Download here. Class Diagram. What's new? Roadmap.
<update>
I see Erika also has a link to this video of Eric White discussing the SDK with Zeyad Rajabi. Zeyad shows (@ approx 5'00) an example of "injecting" an xml data fragement into an existing OpenXML document to change the contents - in effect the programatic equivalent of an XML mail merge.
</update>
Alex Brown's post "ISO committee takes full control of OOXML" is the first report I've seen from the just-finished SC 34 meeting in Oslo. Alex calls out one of the several resolutions passed which relates to the maintenance of IS29500 - Resolution 4, "Creation of Ad Hoc Group 1 on ISO/IEC 29500 Maintenance".
SC 34 is the JTC 1 designated maintenance body for ISO/IEC 29500 (Office Open XML file formats).
The passage of ISO/IEC 29500 has instituted a new era of standards activity in SC 34 related to document formats. ISO/IEC 29500 does not represent an isolated phenomenon, since SC 34 is also responsible for ISO/IEC 26300 and for interoperability between these and other projects.
SC 34 envisages the creation of three distinct working groups that meet the needs of:
- ISO/IEC 29500
- ISO/IEC 26300
- Work on interoperability/harmonization between document format standards
and wishes to incorporate existing expertise on these standards.
For these reasons, SC 34 hereby establishes an ad hoc group pursuant to the JTC 1 Directives, clause 2.6.2, for investigating how the first of these groups may be set up most effectively.
Alex reproduces the whole text and adds his own inline commentary.
Personally I am pleased to see this and it is entirely consistent with discussions I've had in the past.
<Update>
Brian Jones has also posted a comment about the meeting now. Brian reports that DIN presented their work on OpenXML/ODF interoperability:-
Interoperability/Harmonization
The DIN Delegate (DIN is the German national standards body) presented an update on the work that they have been doing around translation between the Open XML formats and ODF. I've discussed this a number of times before as being a key piece of the harmonization work.
DIN presented this to SC34 because they are going to propose a new work item within SC34 and are currently in the process of asking other countries to join them in this work. We were informed that AFNOR (France's national standards body) already told DIN that they will work together. It really seems to me that we are seeing some great movement and momentum on interop between formats led both by the thinking within SC34 of creating a new WG on interop and also clearly by this latest initiative of DIN and AFNOR.
Also, resolution 8 is noteworthy as it confirms that the final text has already been received by ISO:-
Resolution 8: Distribution of Final text of DIS 29500
SC 34 requests the ITTF and the SC34 secretariat to distribute the already received final text of DIS 29500 to the SC 34 members in accordance with JTC 1 directives section 13.12 as soon as possible, but not later than May 1st 2008. Access to this document is important for the success of various ISO/IEC 29500 maintenance activities
</Update>
It's official! Here's ISO's press release.
2008-04-02
ISO/IEC DIS 29500, Information technology – Office Open XML file formats, has received the necessary number of votes for approval as an ISO/IEC International Standard.
Approval required at least 2/3 (i.e. 66.66 %) of the votes cast by national bodies participating in the joint technical committee ISO/IEC JTC 1, Information technology, to be positive; and no more than 1/4 (i.e. 25 %) of the total number of ISO/IEC national body votes cast to be negative. These criteria have now been met with 75 % of the JTC 1 participating member votes cast positive and 14 % of the total of national member body votes cast negative.
The 30-day period during which ISO/IEC national bodies had the opportunity to reconsider their votes on the draft ISO/IEC DIS 29500 closed at midnight on Saturday, 29 March 2008, with the result that the criteria for approval of the document as an ISO/IEC International Standard have now been met.
ISO/IEC DIS 29500 was originally disapproved in the "fast-track vote"which ended in September 2007, when 3 500 comments were received. However, under the rules of ISO/IEC JTC 1, the DIS vote was followed by a ballot resolution meeting (BRM) at which the comments were addressed. After the meeting, the ISO/IEC national bodies had 30 days to modify their votes if they wished.
The BRM was held in Geneva during the week 25-29 February 2008. By eliminating redundancies, the comments had been reduced to just over 1 000 individual issues to be considered. Issues considered as priorities by national members (such as accessibility, date formats, conformance issues) were discussed, and the other comments were addressed through a voting process on the remaining items, a system agreed by the BRM participants.
