|
2008-10-03, 10:57
SC 34 plenary
I had slept deeply, I had slept long, and awoke in showroom condition ready to face the excitements of an SC 34 plenary: this is the forum in which all SC 34 members present meet to discuss and pass resolutions. In the event this went extremely smoothly: all resolutions passed with unanimous consensus by the attending NBs (Brazil, Canada, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Denmark, Finland, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Norway, South Africa, UK, and USA). Only one issue had caused contention, and that was smoothed away amicably over lunch.
The two most significant resolutions established two new working groups, WG 4 and WG 5.
WG 4 was the result of my recommendations following the work convening (the now disbanded) Ad Hoc Group 1. We had met in London in July and decided how we thought OOXML should be maintained. The recommendation was essentially very simple: this should be a full ISO/IEC standard under purely International (i.e. National Body) control. WG 4 is the forum in which that will happen. Although Ecma’s existing individual experts will participate in this group, Ecma will have no voting rights and has been constrained to a purely administrative role – the SC 34 Secretariat (Japan) has decided to retain Ecma’s services as a subordinate secretariat for the new Working Group. WG 4 will be convened by the eminent Murata Makoto (Japan), who’s strict impartiality (and strictness) will I’m sure keep WG 4 on the straight and narrow.
WG 5 is the home for “Document Interoperability” (a tweet I received on the subject from Simon Phipps, questioning whether documents could be said to interoperate sparked quite a discussion – in the end it was decided that yes, they could be said to). The immediate work for this working group is the new project working on 26300/29500 translation, but it’s likely I think that a number of new projects will start here before long. WG 5 will be convened by the excellent Dr Jaeho Lee (Korea).
My retirement?
With the arrangements made for WG 4, a vacancy arose for the convenorship of WG 1, and I was pleased to accept the honour of taking this role. It is a great responsibility, following in the giant footsteps of preceding convenors Charles Goldfarb, Martin Bryan, and Murata-san himself.
On a personal level it must also be said it is a relief to step away from the standardisation of OOXML. Whatever one’s views about the merits of the spec, I think there can be no disagreement with the thought that being heavily involved with its passage is both tiring and stressful. For now, I’ve had enough.
Impressions of Jeju
Jeju is a beautiful and charming place, whose people are unfailing kind and helpful. We experienced a full gamut of weather from sunny skies to driving rain and high winds as we experienced the outer bands of Typhoon Jangmi.
I took some snaps throughout these meetings to decorate this blog, but for a much better impression (and a sight of real photographic talent), Dough Mahugh’s photos of Korea are a must-see.
SC 34 celebrates
After the plenary, a few of us headed out to Jungmoon for some sightseeing and a bite to eat. After marvelling at an ooh-inducing sunset (aided in spectacle, it is said, by the air pollution from China) we toured some of the luxury hotels and casinos in the area before reaching consensus (with no dissent) that we’d prefer to eat a more rustic-style Korean barbeque. That we did, washing it down (naturally) with some more Korean vodka.
So, after a tough year, what is the mood in SC 34? Positive, is my impression. The tensions surrounding ISO/IEC 29500 have dissipated and all agree that we have made the best arrangements we could for stewardship of the Standard and progression of work around it. With two new working groups now established the character of SC 34 is bound to change, and it’s possible future meetings will be double, or even triple the size we are used to as we attract more International interest. The future is bright, and we look forward to meeting up again for our “Prague Spring” in March 2009.
|
stumble this |
digg it!
|
|
2008-10-03, 14:27
Congratulations on the new role.That is a hilarious picture of Jean Paoli! Did he know what was behind him?
|
|
2008-10-03, 15:14
The original idea was to have three working groups. What happened to the one for the maintenence of IS26300? Is it on ice until the issue of OASIS's approach to mainteneance of ODF is settled?By the way, groklaw is doing a real hatchet job on your SC34 reports, using them to talk about a Microsoft plot to take over maintenance of IS26300.
|
|
2008-10-03, 16:20
@IanGroklaw is the joke of all jokes.
