[odf-discuss] OOXML: The next step

[marbux]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:18 AM, <robert_weir at us.ibm.com> wrote:

>
> Sorry Paul, but now you are conflating the Law with your interpretation of
> the Law.


No, that is not what I said. I said that if you disagree with my
interpretation of the law, you must answer with an argument based on law. An
argument that everyone behaves in a particular way is irrelevant to what the
law requires. Facts and law are not the same thing. One determines what the
facts are, then determines what law governs, then one determines whether the
behavior is lawful or unlawful. One does not determine that everyone does it
this way therefore it must be legal. It's a logical fallacy.


>  What I am saying is that if your interpretation of the law, which I hear
> being expressed by no other competent authority, is at odds with all evident
> practice in standardization, then I must pause and wonder whether your
> interpretation is correct.  My doubt need not be grounded on any legal
> analysis.


Are you saying that the World Trade Organization Appellate Body did not say
what it did or that the Appellate Body is incompetent? Are you saying that
interoperability is not one of three mandatory Core Common Characteristics
under JTC 1 Directives that standards must reflect absent the consent of the
Secretaries-General? Are you saying that interoperability is not essential
to competition in the software market or that file format incompatibilities
do not create an unnecessary obstacle to international trade?

Are you saying that SC 34 did not seek a specific change in JTC 1
Directives  from SWG Directives so that OpenDocument could allow apps that
do not conform to the entire standard could still claim conformance, or that
SWG Directives declined to create that exception?

There is no absence of authority on my side of the fence. I have cited and
quoted it at length. You are the one who is trying to argue that "everyone
does it therefore it must be legal."


> It is sufficient, to me at least, to observe that your interpretation does
> not appear to be widely held.
>

Oh? How about the following view from one of Microsoft's standards
attorneys? Do you disagree?

"The ultimate purpose of a software standard is to enable interoperability
between different products and services.  If there is no need for
interoperability, there is little if any need for a common standard.  The
point of a standard is to make it possible for devices and services from
different providers to work together."

<http://standardslaw.com/wordpress/?p=17>.

Do you disagree that the chartered purpose of the OpenDocument Technical
Committee is to create "A standard for office document processing and
*interchange* ... ?"


> Of course, that doesn't prove anything.  Absence of evidence is not
> evidence of absence.  I could be wrong.  But you must admit that your
> interpretation is just a wee bit less persuasive in light of the fact that
> no court or competent regulatory body has ever ruled on your line of
> reasoning, and thousands of existing standards seemingly violate it?
>

Thousands? You began your argument with examples of, as I recall, only four
specific standards you say violate the legal point I espouse. At least one
of them, XHTML 1.0 Strict does not seem to bear out your claim. Have you
actually studied "thousands" of existing standards  in this regard? Were any
of them standards for weights and measures? Were any of them
telecommunications protocol standards? Or do you argue that there is some
unique exception in well-established law governing standards for document
format standards? If so, I would very much appreciate a citation to the
exception. I am far more concerned with being correct than in persisting in
a flawed analysis.


> As for your question, you asked whether I will  "clearly and unambiguously
> specify that conformance requirements essential to achieve the
> interoperability" and will the standards-based interoperability between
> *different* IT systems be "demonstrable," as required by JTC 1 Directives?
>
> To that I can say that we are rewriting the conformance clauses in ODF
> 1.2, per OASIS requirements.  I believe this also accords well with the JTC1
> requirements.


You blink too easily past the fact that SC 34 sought a specific exception in
the latest version of the JTC 1 Directives for OpenDocument in regard to
conformance to less than the full standard and the request was denied.

But in any event, my questions are susceptible only to "yes" or "no"
answers. Please answer them accordingly.


> But honestly, I also believe that what we have in ODF 1.0 also complies
> with JTC1 requirements.  In other words, I don't believe that the JTC1
> requirements prevent a standard from defining conformance in a way that
> allows conformant applications from also allowing vendor extensions.
>

Then we can cut this conversation short if you would do me the courtesy of
pointing to: [i] the specific section(s) of the ISO/IEC:26300 standard or
the ODF v. 1.2 draft standard that "clearly and unambiguously specify the
conformity requirements essential to achieve the interoperability; and [ii]
the specific test results where the interoperability between *different* IT
systems was demonstrated using ISO/IEC:26300  or ODF v. 1.2 as the
"standardised interface"  for the "mutual use of information;" or [iii] a
document evidencing the consent of the Secretaries-General of ISO/IEC:26300
to be excused from those requirements. See definition of interoperability in
JTC 1 Directives Annex I. As you said earlier in this same thread, "If you
use extensions you know you will not be interoperable."

If you can show me those items of evidence, then we are arguing over a
wholly academic issue. If you cannot show that evidence, then ODF and the
efforts of the ODF TC violate JTC 1 Directives. Short and sweet.


> In any case, I am very serious about interoperability.  But I believe that
> vendor extensions are an insignificant source of real-world interoperability
> problems when it comes to ODF.


That ignores the law saying that all characteristics of a standardized
product must be specified.  Disclosure of information necessary to achieve
interoperability may be disclosed by a particular vendor (e.g., Microsoft)
outside the context of a standard. But that does not mean that disclosure of
such information outside the context of a standard honors the requirement
that all product characteristics be specified by a standard.

I drafted my two questions deliberately in a leading fashion. They are
susceptible only to "yes" or "no" answers. I will even delete the "as
required by JTC 1 Directives" part of the questions. Will ODF v. 1.2 exhibit
those qualities?

In other words, let's take the issue of the law and the Directives off the
table. For me personally, what is at stake with your answers to those two
questions are whether I will personally contribute to ODF v. 1.2 and whether
I will support or oppose your efforts to get ODF v. 1.2 through OASIS and
JTC 1. While my questions are based on my interpretation of the law, you
need not agree with my interpretation to answer the questions.

I will restate those questions here without reference to what I believe the
Directives require.

1. Will ODF v. 1.2 clearly and unambiguously specify the conformity
requirements essential to achieve the interoperability?

[ ] Yes     [ ] No

2. Will interoperability between *different* IT systems using ODF v. 1.2 as
the "standardised interface" for mutual use of exchanged information  be
demonstrated?

[ ] Yes     [ ] No

Only my support or opposition is determined by your answers. You need
express no opinion as to requirements of law or the Directives.



> The real-world issues are more around partial implementations, or
> defective interpretations of the standard.  So that's where I put my
> efforts.  If any one else is interested in helping to solve the real-world
> problems, then I'd recommend the same.
>

We are in strong disagreement here. The real-world issue is whether ODF will
become more than a standard in name only. It is riddled with ambiguous
options that are interoperability breakpoints and it is a signed blank check
for developers to extend. It does not specify all characteristics of a
standard product in such a way that the products produced by different
vendors are interchangeable.

I will support IBM's efforts and contribute if IBM is determined to change
that situation to bring ODF into compliance with the law. If you have
something else in mind, I will oppose adoption of ODF v. 1.2 without very
substantial changes.

Best regards,

Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20080414/7e5f425a/attachment-0001.html