The issues addressed and revised have resulted in sufficient national bodies withdrawing their earlier disapproval votes, or transforming them into positive votes, so that the criteria for approval of the document as an International Standard have now been met. Subject to there being no formal appeals from ISO/IEC national bodies in the next two months, the International Standard will accordingly proceed to publication.
ISO/IEC 29500 is a standard for word-processing documents, presentations and spreadsheets that is intended to be implemented by multiple applications on multiple platforms. According to the submitters of the document, one of its objectives is to ensure the long-term preservation of documents created over the last two decades using programmes that are becoming incompatible with continuing advances in the field of information technology.
ISO/IEC DIS 29500 was originally developed as the Office Open XML Specification by Microsoft Corporation which submitted it to Ecma International, an information technology industry association, for transposing into an ECMA standard. Following a process in which other IT industry players participated, Ecma International subsequently published the document as ECMA standard 376.
Ecma International then submitted the standard in December 2006 to ISO/IEC JTC 1, with whom it has category A liaison status, for adoption as an International Standard under the JTC 1 "fast track" procedure. This allows a standard developed within the IT industry to be presented to JTC 1 as a draft international standard (DIS) that can be adopted after a process of review and balloting. This process has now been concluded with the end of the 30-day period following the ballot resolution meeting.
The process was open to the IEC and ISO national member bodies from 104 countries, including 41 that are participating members of the joint ISO/IEC JTC1.
Ecma's press release is here. There are some statements from members of TC45 for whom "IS 29500 marks the culmination of joint development efforts over the past two years" :-
“ISO/IEC approval maximizes the ability of independent software vendors such as NextPage to deliver solutions to customers who have existing binary documents,” said Tom Ngo, CTO of NextPage and member of Ecma TC45. “As the sole representative of ISVs on TC45, we worked hard to foster interoperability and conformance conditions that help to level the competitive playing field. This approval puts control of Open XML in the hands of the international community.”
“Just as we have worked to establish and steward our print collections, the British Library is committed to preserving and providing access to the U.K.’s digital heritage,” said Adam Farquhar, head of Digital Library Technology at the British Library, and vice-chair of Ecma TC45. “Establishing Office Open XML as an open standard substantially enhances our ability to achieve this. It’s an important step forward for digital preservation and will help us fulfill the British Library’s core responsibility of making our digital collections accessible for generations to come.”
“The U.S. Library of Congress believes that the preservation of digital content for future generations will be much easier if widely used software applications use formats with full public specifications that will be maintained by the global community going forward,” said Martha Anderson, Director of Program Management, National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program. "The approval of Office Open XML as an international standard has important benefits for libraries and other archival institutions for generations to come.”
Several commentators have recognised that the members of TC45 have done a phenomenal job, and the thoroughness and depth of responses to National Body's comments was frequently mentioned though rarely cited.
Here's the press release which notes that
After more than 14 months of intensive review, a Joint Technical Committee of the International Standardization Organization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) has concluded its formal process to evaluate Ecma International’s submission of the Draft International Standard (DIS) 29500: Office Open XML (Open XML).
While the final vote has not yet been announced formally, publicly available information appears to indicate the proposed Open XML standard received extremely broad support. According to documents available on the Internet, 86 percent of all voting national body members support ISO/IEC standardization, well above the 75 percent requirement for formal acceptance under ISO and IEC rules. In addition, 75 percent of the voting Participating national body members (known as P-members) support standardization, also well above the 66.7 percent requirement for this group. Open XML now joins HTML, PDF and ODF as ISO- and IEC-recognized open document format standards.
“With 86 percent of voting national bodies supporting ratification, there is overwhelming support for Open XML. This outcome is a clear win for the customers, technology providers and governments that want to choose the format that best meets their needs and have a voice in the evolution of this widely adopted standard,” said Tom Robertson, general manager of Interoperability and Standards at Microsoft Corp. “The input from technical experts, customers and governments around the world has greatly improved the Open XML specification and will make it even more useful to developers and customers. Once it is formally approved, we are committed to supporting this specification in our products, and we will continue to work with standards bodies, governments and the industry to promote greater interoperability and innovation.”
