12/18/2007 11:32:39 AM #

        Very funny.  As someone who has experienced first hand an all out IBM sponsored assault to destroy my reputation www.robweir.com/.../cracks-in-foundation.html" rel="nofollow">www.robweir.com/.../cracks-in-foundation.html , with Rob Weir leading the defamation, i can appreciate the humor.  At the time though, i wasn't laughing much.

        Make no mistake about it though; this is serious stuff.  The Weir assaults, including the character assassination, politics o fpersonal destruction, and defamation crap, are totally sanctioned by IBM management.  A few days before Weir's "Cracks in the Foundation" appeared, Bob Sutor placed a heads up courtesy call to Sam Hiser asking if he wanted to go down with the remaining members of the Foundation, or, would choose discretion to be the better part of valor, distance himself and be spared the wrath of mighty big blue.

The assault itself was based on a number of lies, distortions and deceptions.  The short story correcting the collection of Weir lies and distortions is that i was personally involved with OASIS ODF going back to the original November 2002 founding group.  I remained an active member through May of 2007.  Hardly the profile of someone who had nothing to do with ODF.  I founded the OpenDocument Foundation in October of 2005 as a means of countering the growing influence and market-political corruption of large corporate vendors like IBM who were surging into the post OASIS ODF 1.0 arena,  To do this, we used the OASIS 501c(3) loophole to sponsor individual experts and developers from open source communities and other standards orgs.  A loophole suggested to us by an OASIS Board of Director member candidate who shared our concerns about undue corporate vendor influence.  

It is true that the OpenDocument Foundation had nothing whatsoever to do with ODF 1.0 – ISO 26300.  But then, neither did IBM, Novell, Google, Intel, Oracle, the OpenDocument Fellowship, and the OpenDocument Alliance.  These entities all joined (or were formed) after the April 30th, 2005 OASIS approval of ODF 1.0.  This version was then sent to ISO with the only corrections being those relating to errata.  ODF 1.0 actually was approved by the OASIS ODF TC in December of 2004!  The January – March 15th period of 2005 was spent on public and general membership review of the specification.  

There is an IBM caveat.  A very clever caveat.

Interestingly, IBM joined OASIS ODF two days prior to the final vote period.  IBM joined the ODF technical Committee on April 14th, 2005, right before the final vote on ODF 1.0 which took place between April 16th and April 30th of 2005.  Two days!  No meetings.  No work.  No contributions.  Zero participation.  But oh what a motherload of media coverage IBM continues to reap.

The May 2005 OASIS Press Release of course featured IBM as one of the primary sponsors of ODF 1.0.  Amazing what two days of membership without any work effort can get you.  Cynics would of course suggest that IBM waited until ODF success was pretty much certain and ducked in, barely under the wire, to claim credit.  

As someone who was there through out the previous 28 months of development, when it was not uncommon to have just six to eight active members working on ODF, the media and market posturing of IBM was a bit surprising.   Although at the time the handful of active members on the ODF TC welcomed all of the corporate vendors who poured in after the April 30th, 2005 approval.  Better late than never, we needed and welcomed the help.  No one knew then what kind of problems these waring vendors would bring with their subsequent contributions.  

But this is exactly the reason why we founded the OpenDocument Foundation – to balance out the corrupting and undue influence of powerful vendors more interested in goring the Redmond ox and seizing marketshare via government mandate legislation than providing mankind with what we thought was most important; a universal file format that was open, unencumbered, universally interoperable, web ready (compatible and fully compliant with W3C standards) and totally portable – as in application, platform and vendor independent.

As far as Foundation contributions, one only has to look at what we were able to contribute to ODF 1.2 work with the Formula and Metadata Sub Committees.  The Foundation sponsored upwards of 15 active members who did much of the work on these sub committees, including initiating the sub c's!  This far outnumbers and outweighs anything IBM contributed to ODF 1.2.  

It is true that an OASIS rule change ending the 501c(3) membership category also ended the Foundation's ability to sponsor the participation of independent experts.  The rule change went into effect in May of 2007, cutting our membership from 15 to 2.  Weir implies that our membership was cut because our members quit.  The facts however will confirm that not one Foundation member resigned prior to the rule change enforcement cutting off their sponsorship!

A few other points worth considering.  Weir claims that our da Vinci ODF clone of the MS-OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in for MSOffice doesn't exist.  That's funny for two reasons.  One is that IBM actually hosted our June 19th, 2006 da Vinci demonstration to CIO Louis Gutierrez and the Massachusetts ITD.  Two is that IBM is the only company to have inspected and fully audited the da Vinci source code!  In both of these matters, Rob Weir was a central figure, which you could never guess reading his "Cracks in the Foundation" post.

The June 19th, 2006 da Vinci demonstration was nearly two months in the planning, with the budget challenged CIO Louis Gutierrez asking us to work with IBM.  The demo was held in the Lotus International Conference Center in Cambridge, MA with Rob Weir, Doug Heintzman, and Don Harbison handling the hosting for IBM.  They actually gave this series of events a code name, operation ODF Plug-in “Deep Dive”.  

In the morning we configured da Vinci on a couple of IBM JAWS (Accessibility) machines and did an exclusive demo for IBM.  In the middle of our demo, we broke so that Rob Weir, myself, and the Foundation's CTO Florian Reuter could attend the OASIS ODF TC conference call.

In the afternoon, CIO Louis Gutierrez arrived with the Massachusetts ITD and other invited guest.  There were perhaps about 35 guests attending.   Rob sat in the front row of the tiered theater setting with our CTO Florian Reuter just a few feet away conducting the da Vinci demo on two very large screens.  I mention this because there was a very funny moment in the demonstration of the da Vinci Excel plug-in.  Sam and i were sitting off to the left side of the room looking across the many the attendees.  Florian had two versions of MS Excel running, with a clock in each screens corner.  One version of Excel was running the Microsoft XML Compatibility Pack Plug-in.  The other version of Excel was running da Vinci.  The contest was to compare the load time of a da Vinci ODF spreadsheet and a MS-XML version of the same spreadsheet.  The spreadsheet itself was a million row stresser designed exactly for testing spreadsheet application performance.

On the first run, da Vinci beat the MS-XML Compatibility Pack plug-in by 25 seconds.  Rob Weir came out of his seat with his ears literally looking like they had been pinned back by a gale fore wind.  There were ewws and ahhs everywhere, but Sam and i were laughing at Rob so much that Florian looked over to us with that wondering shrug as if to ask what if anything went wrong?  Unawares of why we were cracking up, and with Sam pointing at Rob who was only a few feet in front of him, Florian began to scroll through the spreadsheet.  As the audience grasped what a million row stresser actually looks like, and came to understand the load that was put on these accessibility machines, there were more ewws and ahhs.  

On the second run, the cache capability of MS-Excel kicked in and da Vinci posted a reduced but still triumphant 12 second lead.  Florian explained that a third run would result in a 3 second lead, with the MS-XML Compatibility Pack firmly and decisively taking over in a fourth run.   Rob had lots of questions.

The next day, June 20th, 2006, we visited the IBM Westford Campus where Rob Weir and Don Harbison were headquartered.  Once again we explained in detail that da Vinci is a clone of the MS-OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in and uses the internal conversion process of MSOffice applications.  We explained in full how that internal process works and why we needed a slightly modified subset of ODF compatible with the legacy of existing Microsoft documents to hit the fidelity demanded by Massachusetts workgroups.  They had a hard time however accepting our claims.  Because we used the existing MSOffice apps internal conversion process, we had no need for the secret MS binary blueprints.  Blueprints IBM was beyond obsessed about.  They really didn't care about the internal process we had tapped into.  All that mattered was forcing Microsoft to cough up the blue prints and and be forced to implement ODF no matter what the disruptive cost and loss of information to consumers.  

We also discussed at length why the year long Massachusetts pilot study involving all of the ODF vendor desktop alternatives had failed; as well as why we thought plan B, the Massachusetts ODF plug-in approach, would succeed.  For us, the results of the pilot study were clear.  It was all about MSOffice bound workgroups and the need to continue daily business processes without the disruptive cost of <i>”rip out and replace”</i> alternatives.  

We also learned about the 125 million Lotus Notes desktops that IBM was unable to convert to ODF.  Not that that problem would ever stop big blue from collecting millions in fees advising everyone else how to do it.  Like the City of Munich.  It's also no small secret that Lotus Notes is getting killed in the marketplace by Microsoft Exchange/Sharepoint juggernaut.  So we discussed this problematic hemorrhaging without coming to any kind of agreement.

We continued to believe in the results of the pilot study, and in Massachusetts' plan B, the RFi.  The way to change the world and end the monopolist dominance is to <i>neutralize and re purpose</i> MSOffice with an internal plug-in clone.   <i>Rip out and replace</i> is going nowhere.

Before we left Westford there was one last bit of business; arranging for IBM to conduct a full code inspection and audit.  Which we did.  But that meant weeks of legal stuff.  Although Louis Gutierrez had been stranded without a budget, thanks to fancy lobbying and pressure from Microsoft, he did have a plan.  The plan was to convince us to open source da Vinci, donating the code base to an ODF Developers Community he asked IBM and Oracle to put together.  First order of the day however was the code inspection and audit.

