From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Sun Jun 24 15:34:37 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:33:48 -0700 From: Patrick Durusau Subject: Re: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 In-reply-to: <008a01c7b6ac$3be03cd0$b3a0b670$@com> Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1182724435-579c00460000-E618Iy 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: 1182724435 X-ASG-Whitelist: Client X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at insimail.com Stephen, Well, I agree that the naming issue is far from free from controversy but I don't think that should be a criteria for pursuit of discussion of the comment. BTW, I can't post the full link as it is horribly long but in general I would suggest ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2, Rules for the Structure and Drafting of International Standards, 5th Ed., which can be found at: http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3146825/4229629/sds_edit.htm (follow the link to the actual text), as one starting point for discussing comments and DIS 29500 in general. While our opinions matter a great deal, they should be guided by the rules and what DIS 29500 actually says. (Noting that as a former lawyer and biblical scholar, I tend to focus on what the text says, hopefully not what I would prefer for it to have said.) Of somewhat less immediate concern for the content of DIS 29500 are the JTC 1 procedural directives. http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0828.pdf Anyone who doesn't have enough to read already can peruse the development materials found at: http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3146825/4229629/sds_edit.htm I hope you are having a great weekend! Patrick Stephen Peront wrote: > > Hi Rob… > > So the argument here is that this committee should comment that the > naming of OOXML as a standard is confusing with the name of a product > in the “market” (i.e. OpenOffice). Isn’t that a “market factor”? > > I am confused, a) is it a good idea or b) not a good idea for this > committee to consider market factors? > > I disagree with the argument that OOXML is a bad name for a standard, > and think we should not comment on the naming of OOXML; especially > since we already know of a situation where commenting on the change of > the name has caused the defeat of another Fast Track standard. > Submitting this comment would imply that this committee agrees that > OOXML should be defeated as a standard (since we have proof of this). > > Patrick (and team), seeing as we have so many other comments to go > through, I would like to motion that we remove this comment from the > list of items we will consider submitting and therefore need to review > due to its controversial nature and potential confusion with the vote > of this committee. > > Have an awesome day! > > Cheers, > > -Stephen > > *From:* owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org > [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] *On Behalf Of > *robert_weir@us.ibm.com > *Sent:* Sunday, June 24, 2007 5:46 PM > *To:* incits-v1@incits-v1.org > *Subject:* RE: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 > > > Office Open XML is commonly misstated as Open Office XML, where Open > Office is the name of a product that competes directly against MS > Office. I've given numerous examples of actual confusion caused by > this choice of name. I've also cited the precedent of C++/CLI where > just last year another Ecma Fast Track with a similarly confusing > name, a confusion which Ecma also refused to address when it was > raised in the contradiction period, leading to the ultimate defeat of > that Fast Track. So commenting on the name of a standard, by this > precedent, is clearly in scope for JTC1 NB reviews of Fast Track > submissions. > > I would not presume that we as V1 name the standard ourselves. LOX was > suggested in jest. But I do propose (or actually second the proposal) > that we submit a comment requesting that Ecma change the name of the > standard to one which is not confused with existing technologies. > > -Rob > > ___________________________ > > Rob Weir > Software Architect > Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software > IBM Software Group > > email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com > phone: 1-978-399-7122 > blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/ > > owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org wrote on 06/24/2007 05:07:50 PM: > > > Hi Rob… > > > > On May 24th, Patrick said: > > > But, we are all adults, or at least of legal age, so even given the > > > history that some of the members of V1 "enjoy", I think we can be > civil. > > > > > > That is not meant to suggest that anyone should not feel free to say > > > whatever they like, but be aware that some comments are less likely to > > > produce useful responses than others. > > > > Will the change of a name really make this a better (or worse) > > standard for the US? > > > > I would argue that suggesting we rename from OOXML to LOX is not > > only demeaning to members of this committee that are actively > creating *new > > * document formats (i.e. Xinnovation) built on OOXML but also to the > > publisher of OOXML (i.e. ECMA). > > > > OOXML is distinctly different enough from ODF (having only one word > > the same) for us “civilized” beings to distinguish. > > > > I believe in our last meeting, the argument was made, by you, that > > we should not be considering “current market factors” as a way to > > determine a standard. And yet your research, below, is clearly based > > on “current market factors”. > > > > Also on May 24th, Rob (yes, you) said (referring to “home field > advantage”): > > > In any case, I have no interest in that kind of tactic. > > > > Are you comments below just a different kind of tactic or are they > > meant to add some kind of value to the integrity if this committee’s > > comments? If they are meant to add value, can you please help me and > > this committee understand how submitting a comment that suggests we > > rename the standard to the initials of a common flavor of cream > > cheese will in any way contribute to making this a better standard. > > > > Have an awesome day! > > > > Cheers, > > -Stephen > > > > From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org > [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] > > On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com > > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 3:06 PM > > To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org > > Subject: Re: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 > > > > > > > > > > > > What *does* move me to agree that the name "Office Open XML" > > > should be changed is that it is designed to cause confusion with > > > OpenOffice, a leading open-source ODF application. It is not the > > > purpose of the standards we work on to cause confusion, and > > > certainly not to deliberately cause confusion. The name should be > > > changed to something that avoids this confusion rather than > > > actively promoting it. > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > I'd second that. I've done some research in this area to see how > > often the name of the standard is misstated as "Open Office XML". > > This is happening everywhere, and by doing so is causing user > > confusion as well as diluting the value of the Open Office > > trademark. For examples, query Google for "Ecma Open Office XML" or > > "Microsoft Open Office XML". You should get zero hits for these > > phrases, but instead you get hundreds of hits, from the press, from > > analysts, even from Microsoft. > > > > I've updated my analysis of this problem here: http://www.robweir. > > com/blog/2007/01/amusing-but-still-confusing.html > > > > I'd like to see us submit a comment requesting a name change. Maybe > > "Legacy Office XML" or LOX. > > > > -Rob > > > > ___________________________ > > > > Rob Weir > > Software Architect > > Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software > > IBM Software Group > > > > email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com > > phone: 1-978-399-7122 > > blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/ > -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Acting Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Co-Editor, OpenDocument Format (OASIS, ISO/IEC 26300)