decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
"A Strategy for Openness: Enhancing E-Records Access in New York State"
Tuesday, May 20 2008 @ 08:00 PM EDT

Remember the New York State group that was told to investigate longterm storage needs in government and ODF/OOXML? The report is now published, "A Strategy for Openness: Enhancing E-Records Access in New York State". You can get it here in doc, PDF and odt formats, although only PDF works currently. It's just been posted, so later they should all be there.

What did they find? You can find the "Major Findings" on page 8 of this PDF, part 1 of the study. The most significant finding is that having more than one format doesn't provide increased choice. It confuses and increases complexity and costs instead. It would be better to use single, standardized formats to increase efficiency and interoperability. Well, we all tried to tell ISO that Microsoft's argument was wrong. They didn't listen, but that doesn't mean that governments will just fall into line. It's obvious that if you want interoperability, you need to agree on one standard everyone can use equally.

Here are some highlights from the executive summary:

9. Increased numbers of formats for doing the same office tasks do not increase choice in any positive manner. Use of multiple formats increases complexity and ongoing costs. The use of single, standarized formats increases inefficiencies and furthers compatibility and interoperability. Choice comes into play in two ways: (a) the choices made by vendors to directly support accepted standards; and (b) the ability of the State to choose among vendors who support accepted standards.

10. It is not in the State's best interests to insert itself into any argument between competing document formats. Rather, State policy issues and business needs should drive its choices of technology tools. The State should buy technology that enables openness because State policy is to ensure access to its e-records so that the State can conduct its business in an open, interoperable and transparent manner.

11. There are many features in technologies the State needs. Given the State's increasing reliance upon electronic records and the variety of users who need access to those records, the State must refine its desired technology features to include the additional features of openness.

What do they recommend then? One, that no particular document creation technologies should be named, because tech gets outdated easily. But openness is the policy choice. Two, they suggest an Electronic Records Committee (ERC) be set up, and funded sufficiently, to "place the vendor community on notice that technology openness is a long-term commitment of the State, and ensure the ERC will continue to exist through successive governmental transitions." I think they learned a thing or two from what happened in Massachusetts. They suggest that the group that came up with this report continue to work, to develop next a real definition of what openness should be so as to create a line of what is acceptable. I assume they require it to actually work. It seems OOXML has spreadsheet issues.

Here's the background on how the study came about:

In its 2007 session, the New York State Legislature directed NYS Chief Information Officer/Director of the Office For Technology, Melodie Mayberry-Stewart, to gather stakeholder input regarding the mechanisms and processes for obtaining access to and reading electronic data so that such data can be created, maintained, exchanged, and preserved by the state in a manner that encourages appropriate government control, access, choice, interoperability, and vendor neutrality. Specifically, the law requires:
"The director shall study how electronic documents and the mechanisms and processes for obtaining access to and reading electronic data can be created, maintained, exchanged, and preserved by the state in a manner that encourages appropriate government control, access, choice, interoperability, and vendor neutrality. The study shall consider, but not be limited to, the policies of other states and nations, management guidelines for state archives as they pertain to electronic documents, public access, expected storage life of electronic documents, costs of implementation, and savings. The director shall solicit comments regarding the creation, maintenance, exchange, and preservation of electronic documents by the state from stakeholders, including but not limited to, the office of the state comptroller, the office of the attorney general, the state archives, and the state historian. The director shall also solicit comments from members of the public. The director shall report findings and recommendations to the governor, the speaker of the assembly, and the temporary president of the senate on or before January fifteenth, two thousand eight."
Laws of 2007, Chapter 477 (codified at New York State Technology Law ยง 305(4)) CIO/OFT is issuing this RFPC to help direct the findings and recommendations of the required study.

Some viewed the study being set up as a way to avoid openness. But not so. Instead it has provided the first government rebuke to Microsoft's claim that having two standards increases choice. The market is asking for real openness and true interoperability. FOSS is already there. Microsoft?


  


"A Strategy for Openness: Enhancing E-Records Access in New York State" | 305 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Tuesday, May 20 2008 @ 09:49 PM EDT
Please state the error and correction in the Title

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic here
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Tuesday, May 20 2008 @ 09:51 PM EDT
Please make all links clickable by changing Post Mode to HTML and by typing
<a href="http://www.example.com/">this</a>.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks discussions here
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Tuesday, May 20 2008 @ 09:53 PM EDT
Please state the News Pick in the Title. Thanks!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

You're too optimistic
Authored by: chad on Tuesday, May 20 2008 @ 10:25 PM EDT
This is just the first step. Next they can pick Microsoft "open" XML
and then quash ODT because they already decided that more than one format is too
many.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"A Strategy for Openness: Enhancing E-Records Access in New York State"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 20 2008 @ 10:29 PM EDT

Perhaps Microsnuff will also encourage choice by promulgating their own versions
of other standards - TCP/IP and DNS come to mind, for example.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A New York typo?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 20 2008 @ 10:29 PM EDT

I like the tone overall, but one sentence seems in error:

The use of single, standarized formats increases inefficiencies and furthers compatibility and interoperability.

