Extrinsic annotations. It is something that has certainly been talked about for years, though has never really gained much traction. It is also implicit (in part) in some standards like RDF. It comes down to this: How to you say something about content where you do not control the content, and still have your comments seen? Today, if the White House puts out a press release, you can certainly comment it on your blog, on Twitter, in comments to a news article, etc., but you have zero power to make your comments appear in the context of the original press release. The content author is king, and those with high Google PageRank have disproportionate (though not undue) exposure and influence. Sure, we have blogs, which encourage reader commentary, but this is exclusively at the sufferance of the page owner.
But now, with extrinsic annotations, anyone can comment on anyone's web page and have it appear in the context of that web page. I can comment on the White House press release, and so can everyone nut in the world. This is totally subversive and can easily be used for good or evil, but since this is the web it will likely be used for spam and porn more than anything else.
The challenge is how do you prevent this approach from collapsing under the oppressive weight of the vast banality of mass humanity? The web had the same problem, which PageRank solved (in part). We may need something analogous to tame the new "meta web".
Remember, Microsoft pushed 'Custom XML' as a key distinguishing feature of OOXML during the fight to get it approved in ISO. 'Custom XML' was the reason (according to them) why ODF was not sufficient, feature-wise. IANAL, but if Microsoft cannot implement "Custom XML" without licensing this patent from i4i for a quarter of a billion dollars, then doesn't this likely mean that no one else is free to use "custom XML" either? Ergo, OOXML is not an open standard.
Give them $1 now and then 1% of any savings the taxpayers receive from identifying wasteful spending using this new innovative and interactive web site.
If we all have unique id numbers to identify us, then someone can impersonate us by knowing that number.
But of course, if we did not have unique id numbers to identify us it would be even easier for someone to impersonate us.
And however many digits the number is, and even if it is randomly-generated (as the article proposes) your id number is only as strong as the weakest link among those who have stored your id, meaning the used car dealer, the credit card company, the student loan office, etc.
It is guaranteed to fail since they all involve transmitting and storing the secret.
What we need is a national public key infrastructure, with keys stored on smart cards, or similar, along the lines of what they have in Belgium. Of course, even PKI fails in the face of social engineering, so we need citizens to be more aware of the risks as well.
Maybe the public should start charging for making the news? Those damn newsies having been leeching off the deeds and misdeeds of the ordinary public from the beginning. Why should they get our stories for free? If it wasn't for us, the news would just be bad fiction printed on cheap paper. We should go on strike. No one do anything newsworthy for a week. That'll teach 'em!
Whether you are selling automobiles or donuts, there is going to be competition, and you are only as good as your last quarterly earnings report. In any case, competition and barriers to entry has more to do with the nature of the technology and lock-in and lock-out factors like propriety interfaces and patents than it is concerned with the business model. Maybe the point is just that with a free model, you have less room for error in your strategy?
Didn't word of Tienanmen Square spread via fax machines?
My point is if you are looking for the greatest impact, then your idea of robustness needs to encompass more than the physical properties of the device. You're more likely to fail for lack of training, spare parts, support, basic infrastructure, etc. I think shortwave radio is far more robust. That is what we whip out in hurricanes, etc., when all the basic infrastructure is down. It is what works when nothing else does.
If I dropped you at a random spot in Africa, would you rather have a handheld shortwave radio? Or an iPhone?
(And forget for a moment that you would be more likely to be able to trade the iPhone for a ride to the nearest international airport)
Think of it this way, before 2000, or so, most people in the developed countries were not connected to the internet either. But that did not prevent us from attaining a high level of education, standard of living, etc. We landed a man on the moon with most engineers still using slide rules!
So I'm not buying it that the life of the average African would be substantially improved by their ability to download videos from YouTube. The article uses the example of Rwanda, that only 1% of the population can connect to the internet. OK, that is very low, I admit. But maybe decades of genocidal tribal warfare might also be a factor here, and addressing the root causes might a higher priority than the ability to set up a Facebook page.
I think it comes down to the basics: pubic safety, rule of law, market structures, literacy, infrastructure, etc. A connection to the internet can certainly help, in some cases. But in no way is it a necessity. Lower tech solutions may be more robust and effective, e.g., long distance shortwave radios, packet radio BBS's, etc.
If they put the scans up in high-res TIFF files, but put them in the public domain for anyone to use for any purpose, then good things will happen.
And then send the originals to the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum and let the professionals curate them.