Brian calls the news "the end of the file formats war". Now what was that phrase again? "Yip yip yahoo" 
The future of documents, and the ongoing development of IS 29500
I have to admit that what I'm most excited about is that we can now start to move beyond the basic discussions of file formats as they relate to what are essentially digital typewriters, and start to move into the future of document content. The custom schema support in Open XML is really just the starting point of semantic documents, and it takes a small step in the new voyage we need to help convince the rest of the world to take. For far too long, we've focused simply on how to present document content. How it's formatted, where page breaks are, and what styles are used. We've only begun to scratch the surface though in terms of the actual semantics behind the documents people create. There are brilliant folks out there who've been doing a lot of thinking around the semantic web, and how to really tie together all the important information that affects our lives. The next challenge is to really identify how you get the average document author to write content that is semantically structured. Most folks don't yet see the advantage in structuring their documents, so it's important to find ways of providing immediate benefit to those that take the time (or use the right software). There are a number of experts in this area on SC34, so it's very fitting that many of the same people that have helped contribute to this area will also participate in the future developments of Open XML. In ISO it's called "maintenance" but I think that term sounds a bit limiting to folks. It's not "maintenance" in the way that you maintain your car so that it runs properly. Of course some of the work will be around corrections and general improvements, but a lot of the maintenance work will be innovative and forward thinking. We need to continue to move document formats forward, and I couldn't think of a better group to take on that responsibility.
Jason has posted "IS29500 - Open XML Is An International Standard" in which he writes:-
This standard has received more technical and political attention than any specification in the history of the ICT industry. Genuine industry competition around office productivity applications fed a heated exchange of technical considerations and philosophical positions regarding standardization, intellectual property, and most certainly document format technology. In the end, all of this – from the most ardent critics to the dedicated supporters of the specification – contributed to the improvement of the Open XML specification which ultimately led to its adoption as an ISO standard.
This is though, just the end of the beginning. I am sure that both OpenXML and ODF have bright futures ahead of them as we make the new world of documents a reality for all.
Looking at the "unofficial" results it seems Europe gave phenomenal support, with not a single disapprove. I'll comment more on that when I've seen official results.
Standards Norway have posted a press release "Standard Norges behandling av OOXML for avstemming i ISO". Here's a quick translation, which I will replace with an official text if Standards Norway release an English version.
I have moved the translation I originally posted here as Stanard Norge has now posted a PDF with an English version here. The text reads:-
Standards Norway’s handling of the vote on OOXML in ISO
The criticism we received after announcing that we changed our vote on the proposal of OOXML (Office Open XML) from “No with comments” to “yes” after our meeting with the national special committee on IT, SN/K 185, on Friday, 28 March, was not unexpected. We had also expected criticism if we had chosen to maintain our “no” statement.
Important factors for us in this matter were:
1. The proposal to send the ECMA standard Office Open XML to ISO/IEC in order to designate it as an ISO/IEC standard was considered through the use of a so-called “fast-track”- procedure. This kind of expedited consideration is used by ISO to designate standards developed by standardization organizations with cooperation agreements with ISO as ISO standards. These are often industry standards that already enjoy a certain degree of acceptance in the market. Turning them into ISO standards makes them open standards that can be maintained and refined in the ISO system.
OOXML is an extensive standard (with more than 6,000 pages), and using a “fast-track” procedure on this document was a very great effort. There was considerable discussion in many countries as to whether this procedure was appropriate for matters of this kind. Nevertheless, this procedure was accepted centrally by ISO and IEC in January 2007 as the appropriate method for considering the OOXML standard.
2. Prior to the OOXML being distributed for a vote, after being proposed by the standardization organization OASIS, the document standard ODF had been through an equivalent procedure without any comments on this being problematic. Many consider ODF and OOXML to be equivalent document standards, and as ODF had already become an ISO standard, the question was raised as to whether ISO/IEC can have two competing standards. This question was settled early in 2007 by ISO and IEC centrally, who stated that there was no clash of interest between the two standards.