Duh. Surely they meant efficiencies not inefficiencies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Politics, then money, then merit
Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Tuesday, May 20 2008 @ 11:10 PM EDT
Any bets on how many MicroShaft stooges will wind up on that Electronic
Records Committee? How many political hacks? And how many actual
independent information technology experts?

It's a good idea but the MS-OXML debacle has shown us how pervasive
Billzebub's minions are, infiltrating national standards committees spread
all over the world. How can New York prevent the same kind of committee
packing? Especially since many of them would actually be qualified to serve,
at least in terms of knowing about the technology.
------------------
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two Betamaxes for Microsoft
Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, May 21 2008 @ 02:30 AM EDT
Two Betamaxes for Microsoft in one year, this must be some kind of record!
First Vista rolled off the production line and directly into the reject bin.
Now after going to all the trouble of destroying the international standards
setting institutions to make ooxml a standard, governments and businesses have
the gall to say it isn't needed. It must be tough to watch all Microsofts
rivers of money reverse direction!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Usability Not Even Looked At In Study! dUH!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 21 2008 @ 02:50 AM EDT

I just checked the so-called study to see if the USABILITY of any/all software used by participants was studied; and it wasn't. As if errors or ease of access is just the result of which document format(s) is used.

The vast majority of software is not USABLE; whether it is closed or open source. And it's the UNUSABLE software that is going to create the vast majority of errors in e-document preparation/storage/retrieval.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"A Strategy for Openness: Enhancing E-Records Access in New York State"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 21 2008 @ 03:14 AM EDT
Let's keep it in line shall we?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The most significant finding...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 21 2008 @ 03:55 AM EDT
The most significant finding is that having more than one format doesn't provide increased choice. It confuses and increases complexity and costs instead. It would be better to use single, standardized formats to increase efficiency and interoperability.
The "choice between formats is good" argument was simply smoke to allow MS to bring OOXML to the table. Expect the "Multiple standards are a bad thing" argument now to be used to attack ODF. E.g. lots of "We don't need ODF because the Market has chosen OOXML" etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It is rather telling
Authored by: chriseyre2000 on Wednesday, May 21 2008 @ 04:02 AM EDT
That the first one they got to work was pdf.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PartIII-E Erecords Study Microsoft sets up straight
Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, May 21 2008 @ 04:09 AM EDT
On page 284 of the PDF (Page 579 of Part III, Public Comments, from commercial entities), Microsoft trots out the fine example of independent analysis the Burton Group report "WhatsUP Doc", which points out that XML can displace traditional binary and proprietary file formats, and provides benefits such as improving information management and reducing vendor dependencies, all on the cover page:
Conclusion

The OpenDocument Format (ODF)/Office Open XML (OOXML) debate is part of a significant phase in the evolution of productivity application, with the shift to Extensible Markup Language (XML) file formats displacing traditional binary and proprietary file formats. The stakes are huge, with compelling new opportunities for content management, as well as both opportunities and challenges for software vendors. Organizations will gain important benefits by exploiting opportunities to improve information management and reduce vendor dependencies by shifting to XML file formats.

Sort of like reading fortune cookies, instead of appending "in bed" to a fortune, perhaps the reader is supposed to add "unless it's OOXML", which manages to be somewhat proprietary, is vendor dependent and drags along traditional binary formats. On the other hand, the stakes are huge and there is a compelling new opportunity for Microsoft to dominate content management. Then again OOXML is close to Office 2007 formats and their isn't much challenge for our monopoly software vendor, at least not technically.

For those without the patience to read through the Burton Group report, the answer is on Page 5, Analysis, The second answer, found in the third paragraph, "Within the larger market, OOXML will lead,". And who would have thought you could have so much fun with so little text?

[ Reply to This | # ]

FOSS has over 70 licenses
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 21 2008 @ 08:21 AM EDT
Re: Instead it has provided the first government rebuke to Microsoft's claim that having two standards increases choice. The market is asking for real openness and true interoperability. FOSS is already there. Microsoft?
OK, I get it, having more than one standard is bad because you can't mix-and-match freely between data and applications which support different standards.

But FOSS is not already there when it has not just two, but over 70 licenses, just counting those on the OSI list.

Kettle, meet the biggest pot you ever saw. - giafly
http://www.opensource.org /licenses/alphabetical

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ is wrong
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 21 2008 @ 08:28 AM EDT
Why should there should only be "one" standard for office documents?