On July 4th 2006 in Belgium, Brussels, da Vinci was publicly demonstrated at an EU-IDABC Conference. This demo was attended by representatives of Sun, IBM and Microsoft. Rob Weir was well aware of the event, even though he did not attend (and we have mountains of eMails and conference invitation logs to prove this awareness).

On July 5th, 2006, the next day, da Vinci was again demonstrated to a private session of the EU-IDABC Experts Group. This was attended by Microsoft, but not Sun or IBM.  Yes, Microsoft got to see da Vinci up close and personal.  After a two hour plus demonstration and question period, Microsoft asked that Foundation members Florian Reuter and Elmar Geese leave the room.  They said that they had an announcement to make. Which they apparently did.

Later that evening Florian and Elmar caught up with Barbara Held.  She told them that Microsoft would be announcing the next day that they were sponsoring a freely available open source project to create an ODf plug-in "Translator" for MSOffice. And, as promised, the next day on June 6th 2006 Microsoft did in fact announce the Cleverage Translator Project.

Rob Weir was aware of these events near as they happened.

On July 7th 2006, after much legal haggling over the signing of a SELA agreement between the Foundation and IBM, we sent the full da Vinci source code with a video walk through to IBM's Bill Abt. Mr. Abt conducted over the course of the next four weeks a full audit and source code inspection of the da Vinci plug-in.

What's interesting about this is that Rob Weir had initially volunteered his services to inspect and audit the source code. We rejected the offer, explaining our concerns that Rob's involvement with IBM WorkPlace was an unacceptable conflict of interest. Mr. Abt however was eminently qualified to do the inspection.

The point here is that Rob had personally witnessed da Vinci being installed and demonstrated. He was well aware of the IBM inspection of the da Vinci source code and patent conflict audit. He was also aware of the satisfactory results. He was aware of the July 4th and 5th EU-IDABC demonstrations of da Vinci. So, of all people, Rob Weir is perhaps one of the few people on earth who could not possibly make the statements he made in his blog, www.robweir.com/.../cracks-in-foundation.html" rel="nofollow">www.robweir.com/.../cracks-in-foundation.html without knowingly lying. That Sutor had prior knowledge of this blog post fully demonstrates that this was a corporate sponsored defamatory assault on myself, Marbux, and the Foundation.

The question is, why would Rob Weir put his credibility and integrity on the line the way he did when he knows full well we can legally disprove his defamatory accusations.  The facts are well documented.  Weir is a liar.  So why would he do this?

On September 20th of 2007, Rob Weir arranged to hold a day long Interoperability WorkShop at the OpenOffice Barcelona, Spain conference.  The event totally bombed, to the extent that Rob Weir was threatening people not to talk about the disaster (i have the a copy of the eMail he sent out .  Everyone whose ever tried to exchange ODF documents between OpenOffice, Lotus Symphony, Google Docs, and KOffice knows, ODF has some serious interop problems.  That Rob Weir would hold a workshop and put these interop difficulties on public display i thought would be a good thing.  How else do you fix the problems of ODF interop except to confront them head on?  Shutting down the public comments though, as Rob did, is the equivalent of trying to erect an ODF Potemkin Village at the very time these interop problems must be solved.  

It is against this backdrop of the ODF Interoperability WorkShop fiasco that IBM's assault on the Foundation takes place.  You see, Marbux, Florian, Sam and myself had spent a full year trying to improve ODF interop in general, and ODF interop with MSOffice specifically.  This work began on July 12th, 2006 with the first of five ODF iX interoperability enhancement proposals – work that was vital to the success of ODF in Massachusetts.  From July of 2006 through April of 2007, we were fighting at OASIS to fix the interop morass that had been building over the now five years of work that went into ODF 1.2.  

It's not that the OASIS ODF TC doesn't want to solve the interop difficulties.  It's that for five years i've watched these issues get kicked down the road into the next phase and the next phase and the next phase.  Most of these issues can be viewed in the backlog of http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/ (emails and conference minutes) dating back to December 16th of 2002!  To us, Massachusetts represented the end of the line.  It was time for ODF to put up or shut up.  We had run out of kicking space.  We had to deliver ODF conversions in the real world trenches of Massachusetts.  Hard decisions had to be made without hesitation or regard to the challenges the big vendors would face getting their applications in line with the ODF interoperability enhancements and framework adjustments that simply had to be made.

The "Cracks in the Foundation" blog appeared on October 7th, 2007.  

Shortly after the Interop WorkShop disaster that Rob Weir officiated, Florian Reuter, Jasson Harrop, Bill Welty and i attended the Office 2.0 conference in San Francisco, October 17th-20th.  We were speaking on a Document Wars panel session with IBM's Arnaud de Hors.  Microsoft was also scheduled to appear but begged off at the last moment.  The run up to the Office 2.0 Conference was filled with conversations about our commitment to the W3C's CDF+, and our intent to do both an ODF documents and a da Vinci MSOffice conversion to the same CDF+ profile as a means of closing the difficult and problematic interop gap.  

The panel session started a conversation that we then continued for the next two and half hours over lunch.  Arnaud got a face full of impassioned concern about the future of the Web, the ODF interop problems, and why we thought the W3C's Compound Document Format with a desktop profile was the way forward for both ODF and the 550 million MSOffice desktops.  Rather than trying to solve the ODF interop problems at OASIS, where big application vendors vigorously protect their market plans, we thought it was far easier and infinitely more beneficial to focus on the rapidly emerging web platform, and simply convert both ODF and MSOffice documents to a single CDF+ (XHTM 2.0 – CSS – XForms - SVG) desktop profile.  

Since the occasion was an Office 2.0 Conference, we were very much on home turf with these arguments.  Everyone there was betting the future on HTML+ and the W3C.  Even though Arnaud is a former HTML – W3C expert,  he held to the IBM company line that ODF was the only desktop file format the world needed.   Which is kind of silly when your arguing with people who know for a fact that ODF was not developed to meet the needs of those 550 million MSOffice desktops!  We were there!  ODF was not designed for the conversion of MSOffice documents.  Nor was it designed to meet the interop needs of MSOffice desktops.  

IBM has to discredit us because anything that damages ODF or helps MS-OOXML hurts the IBM business plan of lobbying for legislative mandates requiring the rip out and replace of MSOffice.  The thing is, we don't care much for the IBM business plan.  Our focus is entirely on the needs of a marketplace trying to break the iron grip of relentless and determined monopolist.  If CDF+ can get the job done, and ODF can't, then the decision is easy.  Both are credible open standards.  Why not use the one that can solve the problem at hand – the non disruptive migration of 550 million MSOffice desktops to a free and open web platform future?  Besides, the ODF <> CDF+ conversion is a marriage made in heaven.  Even without the da Vinci MSOffice conversion to CDF+, the ODF conversion must be pursued without hesitation.  ODF documents have to be made web ready to be relevant to the future, and this is an easy way of perfecting that web readiness.

Besides, the Massachusetts plug-in RFi was a clear signal to all that IBM's "rip out and replace" approach is not going to work.  "Neutralize and re purpose" is the only pragmatic way forward.  But don't expect IBM to go along with that.  It's not part of their business objectives.

As for Rob Weir?  There are two things to say.  One is that he fancies himself a modern day Renaissance man.  A Hamlet if you will, acting out his antic disposition.  Really.  The other is that he is the IBM goon squad.

For those who are not hockey fans, the goon squad is the name given to a special brand of thugs every hockey team has on the roster.  Their job is to take out the talented and skilled hockey players on the other team using any means necessary.  Fist fighting, brawling, high sticking – anything goes as long as they get opposing high scoring skilled players out of the game.  And of course every hockey team has players whose only job it is to protect skilled players from goons.  As a member of the OASIS ODF TC since 2002, i had no idea the time would come when i needed that kind of protection!  It used to be a collegial group dedicated to doing something beneficial for mankind's digital future.  That was before the post ODF 1.0 swell of big vendors arrived with hard ball marketing plans and lobbyist busting political objectives.

Rob Weir is the IBM goon.  The Hamlet – Renaissance man stuff is a clever disguise, although i question the <i>“antic disposition”</i> stuff.  As i recall, that tactic didn't work out so well for Hamlet.  Nor does it work for the mafia bosses who have also tried to escape their guilt by taking on the appearance and disarming demeanor of clowns; an antic disposition.  

So what we have in Rob Weir is this image of a goon who skates out onto the ice whenever IBM's opposition scores a goal.  And anyone who interferes in any way with their business plans is the opposition.  His job is to take them out by whatever means necessary.  The thing is, the guy is wearing pink tights and spouting methinks and wherefore art thous.  Before you know it, the bastard sneaks up on you and is clubbing you to death with lies.  All the while yelling, “Welcome to ODF, you motherf........ son of a ..... rat nosed .... piece of ...”  

