[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?
Alex, ALex Wang wrote: >Hi Patrick, >That's a pitty not meet you in joint TC meeting at OASIS Symposium. > Sorry I wasn't present. But I had promised my wife a vacation long before that meeting was set. ;-) > I >have uploaded the slides and demo for this TC meeting. The main topic is >to realize interop via UOML. >In fact, interop is the main purpose of the charter of proposed TC, it >is at semantic level. For UOML TC, the main reason to define a >operatiing interface standard is for use of interop, it is at layout >level( http://www.oasis-open.org/events/symposium/2006/slides/Wang.pdf). >I believe that maping to a different format is not reliable. An unify >operating interface is more feasible and can meet market requirement. >I support to form a new SC within this TC, with the help of Adoption TC >and UOML TC, maybe also including the new proposed TC. > > > I will have to look at your proposal but correct me if I am wrong but isn't the UOML TC operating under RAND? I think the division between structure and presentation, although softening over the years in a number of respects, was the right decision beginning with ISO 8879. Interoperability of presentation (or as you say in your slides post-typesetting) may well meet a market need and be interesting as well from a technical standpoint, but I don't think it would meet what I consider to be the needs of interoperability. Particularly if the "operating interface standard" is the property of a particular vendor. Hope you are having a great day! Patrick >-Alex > >-----Original Message----- >From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] >Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 8:35 PM >To: Charles-H. Schulz >Cc: ALex Wang; robert_weir@us.ibm.com; peter@vandenabeele.com; >office@lists.oasis-open.org; peter.vandenabeele.be@gmail.com >Subject: Re: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee? > > >Greetings! > >For reasons I detail below I think interoperability is the *next* issue >but I would caution that we need to be mindful of the TC charter rules >in OASIS. I am not sure that any TC actually has a charter that would >cover a "standard" for interoperability. I don't think any of those for >ODF or the UOML charter would cover it. > >I suspect that a new TC with both specific and 'future' standards >against which interoperability standards could be specified would be >required. Besides, it would provide a more "neutral" meeting place for >the various format supporters to meet. > >It would take a lot of hard work but a TC that is sponsored by *all* the > >major format proponents I think would start with a high degree of >credibility in the world of technology. Noting that the issue would be >*mapping* and not sniping about the choices made by any particular >format. > >As many of you know, I urged an EU panel back in March to make a mapping > >between XML document formats a prerequisite for adoption of any XML >format for office documents a prerequisite for adoption as an ISO >standard. Some of you may not be old enough to remember conversion >software that touted their abilities to convert between literally >hundreds of diverse formats in the "bad old days." I do. We are close to > >having XML based archival formats and we should not screw that up by >having data islands with inconsistent mappings between XML based >formats. > >Hope everyone is at the start of a great week! > >Patrick > >Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > > >>Dear Alex, >> >>perhaps should we form an Interoperability SC within the UOML TC and >>then coordinate back here? I think that there obviously needs to be >>some technical, specification work to be done at the strict level of >>interoperability, so forming the SC here might be a good choice. Of >>course the Adoption TC needs to be involved as well. >> >>Regards, >> >>Charles-H. Schulz. >> >>ALex Wang a écrit : >> >> >> >> >>>Yes, this proposed TC is aimed to interop at semantic level. In other >>>side, UOML TC is aimed to interop at layout level for visible use. >>>Thanks Peter for introducing IDABC research project. I'd like to hear >>>the future progress of that project. >>> >>>-Alex >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> *From:* robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] >>> *Sent:* Monday, May 07, 2007 6:44 AM >>> *To:* peter@vandenabeele.com >>> *Cc:* office@lists.oasis-open.org; peter.vandenabeele.be@gmail.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [office] How about an interoperability >>>Subcommittee? >>> >>> >>> Thanks, Peter, I had not heard of the IDABC research project. >>> >>> There are also discussions within OASIS on a new TC to investigate >>> document standards interoperability. See >>> >>>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200704/msg00007.html >>> >>> This new OASIS proposal is more aligned to interop between ODF, >>> DocBook, DITA and related formats.. Although these formats are >>> not at the same level of presentation abstraction, there should be >>> meaningful level of interop at the structural and perhaps semantic >>> level (with ODF 1.2 metadata perhaps). >>> >>> So I think my proposed subcommittee could help with that as well. >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>> >>> >>> peter.vandenabeele.be@gmail.com wrote on 05/06/2007 05:15:15 PM: >>> >>> > On 5/6/07, robert_weir@us.ibm.com <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> >>> >>> >wrote: > > >>> > > Is there any interest among TC members in pursuing some of >>> these topics in >>> > > more depth in a subcommittee? >>> > >>> > At the recent IDABC Open Standards meeting (EU DIGIT) a specific >>> proposal >>> > was made to start a research project into interop between ODF >>> and other >>> > formats (mainly Microsoft document formats in that proposal). >>> All attendants >>> > at the meeting pledged in favor of such research work. A >>> >>> >specific > > >>> > proposal will >>> > now be written now and later proposed to the group that decides >>> on budgets. >>> > >>> > I assume a form of collaboration between the proposed "interop >>> SC" and the >>> > EU research project would be useful. >>> > >>> > > Possible deliverables of the subcommittee might be a technical >>> report on >>> > > best practices for interoperability, as well as specific >>> recommendations for >>> > > accomplishing these goals. >>> > >>> > These lines match very closely to the deliverables proposed in >>> the upcoming >>> > EU project (but that was more narrowly focussed on Microsoft >>> formats). >>> > >>> > Peter >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Peter Vandenabeele >>> > peter AT vandenabeele DOT com >>> > http://www.vandenabeele.com >>> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/petervandenabeele >>> > http://www.oasis-open.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > -- Patrick Durusau Patrick@Durusau.net Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model Member, Text Encoding Initiative Board of Directors, 2003-2005 Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]