From patrick@durusau.net Thu May 17 05:43:19 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 07:16:49 -0400 From: Patrick Durusau Subject: DIS 29500 Contradiction of ISO/IEC 26300, part 1 To: Dave Welsh , Doug Mahugh , Frank Farance , Jerry Smith , Jon Bosak , "Levine, Leonard F CIV DISA GES-E" , Norm Walsh , "Lynne A. Price" , Rex Jaeschke , Richard Barber , Robert Weir , Steve Carton , Tim Schoechle , "Mason, James David (MXM)" , Kevin Trainor , Eduardo Gutentag Reply-to: patrick@durusau.net X-Accept-Language: en-us, en X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1179405787-3638000a0000-F3fpwQ X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.10.100.8:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi X-Barracuda-Connect: unknown[66.110.197.207] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1179405787 X-ASG-Whitelist: Client X-ASG-Orig-Subj: DIS 29500 Contradiction of ISO/IEC 26300, part 1 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at insimail.com Greetings, I am developing a comment on this issue and I wanted to start a discussion broken into parts so we have move through the various aspects of the issue in (hopefully) an orderly fashion. As a co-editor of ISO/IEC 26300, I have found I can't answer the question of contradiction with any degree of definiteness at present but I do consider it to be a factual question that is capable of being answered. (I cover how to undercover and evaluate that evidence in my proposed resolution of the comment.) Question 1: Does anyone disagree that the purpose of DIS 29500 is to provide an XML representation of Microsoft Office 97-2003 binary formats? (See Explanatory Report on Office Open XML Standard (Ecma-376) Submitted to JTC 1 for Fast Track, 4.6 High Fidelity Migration) (In the future I will simply say "Explanatory Report" and give a section or page number.) The reason I ask is that two or more standards may 'appear' to overlap but one has some purpose or function not fulfilled by the other and therefore avoid being considered a contradiction of the other. I take that to be the point of Ecma comments in both the Explanatory Report and in its Reponse Document, National Body Comments from 30-Day Review of Fast Track Ballot for ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (Ecma-376) "Office Open XML File Formats" (herein after Response) where the existence of standards that appear to cover the same ground are mentioned. Noting that the only relevant cases are ISO standards that appear to cover the same ground. What other standards bodies do or don't do is irrelevant for purposes of considering the "contradiction" issue in an ISO context. Hope everyone is having a great day! Patrick -- 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! From patrick@durusau.net Thu May 17 05:43:19 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 07:19:52 -0400 From: Patrick Durusau Subject: DIS 29500 Contradiction of ISO/IEC 26300, part 4 To: Dave Welsh , Doug Mahugh , Frank Farance , Jerry Smith , Jon Bosak , "Levine, Leonard F CIV DISA GES-E" , Norm Walsh , "Lynne A. Price" , Rex Jaeschke , Richard Barber , Robert Weir , Steve Carton , Tim Schoechle , "Mason, James David (MXM)" , Kevin Trainor , Eduardo Gutentag Reply-to: patrick@durusau.net X-Accept-Language: en-us, en X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1179405790-351d00130000-F3fpwQ X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.10.100.8:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi X-Barracuda-Connect: unknown[66.110.197.207] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1179405790 X-ASG-Whitelist: Client X-ASG-Orig-Subj: DIS 29500 Contradiction of ISO/IEC 26300, part 4 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at insimail.com Greetings! Continuing with this thread, I wanted to offer some observations on what constitutes "contradiction." The reason I ask is that two or more standards may 'appear' to overlap but one has some purpose or function not fulfilled by the other and therefore avoid being considered a contradiction of the other. Noting that simply offering another way to accomplish the same result is, in my opinion, a clear contradiction of an existing standard. The notion of "competing" standards is at odds with the purpose of having standards. That is aggravated if the only criteria for a "competing" standard is that someone wants a different way of reaching the same result. The JTC 1 Directives (1.2 General Provisions) are instructive on this point. They read in part: "..., standards which are developed shall reflect the requirements of the following Common Strategic Characteristics: * Interoperability; * Portability; * Cultural and linguistic adaptability." To have two or more "competing" standards that simply offer different ways to accomplish the same end has an obvious negative impact on the Common Strategic Characteristics of Interoperability and Portability. I would also make the general observation that the Common Strategic Characteristics of standards under JTC 1 are not described as being different based on how a standard enters the JTC 1 process. Whether by the standard or fast track or PAS process, all JTC 1 reviewed standards are held to the same criteria for approval. And that includes considerations of interoperability and portability. Which is no doubt why being an ISO standard is different from being a standard from any other source. Other organizations are free to have whatever criteria they deem appropriate but ISO also enjoys that same privilege. And for approval of a proposal for ISO status, it is the ISO criteria that is determinative. Hope everyone is having a great day! Patrick -- 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!