You get the message fairly quickly.  

Hope this helps.  Stay clear of the guy.
~ge~

Gary Edwards | Reply

12/20/2007 5:16:03 AM #

Gary, Let's cut to the chase and make it nice and simple.  If I'm wrong and you're right, then all you need to do is to make your plugin available for download, let people use it, and let them see whether it works.  I do not believe it works, but go head, prove me wrong.  I know you would relish the satisfaction of doing so, if you could.  Working code rules.  Paranoid delusional ramblings are a dime a dozen.

Rob Weir | Reply

12/20/2007 10:13:59 AM #

What chase?  Everything thing i said is true.  You sat right in the front row.  Do you deny that?  Ugh! Why bother asking a known liar to tell the truth about anything?

But here's the story for those who were not there.  The first version of da Vinci was optimized to produce and ODF 1.0 perfectly compatible with OpenOffice 2.0's ODF 1.0 implementation.  This is the version demonstrated on June 19th, 2006 at the Lotus International Conference Center in Cambridge Mass.

Of course, producing OpenOffice 1.0 means sacrificing the conversion fidelity of MSOffice documents.  The fidelity loss invariably occurs wherever lists, fields, sections, tables and page breaks are found.  This statement can easily be confirmed and demonstrated by converting those same test documents to ODF 1.0 using OpenOffice 2.0.  We know exactly where the bulk of conversion fidelity loss occurs, but since ODF 1.0 is a reflection of the way OpenOffice handles those same document structures, there isn't an effective way of dealing with the problem short of an ODF subset geared to compatibility with MSOffice documents.

For those who weren't there, the year long Massachusetts pilot study and subsequent plug-in trials included 350 test documents representing documents considered critical to on going business processes.  These docs were of course filled with examples of our five incompatible structures.

Massachusetts CIO Louis Gutierrez made the decision for us to focus first on the high fidelity conversion of the test documents, and worry about interop with OpenOffice 2.0 later.  He authorized the ODF iX subset using generic elements for the five structures with the caveat that we make every effort to get the subset approved and part of the ODF specification.  We agreed to re write da Vinci to ODF iX, with the caveat that da Vinci not be released publicly until the subset was approved and part of the spec.  ODF is an interop nightmare as it is.  An ODF iX subset would truly fracture the interop expectation the public expects.

The ODF iX version of da Vinci was delivered to Massachusetts in mid August of 2006, just prior to the release of Louis' mid year report.  We also delivered the road map and time line included in his report.  ODF iX da Vinci was demonstrated to representatives of the accessibility community as well as the many divisional IT departments.   And oh yeah, this version of da Vinci handled all 350 test documents.

On October 4th, 2006 Louis Gutierrez resigned, shortly after being notified by IBM's Doug Heintzman that IBM was unable to put together the ODF Community of benefactors Louis had requested as a solution to his rather serious budgetary problems.  All work on ODF iX da Vinci stopped that day, and we shifted our attention to getting ODF iX interoperability enhancements through OASIS.

The thing was, and still is, that we were not going to release the ODF iX version of da Vinci unless and until the iX subset was part of the approved ODF 1.2 specification.   The ODF 1.0 version failed the conversion fidelity tests, necessitating the ODF iX subset.  Not that Sun's plug-in for MSOffice, delivered a year later on July 2nd, 2007, also failed the same conversion fidelity tests!  The day after Sun delivered their plug-in, Massachusetts announced that MS-OOXML would be an acceptable ETRM format.

Most likely there was no need to even test all 350 documents.  The Sun plug-in would have failed on the first few.  Just as the ODF 1.0 da Vinci did a year earlier.

We have since been good to our word that ODF iX da Vinci would not be publicly released unless and until either the generic elements or the metadata model sunk into the metadata requirements document were approved. We continue to believe that it is too costly and disruptive to ask the 550 million MSOffice bound workgroup desktops to convert their billions of documents to ODF 1.0, 1.1, or the proposed 1.2 specification versions.  The problems of information loss are intolerable.

IBM's plan of “ripping out and replacing” MSOffice isn't going to work, as amply demonstrated by the year long Massachusetts pilot study.   The subsequent year long plug-in pilot similarly failed because of the incompatibility between the way OpenOffice implements the five incompatible document structures; lists, fields, sections, tables and page dynamics (breaks), and the way MSOffice implements those same structures.

We see the same problems in the Belgium and Denmark pilots.  Without a subset of ODF geared to compatibility with MSOffice, ODF is pretty much useless to the over 550 million desktops that represent 94% of the market.  No posturing by Rob Weir or anyone else for that matter can overcome the fact that ODF was not designed for the conversion of MSOffice documents.  Nor was it designed to be interoperable with the existing MSOffice installed base and the bound business processes they rely on.

There were of course many people who doubted our claims that a higher conversion fidelity could be achieved using a subset of ODF geared to compatibility with MSOffice documents.  IBM in particular insists that the only way to hit higher levels of conversion fidelity is to have access to the Microsoft secret binary blueprints.  While that may in fact be the case for <i>external</i> reverse engineering conversion efforts, it's not true of da Vinci.  The da Vinci conversion engine is a clone of the MS-OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in, and uses the same <i>internal</i> conversion process as Microsoft's own plug-in.

Besides, the MS binary file format is a moving target.  The secret blueprints aren't going to help even if IBM did have access.  On the other hand, the internal conversion process used by MSOffice applications is based on a very consistent methodology, which i've previously explained in public documents.

In December of 2006 we released to the public, as a freely available download, a version of da Vinci called ACME 376.  Instead of targeting conversions to ODF iX, which we were determined would not be released into the wilds where ODF interop would irrevocably fracture, we targeted instead XML encoded RTF.  Very cool, but not of much use except to demonstrate conclusively that the da Vinci plug-in exists, does work, and, is able to hit a conversion fidelity equivalent to that achieved by the MS-OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in.

We asked the world to test ACME 376, and many did.  Our promise then was that if ACME 376 could convert the needed documents with the required fidelity, then we would guarantee that those documents could similarly be converted to the ODF iX subset, with the caveat of OASIS approval of ODF iX.  Not a difficult guarantee since ACME 376 is the da Vinci conversion engine in the raw.  All that's needed is a target format able to hold the richness and varied nuances of MS documents.  Either ODF iX or CDF+ will do.  ODF 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 will not.

From July 12th of 2006 through February of 2007, there were five ODF iX “interoperability enhancement” approaches introduced to OASIS.  None of them passed or even made it through discussion.  The two killers for iX were the defeat of the infamous “List Enhancement Proposal” and, the failure to approve the interoperability aspects of the metadata requirements proposal.  By May of 2007 it was clear that we would not be seeing any of the ODF iX subset in ODF 1.2, or perhaps any future version of ODF for that matter.  

So we dropped ODF as a conversion target, and began work on XHTML 2.0 keeping a close eye on CSS 3.0.  By late August of 2007, our test on conversions of those same test MS documents to a mix of XHTML, CSS, XForms and SVG was proven viable.  By October we were working on da Vinci CDF+ for both WiCD Full and WiCD Mobile profiles.  In November we dropped the plug-in approach entirely and shifted to a collaborative application approach leveraging the da Vinci CDF+ internal conversion process.

We thought we did the entire ODF community a favor by not releasing ODF iX da Vinci into the wilds.  We don't want to be the ones to break what little ODF interop there is.  I would rather move on to CDF+ where the opportunity of connecting those 550 million MSOffice desktops to non MS web platform systems is the siren call of our times.  Especially with the Exchange/SharePoint juggernaut crushing everything in sight, and the W3C technologies so noticeably lacking from the emerging MS Stack of desktop, server, device and web systems.

In comparison, i'm hard pressed to come up with any reasons for releasing an ODF iX da Vinci other than to muck up life for the ODF Community.  Which i don't want to do.  Hell, i think CDF+ is the answer to all the show stopping ODF interoperability problems!  Going to subsets is not going to improve these interop problems in the least.  It's going to make them worse!  IMHO, a clean transformation process to CDF+ is the only way for ODF applications to go.

But i'll tell you what Rob, if you really want to see ODF iX da Vinci, i would be willing to release it to any government involved in a serious pilot study, and willing to consider a subset of ODF as a legitimate file format.  This could be Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, California, or New York.  If they are serious about a subset, then so am i.

Otherwise, what's the point?  I'm convinced the future is either CDF+ and PDF, or, that odd mix of MS Stack specific MS-OOXML, Flow Documents, and XPS.  So if you really want to see ODF iX, bring me one subset willing government and we will deliver ODF iX da Vinci.

One caveat though.  The minute one government pulls the trigger on ODF iX, da Vinci will be a free download to the rest of the world.  With 350 million MSWord desktops out there, the tables will be turned on IBM and Sun.  Unlike you, i'm quite familiar with the difficulties OpenOffice will have implementing the ODF iX subset.  You'll have to fix the layout engine to implement lists, tables, sections, fields and page dynamics in ways compatible with how MSOffice implements the same.  Good luck with that.  ODF iX da Vinci documents will be 100% interoperable.  Which will be good for the 550 million MSOffice desktops, but not so good for Lotus Symphony.