3. During 2007 there was a lot of attention in the Norwegian IT sector regarding the process surrounding OOXML. The discussion rapidly turned into a partisan debate between proponents and opponents of OOXML. The two issues, i.e. the use of “fast-track” and the existence of parallel standards, were consequently discussed by Standards Norway’s committee SN/K 185 (even though the issues had been settled by ISO earlier that same year). The great public interest in the matter led to an enlargement of the committee from 6-7 members to 30 members.
4. The public enquiry on the consideration of a proposed ISO standard is of great importance. This is an opportunity for all stakeholders to state their opinions and to make recommendations for improvements. After Standards Norway circulated the proposal for comment, we received 47 responses, 38 said “yes” to the proposal and 9 said “no”. As is already known, many of the “yes” responses were identical and phrased in a way that left no doubt that they were the result of a campaign orchestrated by Microsoft Norway. All the responses were signed and came from known senders. Standards Norway cannot take opinions into consideration other than those that have been expressed in writing. We would like to add that there is nothing unusual about receiving identical responses in controversial matters where stakeholders discuss the matter among themselves and lend support to one another’s statements.
Norway’s statement in this matter was scheduled to be ready for a vote in ISO in August 2007. At this point, however, there was disagreement on the committee regarding Norway’s position, though with a clear majority wanting Norway to vote “no”. The ISO regulations state that in order for a member to get its “no” vote approved, the “no” has to be supplemented by comments that explain the reason for voting “no”.
At the meeting of 28 March the committee thus focused on dealing with the comments submitted. According to ISO regulations all comments that lead to a proposal being rejected must be dealt with in a way that will incorporate them into the proposed standard. As a consequence the members can then choose to change their “no” to a “yes”, which was what happened during the OOXML process.
5. Approving a standard requires a qualified majority among the ISO members. A minimum of 2/3 of the members of the committee that has developed the standard need to vote “yes”, while no more than ¼ are to vote against the proposal.
Standards Norway had earlier decided to vote “no with comments” even though the national enquiry resulted in a clear “yes”. The conclusion was thus considered to be a conditional yes, which we also stated in a press release on 31 August 2007. Standards Norway emphasized the need for an improvement of the proposed standard, in keeping with the comments from the mirror committee and the mechanism for voting “no with comments”.
6. According to ISO’s and IEC’s own rules and regulations the national comments are to be dealt with at a meeting referred to as the “Ballot resolution meeting” (BRM). The number of comments (close to 3,500) that were supposed to be dealt with during a short period of time was substantial, though many countries had similar comments. According to the Norwegian delegation, the BRM meeting took place in an efficient and proper manner, in accordance with the rules pertaining to ISO/IEC BRM meetings.
Prior to the BRM meeting the comments from Norway were dealt with in the same way as the rest of the comments. The editor of the document presented the proposals that became the basis of the BRM meeting. Two of the Norwegian comments where rejected, the rest were accepted or accepted with modifications. Naturally, the individual country’s comments must be seen in context. Discussions at the BRM meeting also led to our comments having to include decisions that had been taken there.
7. In all standardization work in which Standards Norway participates it is Standards Norway that formally votes. The usual rule for international work is that when there is general agreement in the committee we follow the advice that our mirror committees provide. We have on occasion gone against the majority, and there have been instances when the committee’s feedback did not permit a simple “yes” or “no” response. In such cases, when following the usual standardization procedure we can choose to abstain. When following the “fast-track” procedure we need give notice of our wanting to change our original vote or not once the result from the BRM meeting becomes available.
8. The main issue at the Norwegian committee meeting on 28 March was to clarify whether if comments had been given sufficient consideration to allow us to change Norway’s vote from “no” to “yes”. Prior to the meeting, 21 committee members had signed an open letter to Standards Norway arguing why Standards Norway should vote “no” to OOXML. Thus they had taken a position before the committee had discussed how our comments had been dealt with. In addition the letter also contained other and previously known arguments against the proposed standard.
During the meeting it became clear that it was not possible to reach an agreement on the committee about how well or poorly our comments had been dealt with in ISO.
Following consideration by the committee, at a meeting between delegates from the BRM meeting, the chairman of SN/K 185 and representatives from Standards Norway, there was a further effort to create a degree of agreement which did not succeed.
