451 CAOS Theory 
A blog for the enterprise open source community
Format confusion unfortunate
Jay Lyman, November 6, 2007 @ 12:49 pm ETI was disappointed when the Open Document Format (ODF) suffered a significant setback with the Massachussetts defeat in July. However, I was encouraged again recently as ODF continued to gain support, both in use and backers. We just got a report on a variety of vendors and products incorporating the format. The open standard’s international acceptance has also continued in places such as South Africa and Germany, highlighting ongoing momentum.
Then came recent word that the OpenDocument Foundation, the group named for and dedicated to an open, universal format, was shifting its support for ODF and transferring its endorsement to the W3C Compound Document Format (CDF). Beyond the OpenDocument Foundation having to change all of their references and materials based on ODF (and maybe a new name?), I’m afraid this move contributes to confusion in the market.
Sam Hiser lays out the reasoning for the shift clearly and eloquently: because of resistence to openness and interoperability by some other ODF backers, the foundation sees more promise and openness in the W3C’s CDF. Hiser, a rightfully respected authority on open software and formats, also makes sense in his stance that the move is not intended to help Microsoft at the expense of ODF or any other format.
But I think there is no question that the ODF not supporting ODF and instead supporting CDF is cause for confusion. We all know who is most likely to benefit from confusion: Microsoft with its Office Open XML (OOXML), free of confusion and open on Microsoft’s terms. Obviously, Hiser and the other Foundation members who are pulling their support for ODF felt they could not work with other ODF backers to address their concerns. That’s a shame.
However, there is still great promise for ODF. There is still ongoing momentum for the format and the possibility that the loss of Foundation support will spur other ODF backers to improve interoperability, even with Microsoft. After all, it is the inability of Microsoft’s formats and standards to interoperate with other software or even other versions of Microsoft software that created much of the desire and demand for an alternative. I see addressing that interoperability as a key to the success of ODF, whether or not it has the OpenDocument Foundation’s support.
Categories: Software
Comments RSS feed | Trackback URI
I’ve shifted from using MS to ODF years ago, hoping that finally I do not have to worry to much about backward compatability.
Old files can always be opened.
But now, without more information, I have to start worrying again about all my archived files.
Sad day .
It seems like there is some confusion stemming from the name of Hiser’s organization which has falsely inflated the significance of this. The “ODF Foundation” isn’t really much of an organization at all. It’s three guys who stand to benefit financially from the drama they are causing.
On the other hand, the ODF ALLIANCE, of which Hiser used to be a part, has over 460 member organizations in 53 countries and, as the story indicates, is stronger than ever with increasing international support.
Clever PR from Hiser and, no doubt, the Microsoft PR department, but that is all.
This is an admirably balanced take. We’ve not taken this path lightly: our view is that it is better to move now than in 7 to 9 months when ODF v 1.2 has similar difficulty at ISO to OOXML.
It is unfortunate from certain angles that ODF’s momentum is accelerating; but you’ll note that, given how difficult ODF is to implement through software change in the enterprise, this momentum is essentially emotional, political & policy based and not reflective of success in installing software and adjusting business processes. Those who have been trying — Mass ITD, Denmark, Belgium & others — are reverting back to ODF + OOXML policies out of practical necessity because it is so hard to get away from the Microsoft formats.
Our position is borne of living in the real world. And we are the first to take the blame for promoting ODF and helping to create unrealistic expectations. Accordingly, all our work now is dedicated to correcting that and delivering software that will make a single Universal Document Format feasible as well as possible.
We have no relationship with Microsoft. Yes, we are small (does size count?…it may make us nimbler). We are businessmen: that means financial objectives are important to us just as they are to all businesspeople (do IBM or Sun have no financial involvement? …the point as you see is ridiculous).
Sam, thank you for posting.
The point - “It’s not personal, it’s business” - is generally a valid one, though it doesn’t seem to fit here.
IBM, Sun, Microsoft, et al, have been open about their business interests (as they would necessarily have to be), while your motivations have been less clear. There is talk on the blogs that you tried to sell a software plug-in to pro-ODF people, but were rebuffed.
You can understand how that would make your recent about-face on ODF look suspicious and cast doubt on what your true motivations might be.
Talk is cheap, Dani.
There was never a lack of clarity about the OpenDocument Foundation’s objectives. If there is now, it’s merely due to your innuendo.
It is consistent with the Foundation’s objectives — to assist the development and penetration of ODF — to charge for the completion of work if some is found necessary. Though it was a surprise to us that we found ourselves providing the winning proof-of-concept that would have saved ODF among company you’d think would have been able to deliver better solutions.
The work necessary to complete the Plug-in we estimated in Massachusetts at 14 months of approx. 5 men coding. The budget for assembling that team — taking real men out of their current employment, paying their salaries and health benefits (FOR A TIME-LIMITED PROJECT) was over a million dollars (US). In retrospect, we find we underestimated the dollar figure. nevertheless, that is a risky, nearly minimum-wage enterprise with no guarantee of success. The pecuniary aspect of the criticism is, as I said, ridiculous as well as hypocritical and inflammatory.
Keep in mind we agreed to meet the demand to open source the work.
Talk IS cheap, Dani. But few in this discussion are interested in the truth. This has been a smear-project. I don’t understand why you would wish to continue making assertions that question our motivations when you have so little valid information.
We try to integrate our personal values and our business dealings. This is one area in which we are a success. Perhaps more so than in navigating the Cylla & Charybdis of software standards and religious software communities.
Handy Tools from the Microsoft Office Package…
Microsoft has become famous for their operating systems but they also provide a great set of tools in the form of Microsoft Office. Many people take Microsoft Office for granted and don’t realize how hard life would be without it….
[...] Microsoft’s Office file formats. I wrote last year that the departure of some ODF backers was unfortunate, but also might prompt ODF’s remaining proponents to work on making the format fully [...]
[...] mine and others’ calls for continuation of the open format’s interoperability advantage [...]