Or, you could do the smart thing and solve the impossible mess of ODF interoperability by working on a clean conversion of ODF <> CDF+.  That's actually a very easy thing to do.  Not only would you solve the current ODF interop nightmare by targeting conversion to an open and highly interoperable format, but all of your ODF applications would become web ready interfaces to a collaborative web platform worthy of intense business process development.  If da Vinci can pull off the conversion of MSOffice documents to that same CDF+ profile, the end user problems of document interoperability will quickly be resolved at the higher level of the web, and resolved in a very pragmatic way.  The web platform ready interop solution is a killer feature.

One last point.  I noticed you didn't deny any of my claims or statement of facts and events.  Pity.  I'm sitting on a mountain of eMails and documents between myself and IBM that you were certainly party to.  Are they part of my delusion too?  Don't think for a moment that prior to exposing you, an extensive review of the evidence in hand had not taken place.

What would you like to take up next?  Now that we're cutting to the chase?  The PDF-ODF digital signature work that you ripped off from our Massachusetts proposal?  Got that rip off documented too.  Or how about your accusations that da Vinci is not open sourced?  Shall we publicly go through the ODF Community proposal written at the request of Louis Gutierrez, that would have resulted in the open sourcing of da Vinci if IBM had come through with their part of the Massachusetts deal?  Or how about we discuss how IBM ripped off the OpenOffice 1.1.4 code base while it was under dual licensing, taking an open source project proprietary and closed?  Only to release it later as a closed, proprietary alternative competing against the very community that it was ripped off from?  With proprietary eXtensions connecting Lotus Symphony into the IBM cloud no less?

And you dare put us down for not open sourcing da Vinci?  Shameless.  Simply shameless.  

~ge~

Gary Edwards | Reply

12/20/2007 11:54:07 AM #

Working code rules?

Let me see.  The facts are that on June 19th, 2006 we spent a nearly a full day demonstrating our da Vinci plug-in at an event hosted by IBM.  da Vinci was installed on IBM owned computers running special accessibility software to prove the demo was real.  da Vinci was fully demonstrated on multiple public occasions, also attended by IBM representatives.  

And Bill Abt, an IBM engineer spent over four weeks conducting a full inspection and audit of the da Vinci source code.  A complete video walk through explaining the source code was provided to assist this inspection.

These events are well documented and recorded.  For sure there are many in the world who have not seen the da Vinci source code or sat through a full demonstration.  But IBM can not be counted among the many who wonder.  IBM has seen da Vinci up close and personal as no other company or group.  

Rob Weir is well aware of these events and did in fact personally participate at all levels except the actual code inspection.  In fact, Rob offered his services to inspect and audit the da Vinci source code, but was rejected due to obvious conflicts with IBM WorkPlace development.  

All of which leaves us with this interesting quandary.  IBM and Rob Weir cannot possibly be making any claim that da Vinci is a hoax or doesn't exist.  THEY'VE SEEN BY AUTHORIZED PROXY THE da VINCI SOURCE CODE UNDER A BINDING SELA!  What does a public release of da Vinci have to do with proving to IBM and Rob Weir that da Vinci is real?  That's been done.  The rest is just mountains of more hypocrisy 101.

Liar!

~ge~

Gary Edwards | Reply

12/20/2007 3:43:46 PM #

Gary, life is too short to read and respond to your rants in detail.  So I'll say again, put up or shut up.  Show the public the Plugin.  It doesn't even need to be open source.  If you are right and I am wrong, it would be trivial to prove it.  But if you are wrong, it will be trivial to prove that, once the plugin is in a form where its technical merits can be discussed in greater detail.

What are you afraid of?

Rob Weir | Reply

12/20/2007 8:35:48 PM #

Life might be short but surely there is time for the truth.  Maybe not in your world Rob, but for the rest of us that's the case.

The point of my posting the facts is to expose you for the liar you are.  But here you are, once again posturing as defender of the public when your real objective is to destroy and defame anyone who gets in the way of IBM business plans. Sorry the facts have come back to bite you so hard in the ass.  

Da Vinci has been publicly demonstrated on a number of occasions.  There are three occasions in Massachusetts that were semi public but involved in excess of 30 people.  Three times in California, same semi public setting.  And twice in Brussels, the first time public and second semi private.  There have been countless private demonstrations.

The thing is, IBM has not only seen both the semi public and private demonstrations of da Vinci, but also performed a professional inspection and audit of the source code!  And since you were personally involved in these events, you are perhaps the last person on earth that could honestly make the claims you're making that da Vinci doesn't exist.  

And that's the point.  You are not an honest person Rob.  Far from it.  In fact, in a short space of time you've managed to confirm by direct demonstration everything alleged in the Hypocrisy 101 blog.  Amazing.

I've stated many times that all work on ODF da Vinci came to a screeching halt on October 4th, 2006 when Louis Gutierrez resigned as Massachusetts CIO.  Which he did shortly after hearing from IBM's Doug Heintzman that IBM was unable to deliver the ODF community “benefactors” group Louis was counting on as a solution to the budgetary dilemma hard Microsoft lobbying had put him in.  

The reasons we stopped work is that we had seen, up close and personal, the difficulties discovered in the year long Massachusetts pilot study.  Without Louis' leadership, we did not believe the governments of the world would rise up and insist that the big ODF vendors in control of the ODF specification provide the two things most needed for a successful transition to ODF; an interoperability framework with some teeth, and, a subset of ODF targeting the problem of effectively converting existing MSOffice documents to ODF.  

For sure the big vendors are not going to do this on their own.  All of which the events of the past year since Louis' resignation have demonstrated.

Because of the prevalence of MSOffice bound workgroup business processes, the conversion to ODF fidelity demands are very high.  More importantly, these business processes demand that document exchange fidelity be maintained throughout round tripping of documents.  As you know, OpenOffice routinely destroys the markup of other applications, making inclusion of OpenOffice desktops in any mixed environments business process impossible.

So not only did we need an ODF iX subset in place at OASIS before it would make sense to continue work on ODF da Vinci, we also needed some teeth in the ODF compliance clause; an interoperability framework for ODF.  

Today compliance is optional, with applications picking and choosing which document exchange markup they will support, and which markup they will toss.  ODF interoperability is a mess because of this.  And because of this zero interop, the critically important “round tripping” of documents demanded by workgroup business processes becomes impossible.  

If workgroups are able to swallow the disruptive cost of “rip out and replace”, and make that transition to ODF, they still face a single vendor future.  Which is exactly what they were trying to avoid in the first place.  Because ODF compliance is optional and interop a mess, the only solution left for users desiring to implement ODF is to standardize on a single ODF application.  A situation that seems to work fine for big ODF vendors, who are all pushing their own particular ODF applications.  Some of these applications are bizarre contortions of proprietary eXtensions mixing ODF constrained implementations of W3C technologies with the real thing.  Interoperability in these situations becomes the exclusive province of the application layer(s) instead of being based on document compliance with the published standard.  Which is the only way to establish application independent interop and exchange.  IBM's Lotus Symphony used to be open source, (OpenOffice 1.1.4) but is now closed and filled with proprietary eXtensions reaching deep into the IBM Cloud.

Of course, since you represent one of those big vendors Rob, you are want to pass off these observations as delusional rants.  While this might help IBM's plan to protect the rapidly dwindling Lotus Notes installed base from the MSOffice – Exchange/SharePoint juggernaut, it puts a big hurt on ODF.  

To become the worthy alternative to the MS proprietary formats that all hoped ODF would turn out to be, these problems must be resolved.  The politics of personal destruction that you have engaged in might cover up the mess and confuse the many, but sooner or later your Potemkin village is going to collapse.  If the millions of MSOffice users are unable to effectively convert their documents, applications, and business processes to an ODF footing, you leave them no other choice but to go forward with Microsoft!  

Once Microsoft has migrated the lions share of today's desktop bound business processes to the MS Stack, users will be locked in for years to come through the cascading entanglement of MS Stack dependencies that include .NET 3.0, MS-OOXML, XPS, Flow Documents, XAML, XPS, Smart Tags, WPF, and on and on.

We had a choice to make last April, as it was clear then that the big vendors in control of ODF were going to stick with their “rip out and replace” government mandate strategy, and continue to block ODF subset efforts.  If you look carefully at how we made our arguments during the OASIS ODF “List Enhancement Proposal” donnybrook, one of our objectives was to make the record clear on the question of whether or not ODF is designed for vendor application innovation, or public desired interoperability.  The big vendors won of course, and public expectations of ODF interoperability lost.  

Nevertheless, the record is now clear as to what really goes on at OASIS ODF where vendors barter and exchange elements and attributes not for the purposes of the public good - as had been the case before IBM joined the effort, but for the purposes of marketshare and the political expediencies of “rip out and replace” mandates.  

The votes in April proved it was past time for us to move on to another format able to challenge the MSOffice – Exchange/SharePoint juggernaut.  

