[odf-discuss] Mass may endorse OXML.

[marbux]

On 7/3/07, Chris Puttick <cputtick at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, if ease of migration of formats is their reasoning then
> they have been misinformed. It is not the format that is the key but
> the software.


Well, the real question is how you get from state A to state B.
Massachusetts had a pretty good plan based on ODF plug-ins for Microsoft
Office. See e.g., <
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=itdsubtopic&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Open+Initiatives&L2=OpenDocument&L3=ODF+Plug-In+for+Microsoft+RFI&sid=Aitd
>.

The idea was to switch all instances of MS Office in the state to save to
ODF rather than to Microsoft formats, which would have ended the lock-in
and, since legacy files could be converted, allow time for a sane migration
schedule to non-Microsoft software, rewriting of business process scripts,
training for new software, etc.

But it fell apart when the big ODF vendors that had been asked by
Massachusetts to fund the Foundation's development of its plug-in declined
to do so and Sun refused to modify StarOffice/OpenOffice.org so they woud
preserve foreign elements and attributes instead of destroying them. . (The
Foundation's proposal was the only one that would have added native ODF
support to MS Office or be able to deliver high fidelity.)

So with no sane migration path provided by the ODF community, it's not
suprising to see Massachusetts  showing renewed interest in Microsoft XML.


If they think it is easier and cheaper to go with
> Microsoft because they have Microsoft then they are correct; they are
> already locked in. The new format is irrelevant, it is the legacy
> format and legacy systems that is the problem. *Any* cost incurred in
> moving to a more open format is the cost of exit of the previous
> decisions, part of the TCO cycle that needs to come to an end, not
> part of the TCO cycle of the new open systems.


Agreed. But in the government context, you still have to get the legislative
appropriations to do the work. Microsoft lobbying shut down that possibility
in Massachusetts. I think Andy Updegrove is correct in calling for lobbying
of the legislature rather than ITD, although I think the new governor needs
some attention too. I've spent some time talking to ITD folk and they
genuinely want to move to ODF. So it's more about pressuring the people who
are pressuring them.

Of course Mass. implementing MS products as part of this policy would
> be legally challengeable - their policy refers to Ecma OOXML which is
> proveably not supported by MS Office 2k7 (and presumably not the
> plugins for MS Office 2k3).


Yes, but somehow we need to get that proof into a more credible
presentation. The fact that there is no reference editor for OOXML could
make a tremendous difference at ISO and with government procurement offices.
But I'm afraid that the most likely result of pushing that issue would be
for Microsoft to add OOXML support to MS Office.




Chris P
>
> On 03/07/07, marbux <marbux at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 7/3/07, Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera at zmsl.com> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > This is old news, but I haven't seen any posts on-list (it's been
> quiet
> > > lately, I know). Massachusetts may endorse Microsoft's OOXML.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070702101415578
> > >
> > > Any takes on this?
> > >
> > > Personally I think that two overlapping standards will be harmful to
> > > competition and I believe that OOXML is much more difficult to
> implement
> > > than ODF. I don't really have anything to say that everyone on this
> list
> > > doesn't know already.
> > >
> > >
> > It's actualy easier for Massachusetts to implement MOOXML than ODF
> because
> > they are already overwhelmingly using MS Office and have a huge silo of
> > legacy documents in Microsoft formats. So it's a painless migration to
> > MOOXML, no need to rewrite business process scripts, etc. The pain comes
> > later from the vendor lock-in. With ODF, on the other hand, can't be
> > integrated with  Microsoft-bound business processes because of the
> > interoperability barrier and poor fidelity conversions. And ripping out
> and
> > replacing not only MS Office but all of the business process scripts
> would
> > be ruinously expensive.
> >
> > As one of the IBM SOA experts said:
> >
> > "Because most companies have a significant investment in their legacy
> > infrastructure, management is typically not open to ripping out and
> > replacing legacy systems, regardless of the level of shortcomings
> evident in
> > the infrastructure. Rewriting or significantly modifying large portions
> of a
> > legacy environment is neither practical nor realistically accomplishable
> in
> > a reasonable time frame." (Italics added.)
> > <http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-soa-adaptleg/
> >.
> >
> > Too bad the IBM office productivity software execs never got that memo.
> Rip
> > out and replace is the only option they've given the enterprise market
> for
> > ODF implementation, as with the ill-considered legislation that failed
> in
> > five states so far. :-)
> >
> > My guess is that we are going to see a lot of the ODF adoption decisions
> > being revised to take the Massachusetts approach. As I've been saying,
> ODF
> > has won a lot of government adoption decisions but darned few
> > implementations. Governments have largely been awaiting the
> interoperability
> > tools needed to escape Microsoft's lock-in but the tools have not been
> > forthcoming. And won't be given current attitudes toward
> interoperability on
> > the ODF TC at OASIS.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > odf-discuss mailing list
> > odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.org
> > http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.org/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> My employers website: http://thehumanjourney.net - opinions in this
> email are however very much my own and may not reflect that of my
> current employer, past employers, associates, friends, family, pets etc..
> _______________________________________________
> odf-discuss mailing list
> odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.org
> http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.org/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070704/de539979/attachment-0001.html