But if you don't get the rights right, then you could easily end up with the content all locked into some screwed up Windows-only access or via Silverlight or some other lock-in technology. Let's not fall into the same trap that the British Library did.
Secure the public domain rights, then put the content out in the highest resolution practical, and then let the fun begin.
The nice thing about text comments is they can easily be written and read by the blind or the deaf. A system that allows only video/audio comments is immediately inaccessible to a significant portion of the population.
See the Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_508_of_the_Rehabilitation_Act
Still a deception either way, right? The whisper campaign in the bar would not work if you announced who you worked for. It only works because the recipient of the whisper is kept from the entire truth.
Exactly. Show me a version of MS Office that does this right, whether beta or released, and I'll gladly update the table. I want interoperability far more than I want to complain about Microsoft Office.
I stated exactly what application versions I used in the tests. How is that "rigging" ? Of course I'll use the latest code available to me. That's a no-brainer.
And then sending that information to national standards committees to argue against the adoption of ODF, and to other government officials. Yes, I think that when you use this mechanism to deceive governments (or any other customers for that matter) it is scandalous. Marketing/spin is one thing. But outright lies and deception is something else, don't you think?
A whisper campaign is when you tell outright lies in private that you would never dare to say in public, because they are so outrageously false that you would be immediately challenged on it.
Saying that Microsoft products are buggy, etc., is not a whisper campaign, because we can and do say this publicly without fear of contradiction.
I think a test suite is a wonderful idea, and work in this area is already underway at the OASIS ODF Interoperability and Conformance TC, of which Microsoft is a member.
However, a test suite is a tool for a vendor to check for bugs in their implementation, for errors that were accidentally introduced. It doesn't solve the problem of a vendor knowingly and intentionally introducing incompatibilities into their implementations, which apparently is what we have going on right now. It isn't like Microsoft failed to notice that SP2 corrupts spreadsheets created in every other ODF spreadsheet application. A test suite can take us to the next level of interoperability among ODF vendors seeking interoperability, and we should do it for that reason. But, by itself, a test suite cannot prevent a willful attempt by a monopolist to disrupt interoperability.
I don't believe the EC ever said "do it according to the standard". You can see their press release on the topic, issued when Microsoft first announced ODF support would be coming in SP2:
The Commission would welcome any step that Microsoft took towards genuine interoperability, more consumer choice and less vendor lock-in. In its ongoing antitrust investigation concerning interoperability with Microsoft Office (see MEMO/08/19), the Commission will investigate whether the announced support of ODF (OpenDocument format) in Office leads to better interoperability and allows consumers to process and exchange their documents with the software product of their choice.
The goal is clearly interoperability. Microsoft could have made an interoperable, conformant implementation, but they chose not to. Customers don't want excuses. They want interoperability.
The point is that Microsoft has already reverse-engineered this legacy OpenOffice formula syntax. They did it in their ODF Add-in for Office. So it is already there and already works. They could support that syntax, be compatible with other ODF spreadsheets (and their own ODF Add-in) and still be 100% conformant to the ODF standard.
Keep your notes in an bound book, start each new day or inventing session on a new page. Write the date at the top of each page. Describe your ideas in detail, as you think of them, including what prototypes and tests you create along the way. Have someone who is not a co-inventor and does not have a financial interest in your invention read and sign/date each page as a witness. Also, since the resources you use in creating the invention seems to be at the core of the ownership question, also note on each page what resources you are using, whether school or personal. At major milestones, make a photocopy of your breakthrough pages and mail them to yourself (snail mail) to establish a post mark date. A documented paper trail of how your invention came about is the best defense against anyone who would claim it as their own.
There are probably ways of doing the above via software rather than a lab notebook, but it would require things like a trusted time server and digital signatures. Certainly possible and would be an interesting web service. Hey, maybe I should write that in my notebook...
This is an important statement, #9 from NY's "Key Findings", cutting through all the fog and stating unequivocally the obvious:
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, standardized formats increases efficiencies 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.
As Co-Chair of the ODF TC, let me say that Mr. Durusau's views in no way represent the position of OASIS or the ODF TC.
Of course, he is entitled to express his personal views. And so am I.
Let us begin.
Patrick makes 5 assertions in his letter, and these are easily rebutted:
1) National bodies lose an open and international forum for further work on DIS 29500.
*Is Patrick implying that Ecma is not open and international? That would be a good thing to to know in those places where Microsoft is currently pushing for adoption of OOXML, arguing that it is an open standard.