So now what you want is for us to drop what were doing with CDF+ to produce a dead end version of da Vinci whose only purpose is to prove what you and IBM have already verified in spades?  Interestingly i don't need to produce anything to legally prove you a liar Rob.  I've got excellent documentation of every fact i've put forth.  But it does look like whatever's left of your reputation hinges on whatever mileage you can get out of this phony public challenge.    So we'll go this far;  produce one government pilot that would seriously consider an ODF subset capable of the effective conversion of Microsoft documents, and we'll produce ODF iX da Vinci.  

Put up or shut up.  Liar!

~ge~

Gary Edwards | Reply

12/20/2007 10:59:28 PM #

Trackback from Open XML

cracks-in-foundation: suite du feuilleton.

Open XML | Reply

12/21/2007 1:59:02 AM #

Trackback from Doug Mahugh

Open XML links for 12-20-2007

Doug Mahugh | Reply

12/21/2007 2:57:46 AM #

Trackback from Noticias externas

Open XML links for 12-20-2007

Noticias externas | Reply

12/21/2007 4:34:31 AM #

with my respect Mr. Edwards.

Take a vacation, don't touch a computer for at least 1 year.

Your are a little over stressed ...

And one thing more: do you really believe that ODF failed in Massachussets because this 350 documents?

Massachussets failed because the big pressure of the big pockets ( $$$ ). You have to have big balls to fight this pressure, like Eric Kriss.

omz | Reply

12/21/2007 4:57:58 AM #

@ Gary,

Dear, oh dear.  I believe it was Voltaire who said "the secret of being a bore is to tell the whole story".  So I think you should seriously consider hiring an editor for your blog posts, mate.

It just goes on and on and on; waffle, waffle, waffle.  And you seem to think that "Liar!" is a new form of punctuation.

When you're reduced to calling people names, it's usually a pretty sure sign that you've lost the argument.

Cheers,

- Mike

Mike Brown | Reply

12/21/2007 10:07:54 AM #

Life might be short but surely there is time for the truth.  Maybe not in your world Rob, but for the rest of us that's the case.

The point of my posting the facts is to expose you for the liar you are.  But here you are, once again posturing as defender of the public when your real objective is to destroy and defame anyone who gets in the way of IBM business plans. Sorry the facts have come back to bite you so hard in the ass.  

Da Vinci has been publicly demonstrated on a number of occasions.  There are three occasions in Massachusetts that were semi public but involved in excess of 30 people.  Three times in California, same semi public setting.  And twice in Brussels, the first time public and second semi private.  There have been countless private demonstrations.

The thing is, IBM has not only seen both the semi public and private demonstrations of da Vinci, but also performed a professional inspection and audit of the source code!  And since you were personally involved in these events, you are perhaps the last person on earth that could honestly make the claims you're making that da Vinci doesn't exist.  

And that's the point.  You are not an honest person Rob.  Far from it.  In fact, in a short space of time you've managed to confirm by direct demonstration everything alleged in the Hypocrisy 101 blog.  Amazing.

I've stated many times that all work on ODF da Vinci came to a screeching halt on October 4th, 2006 when Louis Gutierrez resigned as Massachusetts CIO.  Which he did shortly after hearing from IBM's Doug Heintzman that IBM was unable to deliver the ODF community “benefactors” group Louis was counting on as a solution to the budgetary dilemma hard Microsoft lobbying had put him in.  

The reasons we stopped work is that we had seen, up close and personal, the difficulties discovered in the year long Massachusetts pilot study.  Without Louis' leadership, we did not believe the governments of the world would rise up and insist that the big ODF vendors in control of the ODF specification provide the two things most needed for a successful transition to ODF; an interoperability framework with some teeth, and, a subset of ODF targeting the problem of effectively converting existing MSOffice documents to ODF.  

For sure the big vendors are not going to do this on their own.  All of which the events of the past year since Louis' resignation have demonstrated.

Because of the prevalence of MSOffice bound workgroup business processes, the conversion to ODF fidelity demands are very high.  More importantly, these business processes demand that document exchange fidelity be maintained throughout round tripping of documents.  As you know, OpenOffice routinely destroys the markup of other applications, making inclusion of OpenOffice desktops in any mixed environments business process impossible.

So not only did we need an ODF iX subset in place at OASIS before it would make sense to continue work on ODF da Vinci, we also needed some teeth in the ODF compliance clause; an interoperability framework for ODF.  

Today compliance is optional, with applications picking and choosing which document exchange markup they will support, and which markup they will toss.  ODF interoperability is a mess because of this.  And because of this zero interop, the critically important “round tripping” of documents demanded by workgroup business processes becomes impossible.  

If workgroups are able to swallow the disruptive cost of “rip out and replace”, and make that transition to ODF, they still face a single vendor future.  Which is exactly what they were trying to avoid in the first place.  Because ODF compliance is optional and interop a mess, the only solution left for users desiring to implement ODF is to standardize on a single ODF application.  A situation that seems to work fine for big ODF vendors, who are all pushing their own particular ODF applications.  Some of these applications are bizarre contortions of proprietary eXtensions mixing ODF constrained implementations of W3C technologies with the real thing.  Interoperability in these situations becomes the exclusive province of the application layer(s) instead of being based on document compliance with the published standard.  Which is the only way to establish application independent interop and exchange.  IBM's Lotus Symphony used to be open source, (OpenOffice 1.1.4) but is now closed and filled with proprietary eXtensions reaching deep into the IBM Cloud.

Of course, since you represent one of those big vendors Rob, you are want to pass off these observations as delusional rants.  While this might help IBM's plan to protect the rapidly dwindling Lotus Notes installed base from the MSOffice – Exchange/SharePoint juggernaut, it puts a big hurt on ODF.  

To become the worthy alternative to the MS proprietary formats that all hoped ODF would turn out to be, these problems must be resolved.  The politics of personal destruction that you have engaged in might cover up the mess and confuse the many, but sooner or later your Potemkin village is going to collapse.  If the millions of MSOffice users are unable to effectively convert their documents, applications, and business processes to an ODF footing, you leave them no other choice but to go forward with Microsoft!  

Once Microsoft has migrated the lions share of today's desktop bound business processes to the MS Stack, users will be locked in for years to come through the cascading entanglement of MS Stack dependencies that include .NET 3.0, MS-OOXML, XPS, Flow Documents, XAML, XPS, Smart Tags, WPF, and on and on.

We had a choice to make last April, as it was clear then that the big vendors in control of ODF were going to stick with their “rip out and replace” government mandate strategy, and continue to block ODF subset efforts.  If you look carefully at how we made our arguments during the OASIS ODF “List Enhancement Proposal” donnybrook, one of our objectives was to make the record clear on the question of whether or not ODF is designed for vendor application innovation, or public desired interoperability.  The big vendors won of course, and public expectations of ODF interoperability lost.  

Nevertheless, the record is now clear as to what really goes on at OASIS ODF where vendors barter and exchange elements and attributes not for the purposes of the public good - as had been the case before IBM joined the effort, but for the purposes of marketshare and the political expediencies of “rip out and replace” mandates.  

The votes in April proved it was past time for us to move on to another format able to challenge the MSOffice – Exchange/SharePoint juggernaut.  

So now what you want is for us to drop what were doing with CDF+ to produce a dead end version of da Vinci whose only purpose is to prove what you and IBM have already verified in spades?  Interestingly i don't need to produce anything to legally prove you a liar Rob.  I've got excellent documentation of every fact i've put forth.  But it does look like whatever's left of your reputation hinges on whatever mileage you can get out of this phony public challenge.    So we'll go this far;  produce one government pilot that would seriously consider an ODF subset capable of the effective conversion of Microsoft documents, and we'll produce ODF iX da Vinci.  

Put up or shut up.  Liar!

~ge~


A few comments:

Sorry about the numerical transliteration.  There are 135 Massachusetts test documents with 15 more documents we have thrown in for testing purposes from the CleverAge and the Prince Projects.  So there are only 150 critical test documents, not 350.  Sorry.

My argument with IBM is won or lost based on the truth; which in turn is based on documented facts concerning events, actions and discussions, decisions and declarations.  The only reason i'm so aggressively confrontational and accusatory is that i know the facts are on my side, and can be proven in a court of law.  I'm not being reckless here.  It took some time to get all my ducks in order.

IBM's assault on my character, credibility and contributions took place back in September of 2007.  I've been very careful to make certain that the documentation for a legal defense of my assertions is in place.  I know full well what is at stake here, and the consequences of publicly calling someone a liar.  I'm not reckless.  The facts are clear here and well documented.  And my guess is that any one of you would do the same if you were similarly dragged through the mud by a giant corporation thinking themselves above the law.  Especially if the facts were so totally on your side as they are on mine in this case.

Boring or not, the "whole story" is all i have.  The truth is in the details and documented facts.  It's my only defense against the slanderous assault IBM has launched to destroy my credibility, and destroy any hope of a plug-in based solution that might stop the MSOffice - Exchange/SharePoint juggernaut.  IBM's “rip out and replace” - government mandate approach is dead in the water; going nowhere.