Look at images. We have JPG, GIF and PNG (and others). According to PJ we should
only have one standard image format. Would PJ care to tell us which image format
has her blessing, and why the rest should be removed from planet earth?

There is the infamous GUI debate - KDE v GNOME. PJ, can you please tell us which
one must be used, because we can only have one standard.

If another office application (eg Abiword) decided to design its own office
document format, would PJ complain about that?

If WordPerfect decided to open source its spec, making it freely available with
no restrictions, would PJ disagree with that?

MS OOXML is a bad standard for technical reasons / patent questions. That is a
perfectly valid reason to deny it ISO status (unfortunately that didn't
happen).

Denying people the freedom to choose a document format "because I think
there should only be one" is plainly wrong.


[ Reply to This | # ]

if Microsoft is in favor of open standards ..
Authored by: emacsuser on Wednesday, May 21 2008 @ 09:02 AM EDT
If Microsoft is in favor of open standards then why not just write to the ODF
specs. I mean ODF isn't owned by any one company, can't be hijacked and no
company can come after them for royalty revenues. Oh, wait .. I think I see the
light ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can ODF be a subset of OOXML?
Authored by: argee on Wednesday, May 21 2008 @ 09:44 AM EDT
Taking a step back, it seems to be that OOXML will try to
embody all the different MS Office standards; ie, Office 95,
Office 97 etc. This is typical MS: continue backwards
compatibility.

But ... I wonder. If we can take scissors to OOXML and have
the result be ODF. Or modify ODF so it is. So, then,
people can save in "backwards compatible OOXML" or "NOOXML
going forward." Any old documents could simply go thru a
converter to archive as NOOXML.

I believe this is doable now and would not use MS IP
because it does not have to support existing MS formats,
just ones going forward.

Government bodies would simply say use the NOOXML format
for all new documents. In effect, this is ODF. For old
documents, saved in Word Perfect, Office 97 and their ilk,
they would need to be converted anyways....



---
--
argee

[ Reply to This | # ]

6-year old speed typist!
Authored by: kenryan on Wednesday, May 21 2008 @ 12:17 PM EDT
Does the ability to speed-type matter for a machine oriented towards kids
learning on their first machine?

Every six-year-old I know (my daughter and a couple friends) types via
hunt-n-peck. :-)

Watching my younger son learn, what seems to be giving him the most difficulty
is the disconnect between manipulating over *here* to make something happen over
*there*. This is not only the keyboard but the mouse/pad as well. It's very
nonintuitive. We're used to it, but it would be nice to not have to be.

Besides, look thru the apps currently on the XO and list the ones where
speed-typing on the keyboard might be a benefit:

- Python programming

- Chat

- Write

- ??

Whereas how many are really not keyboard oriented? I tried tamtam and its
associates, but I can't get past trying to play a computer keyboard like a music
keyboard. It's the wrong form factor. If you can have a virtual keyboard that
morphs from QWERTY to black-n-whites (or drum pads or a steel drum or whatever)
that would be a big improvement.



---
ken
(speaking only for myself, IANAL)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Danish vote on OOXML standard disputed by committee member
Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, May 21 2008 @ 01:35 PM EDT
Danish vote on OOXML standard disputed by committee member

Largest stakeholders 'ignored', claims voter

By Mads Elkaer, Computerworld

By voting to adopt a standard based on Microsoft's OOXML document format, the Danish national standards body has approved an unknown text against the wishes of the main representatives on its own technical committee, according to a technical committee representative from the Danish city of Aarhus.

He has now made a formal complaint to Dansk Standard about the OOXML vote.

The complaint came from Jens Kjellerup, IT manager at the City Executive for Children and Young People in Aarhus, who sat on the Dansk Standard technical committee that assessed adoption of the Microsoft format as an international standard by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO).

He believes that Dansk Standard has voted for a standard that no one knows the true meaning of, because the final version has not yet been published.

( . . . rest deleted . . . )

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Study Makes Sense for It's Topic
Authored by: NotThatSmart on Wednesday, May 21 2008 @ 01:58 PM EDT
Looks like a logical conclusion so far. Not that they can't later fall prey to
politics or pressure.

But what most impresses me is that, on these kinds of rather simple and
straightforward reports, with an easily understood and well-presented response
from the site's host(ess), the Anonymous Trolls seem to rain down in buckets.
What's the deal? I give the "useability" guy credit for being merely
obsessed to the point of missing some ground-level basics, but the others? I'd
like PJ to write that "blue is a color" and "many companies use
blue in their logos...why?" and watch the trolls crawl out of the woodwork
to try to obfuscate, fake offense, insinuate, and sidetrack. Does BSF have some
posters in here for practice or what?