One does not approve a standard in ISO in order to be more open. Openness should be there from the beginning. Patrick's argument appears to be "Let's give OOXML the highest level of approval and then it will be a better standard". But ISO standardization is not done with sacramental oils. There is not transmutation. OOXML does not become a good standard because it is approved. A standard is approved because it is good.
2) Microsoft based third-party vendors may be excluded from contracts because Microsoft has no ISO approved format.
*Microsoft could always add support for ODF to their product. Then they would be supporting an ISO standard. Similarly, I assume they are now seriously thinking of adding Blu-ray support to the XBox now that HD DVD failed. We should not be propping up Microsoft and giving them a free ticket to ISO because of their bad business decision in ignoring ODF and delaying their own standardization activities. The market rewards those who guess right, and punishes those that guess wrong. Microsoft was on the wrong side of open standards. We should not be looking to avoid the natural outcome of that.
3) ODF has no ISO-based formula definitions to insure compatibility between OpenDocument and OpenXML.
*And OOXML has no ISO-based formula definitions either, because OOXML has not been approved by ISO!
4) ODF has no ISO-based definition of MS legacy features for an ODF extension.
*And OOXML has no ISO-based definition of MS legacy features either, because OOXML has not been approved by ISO!
5) ODF has no ISO-based definition of the current MS format for mapping purposes
*And OOXML has no ISO-based definition of the current MS format either, because OOXML has not been approved by ISO!
These last three points by Patrick are rather poor. The fact that portions of the Ecma-376 specification are interesting as technical disclosures of proprietary Microsoft Office interfaces does not automatically recommend the entire 6,045 page specification for approval as an ISO standard. If the ODF TC desires any information on these three topics, we already have access to all of this material via the Ecma-376 text and the Ecma's Disposition of Comments report, both of which will exist regardless of whether DIS 29500 is approved. There is absolutely nothing we cannot do now, given the materials we have now.
Whether things like the spreadsheet definitions in OOXML are "ISO-approved" or not is immaterial. We know the ISO review was shallow. We cannot assume that Excel compatibility information in OOXML is correct. We need to test and verify everything. Slapping an "ISO" label on OOXML doesn't make it more useful or more accurate for ODF.
In no way whatsoever is ODF hurt, harmed or even annoyed by the imminent demise of Microsoft's ill-conceived and reckless experiment in ISO.
Slashdot Mirror
Extrinsic annotations. It is something that has certainly been talked about for years, though has never really gained much traction. It is also implicit (in part) in some standards like RDF. It comes down to this: How to you say something about content where you do not control the content, and still have your comments seen? Today, if the White House puts out a press release, you can certainly comment it on your blog, on Twitter, in comments to a news article, etc., but you have zero power to make your comments appear in the context of the original press release. The content author is king, and those with high Google PageRank have disproportionate (though not undue) exposure and influence. Sure, we have blogs, which encourage reader commentary, but this is exclusively at the sufferance of the page owner.
But now, with extrinsic annotations, anyone can comment on anyone's web page and have it appear in the context of that web page. I can comment on the White House press release, and so can everyone nut in the world. This is totally subversive and can easily be used for good or evil, but since this is the web it will likely be used for spam and porn more than anything else.
The challenge is how do you prevent this approach from collapsing under the oppressive weight of the vast banality of mass humanity? The web had the same problem, which PageRank solved (in part). We may need something analogous to tame the new "meta web".
Remember, Microsoft pushed 'Custom XML' as a key distinguishing feature of OOXML during the fight to get it approved in ISO. 'Custom XML' was the reason (according to them) why ODF was not sufficient, feature-wise. IANAL, but if Microsoft cannot implement "Custom XML" without licensing this patent from i4i for a quarter of a billion dollars, then doesn't this likely mean that no one else is free to use "custom XML" either? Ergo, OOXML is not an open standard.
Just wait six months and they'll have the special director's edition EVD with 10 extra minutes and a "making of" featurette.
Give them $1 now and then 1% of any savings the taxpayers receive from identifying wasteful spending using this new innovative and interactive web site.
If we all have unique id numbers to identify us, then someone can impersonate us by knowing that number.
But of course, if we did not have unique id numbers to identify us it would be even easier for someone to impersonate us.
And however many digits the number is, and even if it is randomly-generated (as the article proposes) your id number is only as strong as the weakest link among those who have stored your id, meaning the used car dealer, the credit card company, the student loan office, etc.