You've seen first hand how anything less than the whole story is spin sugar in the hands of a skilled spin master. Is there another way of getting to the truth?  Sorry the facts are boring.

And yes, ODF failed in Massachusetts because it is impossible to implement ODF where MSOffice workgroups dominate critical day to day business processes.  The test documents were selected because they reflect these business processes.  

Lobbying pressure form Microsoft resulted in Louis Gutierrez having to somehow implement ODF plug-ins for MSOffice without a budget.  The budget suspension however came after the year long pilot study concerning "rip out replace" ODF alternatives.  My understanding is that the initial pilot cost over a million dollars.  And it failed miserably.  So much so that the final 300 page document and attending wiki collection was unceremoniously buried from public view out of concerns for the future of ODF (this is not documented, but an assessment based on first person conversations).  

The cuts however only impacted the year long plug-in pilot, forcing Massachusetts into a corner where they could not pay for or fund any of the plug-in proposals.  

As part of Louis' ODF Community solution to this budgetary problem, we agreed to donate and open source both our da Vinci and our InfoSet technology in exchange for the funding to complete the Massachusetts plug-in design (which was quite complex).  IBM and Oracle were asked by Louis to put together an ODF Community "benefactors" group that would fund this completion.  All benefactors would have lifetime Board of Director seats with Massachusetts, California and the Eu-IDABC, as well as Apache license access to the otherwise GPL da Vinci - InfoSet code base (InfoSet is useful as an embedded conversion engine).

IBM tried to push the ODF Community concept even further, suggesting the creation of a patent protected umbrella for ODF related projects based on da Vinci, InfoSet and OpenOffice code.  These discussions were finalized just prior to the OpenOffice.org conference in Lyon, France - where IBM and Oracle were scheduled to make their pitch to the other IBM selected benefactors (Sun, Google, Intel, Novell and Nokia).

Shortly before his October 4th, 2006 resignation, Louis was informed by IBM that they were unable to put together the benefactors group.  

This story might bore you, but it is a truth that i can fully document.  And, I try very hard not to embellish or go beyond what i'm confident i can defend in a court of law.  What would you rather have me do?  Pull a Rob Weir and pass the truth off as delusional rants without ever addressing any of the factual assertions?

This is hard for many to accept, but ODF has serious interoperability problems.  It simply wasn't designed for the conversion of existing MSOffice documents, or interoperability with existing MSOffice desktops.  Go ahead.  Try it and see for yourself.

The conversions problems however can be effectively handled by an ODF subset designed exactly for the conversion of MSOffice documents.  Couple that with a much needed interoperability framework, and ODF can be made to work.  We're talking five generic elements here!  Not the thousands of pages of application specific elements and attributes that would no doubt result if Microsoft were to somehow join the ODF TC.

The use of the ODF iX subset would not in any way lesson the current 85% conversion fidelity between MSOffice documents and OpenOffice.  Nor would it in any way improve that fidelity (unless of course OpenOffice were to fully implement and support the five generic elements - which itself is a stretch in that OOo only partially implements Section 1.5 of the ODf 1.0 spec).

The only impact of ODF iX subset is that 550 million MSOffice workgroup bound desktops would be able to effectively implement the ODF subset as an alternative to MS-OOXML; and make the difficult transition toward interoperability with open source - open standards systems.  The record is clear though.  The OASIS ODF vendor dominant and controlled Technical Committee opposes these interoperability enhancements.

Oh, i've made another strong assertion.  But check the voting record!  The last official ODF TC vote i reviewed had Sun with six votes, IBM with three, and one independent.  The truth of my assertions is documented in the voting record of the OASIS ODF TC.  Don't argue with me, argue with the facts in evidence; the actual voting record of the OASIS ODF TC that is public.

Any other questions?

~ge~

Gary Edwards | Reply

12/21/2007 11:07:42 AM #

@Gary
I was actually joking earlier, about the need for an editor, mate, but now I see that should have been serious.  You really do need an editor, don't you?

>> [ODF] simply wasn't designed for the conversion of existing MSOffice documents
Now we're getting down to the nitty-gritty aren't we?  And the thing is, you're probably right: ODF *doesn't* represent legacy Microsoft formatas as well as MOOXML.  In fact, I'd bet the farm on that.

The thing is though, that doesn't matter anywhere near as much as you think.  You bang on like the original Microsoft proprietery fomrats were laid out in the book of Genesis.  (Other religions, please insert your faith's equivalent scriptures here). Well, I've got news for you: they weren't.  When I got my first job in IT, the de facto standards for office apps went thus:

* WordPerfect for word processor files
* Lotus 1-2-3 for spreadsheets
* dBase for databases
* Harvard Graphics for presentations


Along comes Microsoft, who were already supplying our OS, with a deal that we couldn't refuse: they would sell us their  kmock-down prices, as long as we  agreed to buy the Microsoft product where it exists in any market.  Is such a contract even legal, anymore?  Whatever, it was legal then.

So, out went Lotus CCMail (coloured emails!, a bit thing in 1993) and in comes MSMail (as Exchange was known then).  Only black and white emails instead of CCmail's coloured ones?  Oh whatever.

If I'm honest, 1-2-3 and Harvard Grahpics weren't really used by us that much, so I didn't really miss them.  But WordPeferfect as another matter.  We had an awful lot of WordPerfect files, and an awful lot of users that were familiar with the product.  So off to MS Word we went. Truth be told, I was quite happy about this at the time.  WordPerfect for Windows 5.1 (their first Windows version) ran like a dog with no legs through treacle.  (I knew not then about Microsoft's machinations to enure that this was the case).  Now, we had many thousands of documents in WordPerfect format.  You know what, we managed to convert them to Word format, without too much bother.  The world continued to turn.

This has all happened before, is my point.

Cheers,

- Mike

Mike Brown | Reply

12/21/2007 12:01:23 PM #

Hi Mike,

This is confusing.  You admit the obvious;  ODF was not designed for the conversion of MSOffice documents.  OK.  Then you suggest it doesn't matter because we've been stuck before?

Is there a solution in there somewhere?

Here's the way i see it.  The world is going to move to structured, web ready, portable documents in some sort of XML format.  The only question is which one?

There are three choices for transitioning the rich legacy of MSOffice productivity documents: MS-OOXML, ODF and CDF+.  Each has their pros and cons.

This transition to portable web ready documents is going to occur no matter what you or i have to say.  The transition will be based on pragmatic concerns rather than religious fervor.  Microsoft currently owns 94% of the installed base marketshare, and has a decided advantage in this transition.

The transition itself involves two aspects.  The first is that of unstructured application specific/bound to structured and portable.  The second is that the movement of documents leads the movement of bound business processes.  Today the majority of these problematic business processes are bound to the MSOffice workgroup.  Tomorrow they will be migrated to the web platform, where the collaborative productivity advantages of converged desktop, server, device and web systems will leap in ways we've never imagined.

Control the file formats, and you control the all important migration of these bound business processes.

The plug-in architecture can be used to effectively neutralize and re purpose the over 550 million MSOffice bound desktops. This however is not enough.  The real target remains the migration of those bound business processes to open source - open standards - W3C technology based web platform systems.  

Microsoft is of course going to to try to controol the XML file format conversion, and thereby control the migration of these bound business processes to the MS Stack of applications, services and web systems.

So let's cut to the chase.  If you can't effectively convert these MSOffice documents to ODF, what do you convert them too?  

Remember that your conversion is directly tied to the what happens next to bound business processes. That's the big enchilada in this equation.

Microsoft has of course made it stupidly easy to convert existing documents to MS-OOXML, using the MS-OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in. And, with the Exchange/SharePoint developers Hub and the recently released ,NET 3.0 SDK, they are ready to fully migrate those business processes.  And do so without disruption.

Is there an alternative?

Well, we admit that you can't effectively convert existing MSOffice documents to ODF. ODF was simply not designed for this challenge.

Other alternatives do exist though.  You could convert to an ODF subset that is designed exactly for the conversion of existing MSOffice documents.  The problem is that the big vendor controlled OASIS ODF TC would never approve such a subset.

Or, you could convert to a CDF+ desktop profile.

Beyond that, you really don't have a whole lot of alternatives here.

Given that we went through the OASIS ODF process with our ODF iX subset and was unceremoniously shot down on all fronts, that left us with only two choices.  Work with MS-OOXML.  Or, convert to CDF+.

We chose CDF+.  And Rob Weir is noticeably pissed.  The ODF peasants with pitch forks are outraged.  But what is their solution?  

Turns out their solution is an intolerably disruptive "rip out and replace" that has failed in every government testing pilot tried.

At the end of the day ISO isn't going to dictate what file format users embrace.  Pragmatic productivity needs will rule.  Which makes the choice one of either MS-OOXML and a future bound to the MS Stack, or, the W3C and CDF+.  

We'll take the W3C and CDF+, thankyou.