The chair of the committee has a vital role in creating the greatest possible agreement, but already in 2007 the chair of the committee had flagged his position, which meant that he could no longer meet the criteria for neutrality. He had therefore relinquished his duty of chairing the committee’s consideration of OOXML, and for that reason Standards Norway’s deputy managing director chaired the meetings for consideration of this matter on the committee.
9. It is correct that a majority of members on the committee believed that comments had not been given sufficient consideration. However, and in line with what the meeting chair stressed, Standards Norway’s comments had not been formulated as absolutes. In Standards Norway’s view, the phrasing allowed some leeway, which was important for finding acceptable solutions through consideration at an international level. At the committee meeting during the commentary rounds there were many that made absolute demands have their comments heeded, confirming that the rigid positions were well established. Standards Norway thus considered any further discussion as futile with regards to achieving agreement on the committee.
10. In Standards Norway’s summary of the status of the case following the committee meeting we emphasized the following;
- On the committee there is a clear majority that is opposed to making OOXML into an ISO/IEC standard. However, in its overall assessment, Standards Norway must also consider the result of the formal enquiry, where there is a majority of “yes” votes. There was greater number of end-users of document standard formats among those in favor, than those who were opposed to the standard.
- There is agreement on the need for improving the proposed standard, and Standards Norway believes this can best take place if OOXML becomes an ISO standard now. Work on revising can start immediately on the ISO committee which is responsible for this standard, and Norway ought to be in the best possible position to initiate and participate in this effort. (The ODF standard has undergone several changes since it became an ISO standard)
- Standards Norway believes that ISO should critically evaluate the “fast-track” procedure. We believe that work on OOXML would have been better served if it had been initiated as a new ISO project. The problem, however, was that the proposer, ECMA, had good reason to launch the project as “fast-track”. In 2008 Standards Norway is also one of the 12 members that comprise the ISO “Technical Management Board” (TMB), which is responsible for standardization work and the rules and procedures it should follow. TMB has already decided to discuss experience with the use of the “fast-track” procedure with the ISO/IEC 29500 process as a point of departure. The issue will likely be raised at TMB’s meeting on 3-4 June this year.
- ISO is the International Organization for Standardization. As a member of ISO we are, like members of our sister organization IEC, required to do our best to ensure that the proposed standards we are working on can be approved as ISO and IEC standards.
On this basis, Standards Norway believes the proposed standard ISO/IEC DIS 29500 Office Open XML with the comments which have now been incorporated into the document can be approved.
This process has been very difficult, and the decision that Standards Norway had to make was not an easy one. We have provided our account of the matter above, and the issues behind Standards Norway’s vote.
[Update: 03/04/08 - The Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry commented today in Norway’s largest business daily, Dagens Næringsliv. Here's a rough translation:-
“The Ministry has nothing to criticize Standard Norway’s handling of the Norwegian voting procedure regarding the Microsoft-standard Open XML and the ISO-approval. – The Ministry does not engage in standards processes. It is the responsibility of Standard Norway to execute standard processes in a proper manner. We have now received a brief from Standard Norway on how they handled the process, says State Secretary Anne-Lene Svingen (labor party).”]
Patrick's latest post proposes some sarcastic rules for "behaviour in standards committees and standards making in general":-
He goes on to say:-
Writing useful standards requires us to move beyond such behaviours.
I have not included examples of those behaviours because that simply starts the cycle all over again. We need to dust ourselves off and resolve to do better in the future and then simply to do so.
There is no profit (if you are of the commercial persuasion) or future (if you are one of the save the world types) or good work (if you are simply trying to write good standards) in pawing over old hurts.
All that is required is today, and only for today, for each of us to not engage in these behaviours. I can't change yesterday and I won't promise tomorrow. All I can do anything about is today. What others do doesn't matter as I am only answerable for my own conduct.
I've seen several references today to Paul Graham's "How to Disagree" which proposes a "disagreement hierarchy":-
![image_thumb[7]](http://notes2self.net/mob_img/PaulGrahamshowtodisagree_1E46/image_thumb7_thumb.png)
Paul says
If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well?
and closes
But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.