---
Too much is almost enough.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not always best to have only one standard
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 21 2008 @ 03:42 PM EDT
It is often good to have more than one standard, and let the market decide,
because some standards are better than others. OSI and TCP/IP were both
standards for networking. If TCP/IP hadn't existed, we probably still wouldn't

have the Internet, because OSI was a mess, although tons of governments had
signed onto it, including the US.

The problem is when standards are manipulated for the financial benefit of one
company, as with so-called openXML and the RAM stuff.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"A Strategy for Openness: Enhancing E-Records Access in New York State"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 21 2008 @ 05:27 PM EDT
I'm still trying to figure out something: having 70 licenses for the same result
is a GOOD thing. It means you have 70 choices to choose from to get one
resultant format. Maybe the parent just worded his statement wrong, as I can't
see this being anything but a GOOD thing for all involved.

One format, 70 choices to arrive at tools that use it. MUCH better than two
formats, 71 choices to arrive at tools that might work for one or the other, but
can't be guaranteed to work with both. The NY findings seem to agree with what
I'm saying.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"A Strategy for Openness: Enhancing E-Records Access in New York State"
Authored by: Tezzer on Wednesday, May 21 2008 @ 06:01 PM EDT
I think a lot of people are missing the point.

I come from an engineering background and i can tell you that all the different
screw thread standards are a total nightmare - especially since many of them
very nearly (but not quite) match each other.

However, I think it's great that there are so many different nut & bolt
manufacturers. I never have to worry about my only supplier being out of stock
or discontinuing a line without warning.

---
Kandor

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Strategy for Openness: Monopoly ODF!?
Authored by: webster on Thursday, May 22 2008 @ 12:39 AM EDT

What's going on? Speculations, Not Answers.

  1. What a dramatic and unexpected turn of events. Things must be going much worse for them than the financial and market share reports indicate. They appear to be giving up their forced incompatibility, the means of their lock-in and lock-out. They are going to embrace a truly open standard. Well, not right away, but soon.

  2. The above is suspicious enough but it did not happen in a vacuum. The Monopoly also says it is not rolling out its OOXML after the extraordinary efforts they made to have it labelled as an ISO standard. Why go to such resputinous lengths to get it adopted and then abandon it? Can't they afford to distribute a few million 6,000 page copies? Was that standards battle a pyrrhic victory? Are the EU fines with the prospect of more beginning to sting? Is that "NO" to BlISTA also a "NO" to Monopoly Office and MS-OOXML? Did the process with the crass manipulation and the utter unworthiness of a 6,000 page standard, vaporous at best, finally expose their antics to a critical mass costing them their coerced good will and their bandwagon with the emperor's new clothes?

  3. Pity the shaken monopoly. Those creeping linusians are everywhere. The Monopoly destroyed their competition fair and square and now they have to deal with free coders who give good code away and then fix it up for particular businesses. How can a Monopoly compete with that?

  4. Technical stuff is out of control now too. Used to be the Monopoly could "upgrade" the world. Hardware and software vendors in lock step would all get their piece so long as they worshipped only the Monopoly. But word is seeping out and around about modest hardware and good operating systems that work just as well. Worst of all there is no reason to leave Monopoly PX, or 2000 for that matter.

  5. How fast and how hard can they go down? Announcing ODF with a delay means they are trying to maintain something or put off something very bad.

  6. The explanation for all of today's developments is the intent by the Monopoly to dull the effects of the first LINdependance Day in California.
It should be interesting. Like watching a writhing dinosaur, don't get too close.

~webster~

Tyrants live their delusions. Beware. Deal with the PIPE Fairy and you will sell your soul.


[ Reply to This | # ]

ODF versions coming soon
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 22 2008 @ 04:30 AM EDT
I have it on good authority that the ODF versions will be posted very soon. The
glitch was apparently a system error and not the ODF format itself.

Guys, look at the timing of all of this. Yes, the actions of the European
Commission, and BECTA and everybody else were pushing on Microsoft. But this
New York report was the straw that broke the camel's back.

New York publishes its report on Tuesday, and on Wednesday Microsoft announces
future native support for ODF? Coincidence? Not at all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don't forget the Minnesota study
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 22 2008 @ 08:56 PM EDT
Nobody has posted about it, but a few months ago Minnesota published a study on
this topic, also. And they also recommended open formats.

Take a look at:
http://www.state.mn.us/portal/mn/jsp/content.do?subchannel=-536894135&id=-53
6894133&agency=OETweb

So, now of the three US states that have looked deeply at this topic
(Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York), all three came down squarely on the
side of open formats. (Massachusetts begrudgingly caved to recent pressure, but
trust me if you watch what they are now doing instead of what they say, you will
see they are still steadily moving in this direction).

I think THIS is what Microsoft is afraid of, a domino effect by US states.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.05 seconds