~ge~

Gary Edwards | Reply

12/21/2007 2:05:10 PM #

Mike - are you an IBM employee mate?
I see there's a Mike Brown listed in the UK here ... www.ibm.com/contact/employees/servlets/lookup

Tom | Reply

12/21/2007 4:18:48 PM #

If Mike Brown is the Mike Brown at IBM Portsmouth then it makes some difference I think. His intention is to make Gary Edwards seem like a bore by going into the details which show how Rob Weir of IBM is lying.

Rob Weir isnot defending against this or denying it. And Mike Brown is trying to reflect the story onto Gary Edwards personality.

If Mike Brown is the IBM Mike Brown then I think it is an indication that IBM is behavong really badly in this debate with lies and character assasinations - just as Gary Edwards is saying.

So, Mike Brown, are you IBM employee in Portsmouth?

Tom | Reply

12/22/2007 4:20:02 PM #

This whole story is better reading than the newspapers.

Why doesn't someone contact Bill Abt on this, if he is still at IBM.

http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/4/10/201

He won't be back from vacation until January though.

www.cocoabuilder.com/.../194975

Gareth Horton | Reply

12/22/2007 5:33:15 PM #

I like how R Weir's responses confirm jlund's argument.

anon | Reply

12/23/2007 11:11:21 PM #

@Tom,

Ye Gods!  There's a Mike Brown at IBM in Portsmouth, UK?  I thought that I was the only one in the entire universe with such a rare name!  It's a real shock to find out that I'm dead common, I can tell you.

As Jesper says, "Why does it matter?"  (Thanks, Jesper).  My arguments are either sound or they're not and should be tackled on their own merits (or lack thereof). On none of my postings on any OOXML blogs do I attack people personally on the basis of who they work for (e.g "paid Microsoft shills" etc).  In fact, I try not to attack anybody personally at all.

Yes, I posted that Gary's posts were, IMHO, too long, and were coming across as boring.  You may consider that a personal attack, but he doesn't appear to have taken it that way, and has answered my criticisms in a rational manner.  Can you not do the same, rather than questioning my own motivations?  (And really, if that's not a personal attack, then what is?)

So, I do not consider myself under any obligation to answer your question, but just this once, I will.  No, I am not Mike Brown, the IBM employee from Portsmouth UK.  I'm not even in the UK, in fact.

Happy now?

Cheers,

- Mike

Mike Brown | Reply

12/24/2007 12:18:16 AM #

@Gary,

You write a very concise and well reasoned summation of the current situation.  I agree with much of what you say, and yet - surprise! - I come to some different conclusions.

>> you suggest that it doesn't matter
I said that it doesn't matter as much as you think it does.  My entire point was, as my concluding line says, "this has all happened before".  It has been done in the past and can be done again.  Companies' Office documents were once in file formats other than Microsoft's.  Those documents were then moved onto Microsoft formats, and they can be moved off them again.


>> the movement of documents leads the movement of
>> bound business processes. Today the majority of
>> these problematic business processes are bound to
>> the MSOffice workgroup
Okay, here's where we part company.  Since my motivations are being questioned by others on this blog, let me declare a major interest here: I happen to be Lotus Notes developer, so I flatter myself that I know a thing or two about documents and business processes.  And I always have real problem when I hear people talking about the "Office platform" or, as you call it, "MSOffice workgroup".  It sounds good, but what exactly does it mean?

You mention "bound business processes" without actually defining what they are.  My own experience is that most companies' "business processes" in this regard consist largely of users emailing Word files around to each other as attachments on email.  You know the kind that I mean: "here's the latest version; please review, amend and then email on to Sheila for her comments" and so on.  Before too long, nobody knows who's got the most recently amended version, and whether it contains Bill's amendments and not Sheila's and so on so on.  Hard to believe that such stuff still goes on in 2007, but it does; even in companies where the technology exists to do something better.  And such a "business process" isn't really a business process at all, IMHO, and is certainly not one "bound to the MSOffice workgroup" in any way (excepting that you probably used MS Word to create the attachment).  So it can be dismissed from any discussions from a move to ODF or OOXML, do you not agree?

MS Sharepoint is an attempt to address document storage and business process concerns -  like Lotus Notes and Quickr (on the IBM side) also do.  Although I'm sure it's selling like hotcakes, Sharepoint is still a relatively recent product, however.  Are you counting Sharepoint as part of the "MSOffice workgroup"?  If not, then what exactly is the "MSOffice workgroup"?  Microsoft backed off from positioning Exchange as any kind of application development or workflow environment a number of years ago.  It's now simply email, addresses and calendaring, which is not "workgroup" at all in my book.

So, is the "MsOffice workgroup" a bunch of VBA macros, stiched together to make a rudimentary workflow system?  I don't think that should be counted as a sustainable business process either.  Apart from anything else, the future of VBA is decidely uncertain, having already been unceremoniously ditched from the impending version of MS Office for the Macintosh, for example.

Cheers,

- Mike

Mike Brown | Reply

12/26/2007 12:47:41 PM #

Trackback from Pensamentos e opiniões abertas sobre Tecnologia

Novidades Open XML, ODF, interoperabilidade e outros

Pensamentos e opiniões abertas sobre Tecnologia | Reply

12/27/2007 7:05:38 PM #

I would be much happier if Mr. Edwards had fewer images of me wearing pink tights and ice skating.  Although everyone is entitled to their own fantasies, that one probably best kept private.  

The number of Microsoft bloggers, from Jerry Fishenden down to Doug Mahugh and Oliver Bell, who think that Gary's ramblings are newsworthy shows the bankruptcy of their argument.  His conspiracy theories have been reviewed by real journalists, found wanting and dismissed.  This happened weeks ago.  The only place they seem to still have exposure is on Microsoft blogs.

Is this just a diversion?  Why does Microsoft not address the promises made that Microsoft would hand over OOXML to ISO control, promises made while at the same time Microsoft was drafting a proposal to do exactly the opposite?  What about promises made to NB's that Microsoft would address all NB comments, promises now now being abandoned under a ruse of "deprecation".  Why not address the issue of why Ecma, by their own choice, refuses to make their responses to the NB comments public?   Why not address the question of why the file format for Office 14 (Office 2009) is not being created in an open process in Ecma, but is being developed entirely behind closed doors at Microsoft, contradicting earlier statements that control was being handed over to ISO for future versions?  

All you can do is draw your readers to a rambling post by a discredited crackpot where I am visualized in pink tights ice skating?  Is that the best you have, guys?  You're going to need more than that.  A lot more.

Rob Weir | Reply

12/28/2007 1:26:56 AM #

I've enjoyed reading this.
It's great to see Rob Weir proven to be the liar and defamer that he is!  And that his posts to this very blog entry demonstrate that he's well learned in the lessons of hypocrisy of which the blog entry speaks is just gravy!  

Chris | Reply

12/28/2007 1:46:30 AM #

Oh, by the way, Rob, you talk of "Is that the bet you have, guys?".  Well, look in the mirror.  Is your FUD regarding ECMA/ISO maintenance/ownership of the OOXML standard now the best YOU have?  Why not deal with the REAL issue at hand, which is that all evidence points to ECMA fixing all of the thousands of complaints that you (IBM) convinced countries to file against OOXML, and that OOXML is well on its way to ISO certification?  (See Brian Jones' blog entries of 2007-12-21 and 2007-12-11.)  And as a polished, feature-complete spec (of which ODF 1.0 can claim neither)?  That you've moved from technical issues to this bogus ECMA/ISO mantenance/ownership issue speaks volumes.

How's it feel knowing that your grand strategy (which was not about a common format for the good of the world, but was about a way to get everyone to dump MS Office and replace it with IBM ware) is headed for complete and utter failure?  Moreover, how's it feel to know that more and more people are coming to the realization that you are little more than a propagandist liar and defamer?

Chris | Reply

12/28/2007 3:47:57 AM #

@Chris,
>> you [Rob Weir] you are little more than a
>> propagandist liar and defamer
As I said earlier, when you resort to name calling it's a sure sign that you know that your arguments aren't strong enough to stand up on their own merits.

>> your FUD regarding ECMA/ISO maintenance/ownership of
>> the OOXML standard now the best
How is this FUD?  Did Microsoft promise that ownership of OOXML would rest with ISO or didn't they?  And did they then reverse that promise or not?

>> all evidence points to ECMA fixing all of the
>> thousands of complaints
We've had some promises to fix some of the problems, and that's all to the good.  But that's all they are, so far: promises.


>>a way to get everyone to dump MS Office and replace it with IBM ware
Which "IBM ware" is that, pray tell?  As far as I'm aware, IBM sells no MS Office-equivalent products that use ODF.  So, where's the profit motive for them?

Mike Brown | Reply

12/28/2007 4:16:05 PM #

@Chris, I've been proven to be a liar?  That is news to me.  I believe I've said nothing but the truth.  If you assert the contrary, then please point out the details, what you believe I lied about and what evidence proves this assertion?  Please be specific.  Since I appear to be a notorious liar in your mind, it should be trivial for you to come up with at least single example.