If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.
Who could disagree with that?
IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
Rudyard Kipling 1865-1936
Din has posted a press release in both German "OOXML-Abstimmungen: Gegenstand und Ergebnisse", and in English "OOXML voting: issues and results":-
Here's an unofficial translation a colleague sent to me (thanks to those who are making improvement suggestions in the comments. If an official translation is posted I will update):-
The reports currently circulating the Internet regarding voting procedures in DIN's Standards Committee on Information Technology and Selected IT Applications (NIA) on ISO/IEC DIS 29500 "Office Open XML file formats" are false and misleading.
On 11 March 2008 the NIA working committee responsible for technical aspects of ISO/IEC DIS 29500 held a vote to decide whether the "YES with comments" vote of September 2007 should be maintained as a "YES" vote or changed to a "NO" vote, taking the results of the Ballot Resolution Meeting held in February as a basis for their decision. As correctly reported by an unofficial source, the result of the March 11 vote was 14 to 5 in favour of adopting ISO/IEC DIS 29500 as an ISO Standard. Only the external experts who make up the responsible working committee voted on this matter; DIN as such has no vote on technical content in working committees.
NIA's Steering Committee was NOT called upon to review, and possibly override, the working committee's technical decision - it does not have the authority to do so. It was, however, involved in a decision as to whether or not the voting procedure at ISO correctly adhered to the formal criteria. Because the Steering Committee's decision did not relate to any technical issues or the content of the standard itself, but dealt solely with the formalities of the JTC 1 "fast track" procedure, i.e. adherence to procedural rules in the standardization process, DIN felt it was necessary to take a position on this matter. This is the reason the DIN staff member participated in the voting procedure and did not abstain, as is the rule in questions of technical content.
On 27 March 2008 the NIA Steering Committee members who were entitled to vote did NOT vote on approval or non-approval of ISO/IEC DIS 29500 as an International Standard, but SOLELY on the regularity of the voting procedure itself. With a majority of 7 to 6, and 7 abstentions, the Steering Committee deemed the procedure as being in conformity with the rules, and thus had no reason to override the working committee's "YES" vote. Had the majority of the Steering Committee been convinced that the procedures for developing and voting on ISO/IEC DIS 29500 were in any way irregular, the German vote would have been changed to "ABSTAIN".
Ecma Office Open XML adopted as ISO Standard: TÜV NORD and DIN cooperate successfully in the internationalisation standardization process
The International Standards Organization (ISO) today adopted the document format Ecma Office Open XML as an ISO Standard.
A week ago, the German standards organization Deutsche Institut für Normung (DIN) had finally confirmed its decision to uphold in the ISO voting procedure the resolution it had adopted in September 2007 agreeing to the recognition of Office Open XML as an International Standard.
“We are very pleased with this development,” said Gunnar Thaden, CIO of TÜV NORD. He explained that the adoption of the international standard Ecma Office Open XML as an ISO Standard would substantially enhance not only the free exchange of documents, but also the security of investment in IT applications. “This is good news especially for those users who in the past have relied predominantly on Microsoft’s “.doc” format,” Thadden went on. “I am glad that TÜV NORD, in close collaboration with DIN, has been able to contribute to this outcome. We will continue in future to make every effort, through DIN, to strengthen Germany’s voice in international standardization.”
International standards are very important in TÜV NORD’s work. Open file formats are a prerequisite for the unhindered exchange of documents across national boundaries and between vendor-specific solutions. They facilitate archiving and offer substantial potential for optimisation through the intermeshing of front office and back office solutions. This development will enable TÜV NORD to provide its services even more economically, both in Germany and abroad.
The international standardization process provides for opinion-forming on proposals for new standards to take place at national level in bodies known as “national mirror committees”. In the context of this procedure, TÜV NORD is involved in the Advisory Committee to DIN’s Standards Committee on Information Technology, and in the relevant mirror committees corresponding to important international technical committees such as NIA34, which is responsible for document formats.
At a meeting six months ago, the responsible committee within DIN’s Standards Committee on Information Technology and Applications (NIA) had already agreed, after months of intensive preparatory work and thorough and constructive discussion of the position papers submitted to it, to accept the draft ISO/IEC 29500 with comments. This meeting was attended by representatives of software providers, application developers, research institutes, ministries and government agencies.
