TC?  If the 
> latter, then I'd probably include this notion in the Scope, 
> but not list it in the Deliverables.

Yes, that. 

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 15:16
To: oiic-formation-discuss
Subject: RE: [oiic-formation-discuss] Charter and Deliverables: the "State
of Interoperability" assessment activity

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 08/10/2008 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200808/msg00012.
html
05:10:25 PM:

>
> SUGGESTION:
> 
> Add to 1c. Scope of Work
> 
> "0.   Development and progressive improvement of a methodology for
> carrying out impartial surveys of the current state of conformance and
> interoperability among ODF implementations and for reporting the results 
of
> such surveys."
> 
> (Adjust item 1 accordingly, if needed.  I considered merging this into 
item
> 1 but decided it made things too unwieldy.)
> 

It is a bootstrapping question.  Once the TC's has produced all of its 
deliverables, determining the state of interoperability and conformance is 
much easier.  But how do we arrive at that initial reading? 

I don't know if I'd go so far as to commit flagrant acts of methodology, 
but certainly the proposed TC should define what they are going to do 
before they do it.

You introduced the word "survey" which was not in the original text.  It 
might not be a survey, right? Maybe this can be generalized?  Maybe 
"reviews"?


> Add to 1d. List of Deliverables
> 
> "0.   Initial procedure and methodology for the first survey of the
> current state of conformance and interoperability among ODF
> implementations."
> 

OASIS TC process defines draft and final deliverables.  By a deliverable, 
it refers to document that is publicly directed, such as a Working Draft, 
Committee Specification, OASIS Standard etc.  Do you see this methodology 
document as being something like that, something that we would spend some 
time getting it into shape for publication, editing it, sending for public 
review, etc.?  Or is it more of a "plan of record" for the TC?  If the 
latter, then I'd probably include this notion in the Scope, but not list 
it in the Deliverables.


> Add to 2a. Similar work
> 
> "We note the work of Rajiv Shah and Jay Kesan, "Lost in Translation:
> Interoperability Issues for Open Standards - ODF and OOXML as Examples,"
> (September 2008). The Proceedings of the 36th Research Conference on
> Communication, Information and Internet Policy (TPRC), Arlington, VA, 
Sept.
> 26-28, 2008
> Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1201708  This work, its
> references, and similar comparisons among ODF implementations as well as
> translation efforts may inform the initial approach to surveying the 
current
> state of ODF conformance and interoperability and determining priorities 
for
> the development of conformity-assessment methodology specifications."
> 


Good.  I'm familiar with this work, but it was not public at the time I 
drafted the charter.


-Rob