And why not give your real name and affiliation as well? It is very easy to stand there in the shadows and call other people liars without evidence or proof.  It is quite another thing to have the balls to do so without anonymity, putting your real-world reputation on the line, like I do every day.

So come on, boy, show me what you have.  Or are you afraid?

Rob Weir | Reply

12/29/2007 1:59:47 AM #

@Rob

Can you read?  The proof that you are a liar is in this very thread.  Gary Edwards has you dead to rights, and his evidence stands unrefuted by you.  And I've seen many other indications of your lies, half-truths, etc.  But you wanted an example, well look at the very thread that you are posting in.  The proof is there for all to see.


"So come on, boy, show me what you have. Or are you afraid? "

LOL
How old are you, twelve?

Is "Are you afraid" your favorite catch-phrase?  I saw you post similar on Brian Jones' blog.  It went along the lines of, "How come you don't break ISO rules and openly post the pending responses to OOXML objections?  What are you afraid of?".  And I've seen you use variations of the phrase elsewhere as well.  It's so tired, and nothing more than a very pitiful attempt to change the subject from the matters at hand to whether someone is "afraid" of something.  Really, it makes you sound like a child on a playground.  Grow up.

My name is Chris, and I have no affiliation regarding this issue, but what does it matter?
IBM pays you to publicly propagandize these issues, so you have no choice but to make yourself known and put your rep on the line (which you've done quite well in sullying).  I'm not being paid, so I have no reason to make myself known if I don't want to.  Sorry pal, but those are the rules.

And your hypocrisy is palpable, as I've never seen you challenge the anonymity of your sycophants that post to your own blog calling Brian Jones a liar.  Start filtering out all personal attacks against your adversaries that are posted by anons at your own blog before whining about anons calling you to task for your own lies.

Chris | Reply

12/29/2007 4:02:39 AM #

@Chris, given the opportunity to raise even a single specific example, you failed. You presented no example, no evidence, and certainly no proof.  You failed publicly, for all to see.  You have nothing.  

Let's get down to the basics, which should be known to any 14-year-old boy.  But I'll review it especially for you.  To show that person X has told a lie Y, you need to:

1) Identify X
2) Identify Y
3) Show that person X has stated Y
4) Argue that Y is not true
5) Argue that X knew that Y was not true

Otherwise, you have nothing.  

So far you have only achieved step #1, asserting that X = "Rob Weir".  This isn't much of an argument, is it?    

So, I'll give you one more chance.  Give us a quote.  Where did I lie?  What exactly did I say, and what evidence do you have that this was false?  Be specific.  Tell us all.  Don't change the subject, don't deflect.  It is time to back up your assertions.   You claim that you have many examples.  Give us just one, if it is not too much trouble for you.

Also, how about give an example where I have anonymous commenters on my blog calling Brian Jones a liar.  Please back up that assertion with even a single specific example.  Post a URL for us all to see.  An comment post like that would be against my blog's comment policy and would ordinarily be removed.  I do not believe that any such comments exists. But please prove me wrong on that.  Again, all you need to do is provide a URL.  I hope this isn't too much to ask for, too much of an imposition on your time.  

So there you go.  Never will you have two easier ways of proving me wrong.  Let's see if you can back up your own claims, or whether you will change the subject yet again.  Time to put up or shut up, Chris.

Rob Weir | Reply

12/29/2007 3:57:33 PM #

Trackback from Weblogul lui Zoli

Lectia de ipocrizie

Weblogul lui Zoli | Reply

12/31/2007 3:42:20 AM #

Trackback from Doug Mahugh

Open XML  blogging in 2007

Doug Mahugh | Reply

12/31/2007 5:40:04 PM #

Rob,

You have yet to address the questions that have been raised by Gary Edwards post.   People seem to be calling you a liar, not as resort to name calling, but because you have yet to give a straight answer.

You have not responded to:

* Did you or did you not try to conceal the results of the interop event that Edwards pointed to?

* Did you or did you not see daVinci in action at IBM?

* To your knowledge, did IBM conduct a source code review of daVinci, or did they never conduct it?

And most importantly, would you swear to those statements under oath in front of a public notary in Massachusetts or you are not willing to do so?

We can ask the same from Gary Edwards (which I imagine, lives in Massachusetts as well).  

Idea | Reply

12/31/2007 6:53:00 PM #

Btw, I do not expect Rob Weir to reply to my previous post;   See "Talk is silver but silence is gold: 6 lessons" from the course.

Idea | Reply

12/31/2007 7:09:42 PM #

I have been called a liar by several posters to this blog.  No one has offered a single piece of evidence to support these allegations.  An argument that I am lying must start with something I said, not with something Mr. Edwards said.  The first step must be to determine that I have made a false statement.   Mr. Edwards may rant and rave all he wants. But what have I said on these topics?

So show me where I have ever said anything that contradicts what Mr. Edwards asserts. I own my words and will explain and defend anything that I have written.  Be specific.  Quote exactly what I have said. Give a URL.  Start with what I have said.  Then we can talk about who is lying and who isn't.  Otherwise you have nothing but the libelous patter of anonymous Microsoft sycophants.

Rob Weir | Reply

1/2/2008 2:16:49 AM #

Rob,

You are again avoiding the question, I asked you three very concrete questions and you could not come with yes/no answers but instead -again- you ask for pointers.

Not fluff, but 3 concrete questions.   yes and no is all it takes.

You also avoided the point where I asked you about swearing under oath in front of a public notary.

Idea

Idea | Reply

1/2/2008 9:09:58 PM #

Rob,

Further to your previous challenge:

"So show me where I have ever said anything that contradicts what Mr. Edwards asserts."

You did actually deny any demonstrable existence of the Da Vinci plug-in on your blog, specifically stating that you have not seen it:

www.robweir.com/.../cracks-in-foundation.html

"... But they have an important advantage over the Foundation's DaVinci Plugin in that these other efforts demonstrably exist. Given a choice, I'll take an open source version of a partial fidelity convertor, with a reasonable architecture, over one that claims 100% fidelity, but that I can't see or touch."

Logically, your statement is an admission that everything Mr Edwards asserts is true, unless you wish to clarify which particular allegations he has made are untrue.

In any case, the argument is not about lying, it is about your actions.  If you robbed a grocery store, then the court would only be mildly interested in the fact that you did not lie to the police when presented with the evidence.  The fact that you robbed a grocery store is the pertinent one.

Think of your "crime" as being present at the June 19th, 2006 da Vinci demonstration at the Lotus International Conference Center in Cambridge, MA and Gary Edwards as the "police".

Do you publicly deny this accusation?

rotuS | Reply

1/6/2008 2:46:50 AM #

I should have known Rob Weir would use the "silence is golden" gambit.

I think it is becoming increasing clear that he has no integrity whatsoever and should only be considered entertainment and not a source of fact or illumination.

rotuS | Reply

1/7/2008 2:12:51 PM #

I think I would call Rob more deceptive than a liar.
His posts and his reacties are in general ment to focus people on how bad MS and/or OOXML is in what you could easily call a quest to hinder OOXML standardization and adaption.
He is masterfull in avoiding similar questions being asked on ODF and IBM.

Questions like how many people IBM has used to search trough the OOXML specifications to find fault in them ?
Or like why IBM did such efforts on reviewing the spec whilst refusing to participate in the the Ecma TC and why they did not hand over their issues directly to Ecma of which they are membert earlier.
These are just some of the issues that show bad faith towards OOXML and the standardizatrion proces from the outset. It is extremly bad that an organization like IBM has chosen a path that is purely directed at disrupting standardization processes for its own competition reasons.
That is a path that scares me.

The Wraith | Reply

1/30/2008 2:35:31 AM #

@The Wraith,

>> how many people IBM has used to search trough the OOXML
>> specifications to find fault in them ?

And this is relevant, why exactly?  Surely what matters is how many faults exist in OOXML and how serious they are; not *who* found them.



>> why IBM did such efforts on reviewing the spec whilst
>> refusing to participate in the the Ecma TC

Again, why is this relevant?  Where does it say that IBM or any other company has to do Microsoft's job for it?  Why didn't Microsoft/Ecma find all these problems for themselves, eh, in the so-called Ecma review?  Did they really need IBM to tell them that a file format that can't handle dates before the year 1900 isn't really up to scratch?

Microsoft took no part in the ODF standardisation process, by the way.  Yes, they did come it at the end and vote for approval, but it too late for them to stop it by that time, anyway, even if they had wanted to.

Mike Brown | Reply

5/13/2009 2:20:54 AM #

Let me quote from Rob Weir's disputed blog post:

"However, in recent months the OpenDocument Foundation has found itself more and more isolated, outside of the mainstream debate. How far they have fallen can be seen in the fact that Microsoft has gone from ridiculing their conspiracy theories to using them to support their arguments."

I find that very topical. The other day Gary Edwards wrote:

"And therein lies the problem for IBM.    They need to discredit the Foundation, protect CDF + from the peasants with pitchforks, and keep this all secret from Google."

AndréR | Reply