RE: [opendocument-users] New question (2): Reference implementation?

["Cody, John (OFT)" <John.Cody@oft.state.ny.us>]

Paul:

I am a lawyer, too.  So now you are getting to the meat of a part of my question.

Can you kindly:  (a) point me to the definition of "reference implementation" you are using; and (b) lay out briefly how that definition controls the question and excludes any other possible interpretation (e.g. OO.org being a reference implementation for all practical purposes)?

You keep submitting lawyerly conclusions on this listserve, but I'd like to see the irrefutable legal reasoning behind those conclusions.  It is quite possible I might have a different interpretation, if I were to see what you are relying on.

Thanks, John


===============================================

John C. Cody, Associate Counsel
Office of the NYS Chief Information Officer/NYS Office for Technology
http://www.oft.state.ny.us
[The statements expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect the policies, practices or opinions of my employer or anyone else.  Nothing herein constitutes legal advice - if you need legal advice, please consult your own attorney.]


-----Original Message-----
From: marbux [mailto:marbux@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 7:01 PM
To: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
Cc: opendocument-users@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [opendocument-users] New question (2): Reference implementation?

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 8:41 AM,  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote on 05/17/2009 10:12:09 AM:
>
>>
>> Re: [opendocument-users] New question (2): Reference implementation?
>>
>> >  What we do require is that a specification have three successful
>> > implementations which conform to the standard before
> we
>> > can vote on it as an OASIS Standard.  A single reference
> implementation is
>> > not part of our formal process.
>> >
>> > That's my answer wearing my TC Chair hat.
>>
>> Since the standard has no conformance spec, and very little in the
>> way of requirements against which conformance may be measured, that
>> means there aren't any successful implementations (by this
>> definition).
>>
>>
>
> That is incorrect, Dave.  The standard defines conformance in section
> 1.4 "Document Processing and Conformance".

Correction on the section number. It's 1.5 in all adopted versions of the standard. I'll land with Dave on this one because there is a governing rule on the degree of specificity in conformity requirements . International standards are to "specify clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability." JTC 1 Directives, page 145.

ODF fails that test miserably. E.g., ODF 1.2cd01 --- AWOL Interoperability Conformity Requirements, <http://www.universal-interop-council.org/node/41>. Notably, there is no conformity requirement specifying that things must be done as OpenOffice.org does, so the clear answer is that there is no reference implementation. The question was not ambiguous as Rob suggests.

Best regards,

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. (Marbux)


--
Universal Interoperability Council
<http:www.universal-interop-council.org>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opendocument-users-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opendocument-users-help@lists.oasis-open.org



This e-mail, including any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments.  Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system.