It is guaranteed to fail since they all involve transmitting and storing the secret.
What we need is a national public key infrastructure, with keys stored on smart cards, or similar, along the lines of what they have in Belgium. Of course, even PKI fails in the face of social engineering, so we need citizens to be more aware of the risks as well.
Maybe the public should start charging for making the news? Those damn newsies having been leeching off the deeds and misdeeds of the ordinary public from the beginning. Why should they get our stories for free? If it wasn't for us, the news would just be bad fiction printed on cheap paper. We should go on strike. No one do anything newsworthy for a week. That'll teach 'em!
Whether you are selling automobiles or donuts, there is going to be competition, and you are only as good as your last quarterly earnings report. In any case, competition and barriers to entry has more to do with the nature of the technology and lock-in and lock-out factors like propriety interfaces and patents than it is concerned with the business model. Maybe the point is just that with a free model, you have less room for error in your strategy?
Didn't word of Tienanmen Square spread via fax machines?
My point is if you are looking for the greatest impact, then your idea of robustness needs to encompass more than the physical properties of the device. You're more likely to fail for lack of training, spare parts, support, basic infrastructure, etc. I think shortwave radio is far more robust. That is what we whip out in hurricanes, etc., when all the basic infrastructure is down. It is what works when nothing else does.
If I dropped you at a random spot in Africa, would you rather have a handheld shortwave radio? Or an iPhone?
(And forget for a moment that you would be more likely to be able to trade the iPhone for a ride to the nearest international airport)
Think of it this way, before 2000, or so, most people in the developed countries were not connected to the internet either. But that did not prevent us from attaining a high level of education, standard of living, etc. We landed a man on the moon with most engineers still using slide rules!
So I'm not buying it that the life of the average African would be substantially improved by their ability to download videos from YouTube. The article uses the example of Rwanda, that only 1% of the population can connect to the internet. OK, that is very low, I admit. But maybe decades of genocidal tribal warfare might also be a factor here, and addressing the root causes might a higher priority than the ability to set up a Facebook page.
I think it comes down to the basics: pubic safety, rule of law, market structures, literacy, infrastructure, etc. A connection to the internet can certainly help, in some cases. But in no way is it a necessity. Lower tech solutions may be more robust and effective, e.g., long distance shortwave radios, packet radio BBS's, etc.
If they put the scans up in high-res TIFF files, but put them in the public domain for anyone to use for any purpose, then good things will happen. And then send the originals to the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum and let the professionals curate them. But if you don't get the rights right, then you could easily end up with the content all locked into some screwed up Windows-only access or via Silverlight or some other lock-in technology. Let's not fall into the same trap that the British Library did. Secure the public domain rights, then put the content out in the highest resolution practical, and then let the fun begin.
The nice thing about text comments is they can easily be written and read by the blind or the deaf. A system that allows only video/audio comments is immediately inaccessible to a significant portion of the population. See the Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_508_of_the_Rehabilitation_Act
Still a deception either way, right? The whisper campaign in the bar would not work if you announced who you worked for. It only works because the recipient of the whisper is kept from the entire truth.
Exactly. Show me a version of MS Office that does this right, whether beta or released, and I'll gladly update the table. I want interoperability far more than I want to complain about Microsoft Office.
I stated exactly what application versions I used in the tests. How is that "rigging" ? Of course I'll use the latest code available to me. That's a no-brainer.
And then sending that information to national standards committees to argue against the adoption of ODF, and to other government officials. Yes, I think that when you use this mechanism to deceive governments (or any other customers for that matter) it is scandalous. Marketing/spin is one thing. But outright lies and deception is something else, don't you think?
A whisper campaign is when you tell outright lies in private that you would never dare to say in public, because they are so outrageously false that you would be immediately challenged on it. Saying that Microsoft products are buggy, etc., is not a whisper campaign, because we can and do say this publicly without fear of contradiction.
I think a test suite is a wonderful idea, and work in this area is already underway at the OASIS ODF Interoperability and Conformance TC, of which Microsoft is a member. However, a test suite is a tool for a vendor to check for bugs in their implementation, for errors that were accidentally introduced. It doesn't solve the problem of a vendor knowingly and intentionally introducing incompatibilities into their implementations, which apparently is what we have going on right now. It isn't like Microsoft failed to notice that SP2 corrupts spreadsheets created in every other ODF spreadsheet application. A test suite can take us to the next level of interoperability among ODF vendors seeking interoperability, and we should do it for that reason. But, by itself, a test suite cannot prevent a willful attempt by a monopolist to disrupt interoperability.
