• Add a Comment
  • Edit
  • More Actions v
  • Quarantine this Entry

Comments (5)

1 localhost commented Permalink

Very nice. This is a keeper on the different avenues by which "standards" arise. I think the conglomeration of elements under "open standard" is still mushy, although you reminded me that an useful differentiator might be with "public standard" in which the specification is widely available, has no implementation encumbrances, etc. (An example is the XML specification.)There might also be something to look at with regard to conformance and its verification, and how users are apprised of deviations in a given product. (After having to do drastic things to get a jammed RJ45 connector out of my laptop, I was advised by the folks at Radio Shack that CAT 6 RJ45 plugs tend to run larger/different than CAT 5 RJ45 plugs. Bummer.) Coming back to software, what I notice in the differences between the conformance provisions in OASIS ODF and those in the (draft initial version) ECMA Open Office XML, that there can be a very different perspective on this between the expectations and asperations of users and those of developers, and a single open-ness cookie-cutter might not be apt in those cases.Again, thanks for the lengthy analysis. I look forward to Part 2.

2 localhost commented Permalink

Great article and great point made about OpenDocuments. I think this is exactly the information we need to spread out to the public administrations and educate what open standards really mean for them and the difference with Open Source.As a openoffice.org leader and a OASIS community member we have been aproaching with IBM in Mexico about the benefit for both organizations if we have a government that understand the difference between open standards and open source.This article raises some key points that will definetly help us toward the innovation.

3 localhost commented Permalink

Wonderful article, but the statement about a lack of standards in the area of word processing is not entirely correct. In 1969, a standard known as GML, the Generalized Markup Language began to evolve. It's source lay with the US Dept of Defense, various military contractors, computer vendors and aero-space companies. As documentation for various projects and manuals was done in digital format on various computer systems, it was found that sharing this information was difficult, because of the different standards that the computer industry used at that time. I.e., a document created on a DEC system could not be properly displayed on an IBM system. A solution - GML - was developed to overcome these difficulties. This gradually evolved into SGML, Standard Generalized Markup Language, by the early 1980's. SMGL later served as the basis for HTML.It was the advent of the PC that destroyed this, with individuals and organizations willing to purchase software that did not adhere to previously established standards. As the PC has changed from a stand alone system, to something that is interconnected, this need has resurfaced, especially in todays global setting.More and more enities are choosing not to use a sole vendors solution, causing problems with information exchange, very similar to the difficulties experienced in the 1960's. The key, as previously discovered, is adherence to to standard, allowing for the interoperablility required.Interestingly enough, most of what we vision as 21st century issues and innovations are not. The Internet, email, word processing, relational databases, etc all have their roots in the 1960's. Perhaps we need to look backwards to learn from those before us, to prevent the same mistakes!

4 localhost commented Permalink

I don't think that's what you meant but when you write "Of course, de jure organizations must be very careful what they bless because they have reputations for quality and relevance that they hope to maintain." you make it sound like this is a specifity of de jure organizations. It is not. Some organizations like W3C also take this very seriously.

5 localhost commented Permalink

Hi Arnaud,I didn't mean to imply that it was only an issue with de jure organizations. You are right in that formal organization as well as consortia should maintain their credibility and reputation.

Add a Comment Add a Comment