They consistently ban people that opose their views. Pure censorship.
People with that kind of narrowmindedness that need to squash opposing views are scary.
|
|
2008-10-03, 17:37
@Ian: "using them to talk about a Microsoft plot to take over maintenance of IS26300"I'm afraid that many people, outside of Groklaw, will have the same analysis. By its lack of action and transparency (e.g. related to the appeals), JTC1 has lost the confidence of many people. So it's not a surprise to me that many people will want to avoid giving the control of ODF to SC34.
Lost confidence in its impartiality is the very high price that ISO and JTC1 are paying as a result of the OOMXL saga. ISO and JTC1 are now associated in the mind of a lot of people with the monopoly abuses of Microsoft, and whether this association is correct or not is irrelevant.
Perception is key when you talk about confidence...
|
|
2008-10-03, 18:22
@AlanI'm not entirely aure. Still, as they say - a manly man enjoys a joke against himself
@Ian
There would be no point in creating a working group to maintain ODF when SC 34 currently appears not to have the mechanisms to do it.
I really wouldn't worry about groklaw - nobody who knows anything about this takes that site seriously!
|
|
2008-10-04, 05:29
Alex, I am Alex from China.....
Guess what, I am now in Bristol! I leaved Jeju for OASIS forum in ditton. When OASIS forum closed yesterday, I went to Bristol for meeting a member of our TC. I happened to view your blog, and find you graduated from Britol!
|
|
2008-10-04, 05:40
Hi AlexGood to hear from you. I expect your body-clock is as messed up as mine.
I lived in Bristol for 7 years: it's a fun place, not least because Bristol City Council are big UK users of ODF! Have a good TC meeting and I look forward to seeing you in Prague, and hearing more about UOML.
|
|
2008-10-05, 10:33
Congratulations on the new role, Alex. I'm sure it will be a relief to get out of the firing line.@Alex: While I am not surprised that a group of people who are "the home for Document Interoperability” would come to the conclusion that it is not a tautology, I would be fascinated to understand the reasoning behind it if one of them cared to explain. It still seems to me that it is the role of implementations to interoperate, not standards, which at best can be harmonized and combined in the light of experience.
@Ian: While it's potentially appropriate for ISO29500 to be maintained at SC34 because of its origins in a class A liaison submission, a submission through PAS is not the same. JTC1 directives don't appear (to my non-expert eyes) to mandate maintenance of 26300 at SC34 and I am not aware that it has been negotiated with OASIS either. As Luc says, those facts together with the lack of transparency in the process makes it easy to conclude that the apparently unilateral decision at SC34 to "maintain" 26300 is in fact a "plot". I'd suggest the best way to dispel those rumours is to open up for public scrutiny.
|
|
2008-10-06, 18:54
@SimonI think the linguistic problem you outline could have existed if the title of the new WG was "document interoperation" because, as you say, documents do not interoperate - the systems that process them do. However, "document interoperability" here is taken to mean doing what is necessary to allow documents to be made interoperable in this way. That, anyway, was the consensus.
While it's potentially appropriate for ISO29500 to be maintained at SC34 because of its origins in a class A liaison submission, a submission through PAS is not the same. JTC1 directives don't appear (to my non-expert eyes) to mandate maintenance of 26300 at SC34 and I am not aware that it has been negotiated with OASIS either.
It's just a fact that JTC 1 has assigned the responsibility for maintenance of ISO/IEC 26300 to SC 34 by including the Standard in SC34's work programme.
As Luc says, those facts together with the lack of transparency in the process makes it easy to conclude that the apparently unilateral decision at SC34 to "maintain" 26300 is in fact a "plot". I'd suggest the best way to dispel those rumours is to open up for public scrutiny.
Leaving aside how an (incorrect) opinion has morphed into "facts" in the space of a sentence. I simply do not understand what you mean by an "apparently unilateral decision", and I am astonished you think anyone (other, perhaps, than the extremely ignorant and/or fanatical) could reasonably consider this a plot: look at the 15 nations who supported this. Do you really think they are all colluding in some kind of untoward pro-Microsoft activity?