The goal is clearly interoperability. Microsoft could have made an interoperable, conformant implementation, but they chose not to. Customers don't want excuses. They want interoperability.
Microsoft calls their version an add-in, not a plugin. It is here
The point is that Microsoft has already reverse-engineered this legacy OpenOffice formula syntax. They did it in their ODF Add-in for Office. So it is already there and already works. They could support that syntax, be compatible with other ODF spreadsheets (and their own ODF Add-in) and still be 100% conformant to the ODF standard.
Keep your notes in an bound book, start each new day or inventing session on a new page. Write the date at the top of each page. Describe your ideas in detail, as you think of them, including what prototypes and tests you create along the way. Have someone who is not a co-inventor and does not have a financial interest in your invention read and sign/date each page as a witness. Also, since the resources you use in creating the invention seems to be at the core of the ownership question, also note on each page what resources you are using, whether school or personal. At major milestones, make a photocopy of your breakthrough pages and mail them to yourself (snail mail) to establish a post mark date. A documented paper trail of how your invention came about is the best defense against anyone who would claim it as their own.
There are probably ways of doing the above via software rather than a lab notebook, but it would require things like a trusted time server and digital signatures. Certainly possible and would be an interesting web service. Hey, maybe I should write that in my notebook...
How to manage seasoned programmers? First, become a seasoned manager. Then act naturally.
As Co-Chair of the ODF TC, let me say that Mr. Durusau's views in no way represent the position of OASIS or the ODF TC.
Of course, he is entitled to express his personal views. And so am I.
Let us begin.
Patrick makes 5 assertions in his letter, and these are easily rebutted:
1) National bodies lose an open and international forum for further work on DIS 29500.
*Is Patrick implying that Ecma is not open and international? That would be a good thing to to know in those places where Microsoft is currently pushing for adoption of OOXML, arguing that it is an open standard.
One does not approve a standard in ISO in order to be more open. Openness should be there from the beginning. Patrick's argument appears to be
"Let's give OOXML the highest level of approval and then it will be a better standard". But ISO standardization is not done with sacramental
oils. There is not transmutation. OOXML does not become a good standard because it is approved. A standard is approved because it is good.
2) Microsoft based third-party vendors may be excluded from contracts because Microsoft has no ISO approved format.
*Microsoft could always add support for ODF to their product. Then they would be supporting an ISO standard. Similarly, I assume they are now seriously thinking of adding Blu-ray support to the XBox now that HD DVD failed. We should not be propping up Microsoft and giving them a free ticket to ISO because of their bad business decision in ignoring ODF and delaying their own standardization activities. The market rewards those who guess right, and punishes those that guess wrong. Microsoft was on the wrong side of open standards. We should not be looking to avoid the natural outcome of that.
3) ODF has no ISO-based formula definitions to insure compatibility between OpenDocument and OpenXML.
*And OOXML has no ISO-based formula definitions either, because OOXML has not been approved by ISO!
4) ODF has no ISO-based definition of MS legacy features for an ODF extension.
*And OOXML has no ISO-based definition of MS legacy features either, because OOXML has not been approved by ISO!
5) ODF has no ISO-based definition of the current MS format for mapping purposes
*And OOXML has no ISO-based definition of the current MS format either, because OOXML has not been approved by ISO!
These last three points by Patrick are rather poor. The fact that portions of the Ecma-376 specification are interesting as technical disclosures of proprietary Microsoft Office interfaces does not automatically recommend the entire 6,045 page specification for approval as an ISO standard. If the ODF TC desires any information on these three topics, we already have access to all of this material via the Ecma-376 text and the Ecma's Disposition of Comments report, both of which will exist regardless of whether DIS 29500 is approved. There is absolutely nothing we cannot do now, given the materials we have now.
Whether things like the spreadsheet definitions in OOXML are "ISO-approved" or not is immaterial. We know the ISO review was shallow. We cannot assume that Excel compatibility information in OOXML is correct. We need to test and verify everything. Slapping an "ISO" label on OOXML doesn't make it more useful or more accurate for ODF.
In no way whatsoever is ODF hurt, harmed or even annoyed by the imminent demise of Microsoft's ill-conceived and reckless experiment in ISO.
But you can't implement all of Office's features in OOXML either. Macros, scripts, DRM, etc., are not part of OOXML.