From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Sun Jun 24 16:08:22 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 19:07:36 -0700 From: Patrick Durusau Subject: Re: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 In-reply-to: <00b301c7b6b1$095e9a90$1c1bcfb0$@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: 1182726463-7b3600690000-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: 1182726463 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, Stephen Peront wrote: > 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? > > Sorry, phone rang and I sent the message without reviewing it for completeness. Actually Annex E in part 2 gives some general rules about naming standards but doesn't cover this issue in particular. I was mostly trying to make everyone aware that there are rules by which standards are written and we are not working from a completely clean slate. > 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? > > As far as I know, it isn't covered specifically by the materials I cited. The question is one of confusion with *existing* trademarks. It is simply bad practice to create confusion in a marketplace by a choice of names (for whatever reason, I won't speculate on why the name in question was chosen). It really doesn't matter why a particular name was chosen. Confusion in the market place can occur whether two parties were even aware of each other or not. That is part of what I was suggesting about attending to the "text." Why the text was written as it was is largely irrelevant for our purposes. That it is in fact written a particular way is of importance to us. (I think this will help but not eliminate questions of motive, etc., which I don't think are productive discussions in this context.) Hope you are having a great day! Patrick > 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)