[odf-discuss] OOXML: The next step

[marbux]

Progress, Rob. At least we're now both talking about the applicable rules.
Responses inline below.

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 2:05 PM, <robert_weir at us.ibm.com> wrote:

> > Paul Merrell wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
>

First, I'll note that my question were rewritten specifically to exclude any
need to agree on what the Directives say. I still don't have the Yes/No
answers I requested.  But since you have now left the "everyone does it so
it must be legal" argument aside for the moment and are now addressing what
the requirements actually are, I will respond in kind.


>
> On your first question, JTC1 Directives, Annex I is clear that conformity
> alone is not always the entire basis for interoperability:
>
> "However, the confidence in interoperability given by conformity to one or
> more standards is not always sufficient and there may be need to use an
> interoperability assessment methodology in demonstrating
> interoperability between two or more IT systems in practice."
>
> So it is clear that conformity requirements are a necessary (essential)
> but not always sufficient basis for achieving interoperability.
>

You appear to conflate conformity requirements, conformity assessment
methodology, and interoperability assessment interoperability. The language
you quote does not relieve an international standard's drafters from
"clearly and unambiguously specifying the conformity requirements essential
to achieve the interoperability."

The passage you quote has as its subject conformity assessment methods  and
interoperability assessment methods, not the type or sufficiency of
"conformity requirements essential to achieve the interoperability." That is
to say, the passage you quoted  goes to the sufficiency of the demonstration
that conformity results in interoperability, not to whether "conformity
requirements essential to achieve the interoperability" must be specified.


> So with that clarification (essential == necessary, but not sufficient) ,
> I believe that ODF 1.2 (as well as ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.1) are fully in accord
> with JTC1 requirements.
>

Your argument's logic just jumped out the window and ran off. Your
argument's (mistaken) premise is that "conformity requirements are a
necessary (essential) *but not always* sufficient basis for achieving
interoperability." Even were that an accurate restatement of the Directives
language -- which it is not -- your conclusion transforms "necessary ... but
not always sufficient" into "unnecessary." I can say with confidence that
your argument has made this logical leap because no version of ODF "clearly
and unambiguously species the conformity requirements essential to achieve
the interoperability." Surely you do not suggest otherwise.

Let's set out the entirety of the JTC 1 Directives paragraph you quoted from
along with the paragraph that follows it. I'll italicize the portion you
quote whilst other text attributes are my emphasis:

Standards designed to facilitate interoperability *need to specify clearly
> and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to achieve
> the interoperability. Complexity and the number of options should be kept to
> a minimum and the implementability of the standards should be demonstrable
> .** However, the confidence in interoperability given by conformity to one
> or more standards is not always sufficient and there may be need to use an
> interoperability assessment methodology in demonstrating interoperability between
> two or more IT systems in practice. *Verification of conformity to those
> standards should then give a high degree of confidence in the
> interoperability of IT systems using those standards.
>
> An assessment methodology for interoperability may include the
> specification of some or all of the following: terminology, basic concepts,
> requirements and guidance concerning test methods, the appropriate depth of
> testing, test specification and means of testing, and requirements and
> guidance concerning the operation of assessment services and the
> presentation of results. In technical areas where there is a conformity
> assessment methodology and an interoperability assessment methodology, the
> relationship between them must be specified.
>

>From that language, it is unmistakable that the language you quoted goes to
the assessment methodology, to the confidence that interoperability has been
demonstrated, not to the sufficiency of the conformity requirements
themselves.

>
> As for your second question, you have changed a word in the text.   JTC1
> Directives require that interoperability be "demonstrable".  It does not
> specify or require an actual demonstration.  So I'll say that ODF 1.2 (and
> ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.1) comply with that requirement, that interoperability is
> capable of demonstration.
>
> You missed the same passage you quoted: "*However, the confidence in
interoperability given by conformity to one or more standards is not always
sufficient and **there may be need to use an interoperability assessment
methodology in demonstrating interoperability between two or more IT systems
in practice." *

We speak of an exit criteria for international standards. You argue that
mere capability of demonstration rather than a demonstration is required.
The *reductio ad absurdum* of your argument is that  capability of
demonstrating interoperability could somehow be demonstrated without
demonstrating interoperability.

But the second paragraph I quoted deals with a wide range of methodologies
that may be necesssary to demonstrate the  interoperability "in practice."
How is one to develop such methods without actually testing and
demonstrating interoperability?

You say that ODF interoperability is "capable of being demonstrated." Do you
speak of theoretical or demonstrated interoperability? And do you speak to
interoperability between OpenOffice.org and the clones of its code base or
to interoperability "between two or more *different*  IT systems" as the
Directives require? And do you speak to interoperability based on
"conformity requirements essential to achieve the interoperability" or to
application-level interoperability?

Reading the phrase "differerent IT systems" in isolation, one might argue
that Lotus Symphony, StarOffice, Novell OpenOffice.org, and OpenOffice.org
are "different IT systems." But that ignores the clause requiring that the
number of options be minimized and the requirement that the standard itself
"clearly and *unambiguously* specify the conformity requirements essential
to achieve the interoperability." Application-specific extensions are
options and permissiveness to create them raise ambiguities in regard to
conformity requirements necessary to achieve the interoperability. That sea
of "may" and "should" sentences in the specification are options and
ambiguities.

The bottom line here, I think, is that the JTC 1 Directives are wholly
consistent with the WTO Appellate Body decision in WTDS 135 EC - Asbestos.
All product characteristics must be specified in mandatory terms. See the
counterparts in JTC 1 Directives, e.g., "the number of options should be
kept to a minimum" and "conformity *requirements* essential to achieve the
interoperability."

OOo and its clones generate a product that exhibits characteristics not
specified by the ODF standard in mandatory terms. That product also exhibits
reliance on a host of options in the specification. The fact that OOo and
each of its clones share the same code base to achieve interoperability
rather than relying on "conformity *requirements* essential to achieve the
interoperability" is, in my view, very strong testimony that they are not
"different IT systems" within the intended meaning of the Directives.

I will close by asking whether you see a benefit to be gained in continuing
this conversation? My perception of your position (and please tell me if I
have this wrong) is that ODF 1.2 under your leadership: [i] will grant
conformant status to vendor-specific extensions; [ii] will grant conformant
status to editors that do not support the complete schema for a given
application type; [iii] will not clearly and unambiguously specify the
conformity requirements essential to achieve the interoperability; [iv] will
not require that implementations claiming conformity demonstrate the
interoperability; and [v] will not specify all characteristics of the ODF
file formats in mandatory terms.

If I have correctly understood your position on these issues, I have
sufficient information to form an opinion as to the direction the ODF TC is
heading. Again, I thank you for your candor and willingness to discuss these
issues.

Best regards,

Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20080415/11af417a/attachment-0001.html