In TÜV NORD’s view, the contributions made by the working committee led to a substantial enhancement in the quality of the standard. DIN’s experience in moderating such processes was of great importance, particularly in view of the fact that the area concerned is one in which conflicting interests are rife. The committee of technical experts reached consensus on most issues; the remaining matters were decided by majority vote, in accordance with a procedure governed by clear rules.
]
Norway joins the club of ISO/IEC JTC1 P members approving DIS29500.
Here's Standard Norge's press release.
Jesper Lund Stocholm has just broken the news - This just in: Denmark votes Yes! The press release is available in both Danish and English and says:-
Denmark's changed vote
Danish Standards can establish that the 168 Danish comments have been adopted as changes to ISO/IEC DIS 29500 OOXML. On this basis Danish Standards will change the Danish vote to one of "Approval". Danish Standards will closely follow the further process towards the preparation of a final standard and the incorporation of the Danish changes that were accepted.
Denmark is a ISO/IEC JTC1 P member and has changed from ”Nej med kommentarer” to ”Ja”.
I was just looking at IBM's latest annual SEC 10-K report. "Open Standards" are listed in the "Key Business Drivers" section with the following note (my emphasis):-
Open Standards
The broad adoption of open standards is essential to the computing model for an on demand business and is a significant driver of collaborative innovation across all industries. Without interoperability among all manner of computing platforms, the integration of any client's internal systems, applications and processes remains a monumental and expensive task. The broad-based acceptance of open standards—rather than closed, proprietary architectures also allows the computing infrastructure to more easily absorb (and thus benefit from) new technical innovations.
IBM's support of open standards is evidenced by the enabling of its products to support open standards such as Linux, and the development of Rational software development tools, which can be used to develop and upgrade other companies' software products.
IBM is telling its investors that Linux is an open standard. I think that all it evidences is a degree of cluelessness.
There's also an interesting update about PSI:-
On November 29, 2006, the company filed a lawsuit against Platform Solutions, Inc. (PSI) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. IBM filed its amended complaint on August 17, 2007 and asserted claims for patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, tortious interference and breach of contract in connection with PSI’s development and marketing of a computer system that PSI says is compatible with IBM’s S/390 and System z architectures.
IBM also sought a declaratory judgment that its refusal to license its patents to PSI and certain of its software for use on PSI systems does not violate the antitrust laws. IBM seeks damages and injunctive relief.
On September 21, 2007, PSI answered the amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against IBM for alleged monopolization and attempted monopolization, tying, violations of New York and California statutes proscribing unfair competition, tortious interference with the acquisition of PSI by a third party and promissory estoppel.
PSI also sought declaratory judgments of noninfringement of IBM’s patents and patent invalidity. In October 2007, PSI filed a complaint with the European Commission claiming that the company’s alleged refusal to do business with PSI violated European competition law.
The company responded to this complaint in December. On January 11, 2008, the court in the New York lawsuit permitted T3 Technologies, a reseller of PSI computer systems, to intervene as a counterclaim-plaintiff, and the court also permitted the company to file a second amended complaint adding patent infringement claims against T3. Discovery is proceeding and the court has ordered that the case be ready for trial after December 1, 2008.
I guess the warm words about open standards and interoperability don't apply in this case for some reason. Maybe there's another meaning to the text,
Without interoperability among all manner of computing platforms, the integration of any client's internal systems, applications and processes remains a monumental and expensive task.
the Register reported that PSI maintains that IBM's lawsuit killed a very lucrative acquisition offer from HP. IBM double standards seem more the order of the day, and sadly still no word from Specious ECIS.
Document freedom day doesn't seem to have had much impact in IBM either, as Volker Weber noticed, they haven't made their 2007 Annual Report financial statements available in ODS.
No matter, I saved the file in OpenXML format, then used the SourceForge OpenXML/ODF Translator to save it in ODF format, then opened it in Zoho. It all seemed to work fine as you can see:-
Maybe I should send the files to IBM!
More Posts
Next page »