From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Sun Jun 24 15:44:28 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:43:07 -0400 From: Stephen Peront Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 In-reply-to: <467F1B7C.4020508@durusau.net> Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Content-language: en-us Thread-index: Ace2r93LnJHKi0OYRriU6LoiVgI89wAAM8Hw X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 Hi Patrick... Thanks for the links, seeing as there is a lot of text there, is there somewhere specific within these links that relate to our comment on the naming that you are asking me to review? As I understand it, it is being proposed that we comment on the naming of OOXML as being unacceptable due to the confusion with the name of the product called "OpenOffice", is that correct? If so, how is this covered in the links below? Have an awesome day! Thanks, -Stephen -----Original Message----- From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Durusau Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 9:34 PM To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: Re: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 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_e dit.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_e dit.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)