Allow me to suggest that what in reality is happening is that the nations, many of whom have transposed ISO/IEC 26300 into national standards, are increasingly unhappy that when defects in the spec are discovered, they are not being (or sometimes, cannot be) rectified. Nations really do *not* like having published national standards with known defects. Now they find the direct line of communication they thought they had to the standardisers through their participation in JTC 1 does not appear to exist. In my opinion the current situation makes a mockery of the principles of International Standardisation.
What is unfortunate is that some of the uninformed, froth-mouthed commentary that has appeared on this topic (prime culprit: groklaw), has the real potential to damage ODF adoption, as it could mask the undercurrent of genuine International concern that exists. One way or another, that concern needs to be addressed.
|
|
2008-10-07, 19:51
alex.. carlos again here in
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/10/wheres-rob.html
rob make and interesting point about attendance of "the jeju meetings" and the lack of transparency regarding attendance list (in contrast of previous SC34 meetings )
"Although the resolutions of this meeting have been posted and discussed, they lack any record of the actual attendance of this meeting. It has been the constant practice of JTC1/SC34, for many years, to record the attendance of their meetings and to post this document to the SC34 document repository and to make it publicly accessible. But in this case, the attendance record is missing entirely. It isn't even available to SC34 members."
Do you expect that SC34 will publish the list? ( may be ISO will copyright it?
|
|
2008-10-08, 06:15
@CarlosSee my reply over at Rob's place ...
|
|
2008-10-14, 01:38
In my opinion the current situation makes a mockery of the principles of International Standardisation.
Never a truer word spoken, and it applies across the board to this situation. I have heard plenty of unhappiness over the past week that obvious defects in 29500 have been ignored.
It's just a fact that JTC 1 has assigned the responsibility for maintenance of ISO/IEC 26300 to SC 34 by including the Standard in SC34's work programme.
Can you point me to that assignment statement please? Is it normal for a specification submitted via PAS to be maintained by an ISO assignee and not by the original specifier? (Still non-expert, as you can tell)
|
|
2008-10-14, 06:15
@SimonPublished standards have defects: 29500 has plenty; 26300 has plenty. Gracious, even XML 1.0 has (comparatively) plenty (>200 errata last time I looked). The question is, how do they get fixed.
With 29500 there is the tried-and-trusted JTC 1 defect handling mechanism. If countries spot a defect in 29500 they can submit it to SC 34 *today* and the clock is ticking for a response. Now, when serious defects are found in 26300 (like the broken schema or the inability to use non-ASCII characters in file names), what happens? Are *you* happy with the current situation? Is is good for ODF?
There seems to be a view abroad that to be a friend of ODF one cannot criticise it. This has done enormous damage, I believe, the result of which will become plain over the coming months as implemenations which are strictly conformant will demonstrate non-substitutablity. When this happens the blame will lie at the feet of the specification.
On the question of PAS maintenance, you ask
Is it normal for a specification submitted via PAS to be maintained by an ISO assignee and not by the original specifier?
Directive 14.4.3.14 states, of a PAS submission: "ts maintenance will be handled either by JTC 1 or by JTC 1 designated maintenance group of the PAS Submitter in accordance with JTC 1 rules." Like much else in the Directives this clause is poorly drafted, but it is the contention of the nations that "in accordance with JTC 1 rules" invokes all the usual mechanisms of JTC 1 (what else could it mean?). The OASIS lawyers, I believe, take a different view -- that this this phrase means "in accordance with JTC 1 rules [which allow a different agreement to be negotiated]". Whichever reading prevails currently, I expect the nations to clarify this text in accord with their understanding shortly.
Can you point me to that assignment statement please?
The secretariat reproduces the work programme SC34 has been assigned at:
http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/open/S ... report.htm
|
|
We are sorry. New comments are not allowed after 30 days.
|
stumble this |
digg it!
|

Categories






