Signs and Symbols In the Mind's Eye

The "Feedback" column in the 14 May 2011 edition of "New Scientist" asks why the warning signs at railway crossings in the UK features a drawing of a steam train, which have not operated on the tracks in decades. Australia and many other countries use a similar diagram of a steam for their railway level crossing warning sign, whereas Germany uses a drawing of a modern electric locomotive.

Research has shown that the curved steam train shape is much more recognisable than the box like modern train shape. People would be familiar with the shape of a steam train from children's books and films, even if they had never seen a real one. Therefore the steam train sign is safer:

Title: A COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE SYMBOLIC WARNING SIGNS FOR RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS

Abstract:

Most level crossings have light traffic and good accident records and the only protection that can be justified in cost benefit terms is a system of warning signs. The Australian standard specifies a warning sign using the "cross bucks" symbol which might not be correctly interpreted and might also be confused with the crossroads warning sign. Wigglesworth, in a review of level crossing protection for the Ministry of Transport, Victoria, recommended the adoption of a train symbol. The UN protocol symbol is a steam train but steam trains are no longer used on scheduled railway services. However, a diesel train symbol does not have distinctive features easily adaptable to symbolic representation and such a symbol might not have an adequate legibility distance. This paper compares the two Australian standard railway warning signs, a steam train symbol and two diesel train symbols. The criteria for evaluation are interpretability and legibility distance. Consideration is also given to what are the community stereotypes for a railway warning sign. It is concluded that the steam train symbol remains a community stereotype despite the rarity of steam trains; is likely to be correctly interpreted and has a long legibility
distance. (Author/TRRL)...

Authors: Cole, B L Jacobs, R J

Publication Date: 1981-12

Serial: Australian Road Research Volume: 11 Issue Number: 4
Publisher: Australian Road Research Board
ISSN: 0005-0164

Standards Australia setting standards priorities

Standards Australia is currently selecting which of 100 proposals for standards to give priority.How this is to be done is set out in "Standards Australia Guide to the Project Prioritisation Process and Criteria" (V1.0 17 May 2010).

SECTOR	Number of Proposals received
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Food	4
Mining	7
Manufacturing and Processing	13
Building and Construction	11
Electrotechnology and Energy	24
Water and Waste Services	5
Transport and Logistics	2
Health and Community Services	10
Consumer Products Services and Safety	6
Education and Training Services	0
Communications, Information Technology and e-Commerce	4
Services
Public Safety; Public Information; Business and	10
Management

World standard work for Australia

Greetings from the newly refurbished engineering lecture theatre at the ANU in Canberra (has clever technology to give every seat an inconspicuous power point). The Dean is briefing the faculty on where the university is heading. I have just been at consultations with Standards Australia on their future strategies and there are some common themes. These are to maintain world class standards by better managing resources, work with international partners. Both ANU and SA are directly funded by the Australian Government and do not have to compete for funds in the same way other organisations have to do. These organisations therefore need to have the discipline to use those resources wisely and be seen to achieving results for the community.

SA have issued consultation papers about future processes and invited input. I have been very critical of what as proposed, but at least there is a consultation process. In contrast ANU is consulting internally, as for example the briefing I am at, but is less good at consulting the wider community.

ANU aims to grow at the student postgraduate level, aiming for 50% postgraduate with 25% PHDs.ANU already engages with government , business and the community (you can't tune into SBS news without seeing an ANU Professor), but can't take this for granted. As part of this ANU has an Alumni (which includes the Prime Minister).

A challenge for ANU is to balance teaching with research. This involves performance management of people and recruitment. The business processes needed to run an organisation may be foreign to people selected for their teaching and research skills. So ANU is gradually introducing such processes and editing staff along the way.

There are some common challenges for both ANU and SA. An obvious one to me, because i is what I work on, is the Internet and the web. Like teaching and research, standards development and publishing are moving online. ANU are a leader at researching how to and applying the Internet to research and teaching. Significant resources have been put into reequipping teaching and research facilities and training staff in their use. An example of this is the Engineering ‘Hubs and Spokes’ Project in collaboration with the University of South Australia. But there has been less process at applying this to business processes.

Some of the problems with reaching out, and particularly online, can be subtle. As an example, ANU runs "Summer Schools". However, this is a location specific term. Someone from the northern hemisphere, with seasons at opposite times of the year, will not realise that "Summer" means a different time of year. This would be particularly confusing if the vent is run at a northern hemisphere campus.

SA are still struggling with how to apply the Internet to standards development and publishing, do not currently have a viable plan. Better application of the Internet will enhance ANU and faulre to address it threatens the existence of SA.

Standards Australia Needs New Priorities

Standards Australia Limited has issued the Discussion Paper "Project prioritisation process and criteria" (Version: 1.0, 5 February 2010) for comment. As a representative of the Australian Computer Society to standards Australia, I will be consulting the ACS on an official position. However, as an individual ICT professional I believe the SA approach to be fundamentally flawed and not addressing my needs for standards. If SA is unable, or unwilling to meet my needs, then there is no reason for myself, the organisations I belong to, or the government I elect, to continue to fund and support Standards Australia.

Standards Australia is working from a last century business model, where standards committees met around tables and then standards Australia produced printed copies of standards for sale. Standards are now made online by people around the world and distributed for free online. If Standards Australia wants to be part of this process, they need to adjust their business model to be able to support online development and distribution of standards online. I will no longer take part in a standards process if the resulting standards are not available for free online and I will avoid the use of such standards.

Table of contents
Overview... 3
1 Guiding principles.... 4
2 Process .... 4
2.1 Proposal development and submission .... 4
2.2 Assessment.... 5
2.3 PMG review and SDC approval .... 5
2.4 Project scheduling and commencement.... 6
2.5 Non-approved projects.... 6
3 Criteria.... 7
3.1 Quality .... 8
3.2 Capability.... 8
3.3 Net Benefit .... 8
3.4 Proposal profile ..... 8
3.5 Resource requirements.... 8
4 Conclusion.... 8
Appendix A: Process for evaluation of project proposals for Standards development .... 9
Appendix B: Prioritisation Criteria.... 10
Preliminary Assessment Criteria.... 10
Evaluation and Prioritisation Criteria.... 11
Resource Requirements & Costing .... 13
Appendix C: FAQs.... 14
...

Overview
The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the criteria and process for the submission, assessment, selection and prioritisation of Standards development project proposals to be resourced by Standards Australia.

In November 2009, Standards Australia announced it would continue to direct its resources to the core function of Standards development through support of the following pathways:

• Standards Australia Driven Standards Australia Driven projects must be approved for Standards Australia resourcing through the prioritisation process. This pathway primarily relies on Standards Australia’s resources, project management expertise and infrastructure. Standards Australia Driven projects require commitment and active contribution from stakeholders over a defined period of time.
• Committee Driven Committee Driven projects may be eligible for Standards Australia resourcing through the prioritisation process but with the main contribution coming from stakeholders. Under this pathway an appropriately skilled committee, in addition to providing the subject matter expertise, will take project management and secretariat responsibility for the project.
• Bureau Bureau projects are resourced and managed by stakeholders with minimal Standards Australia resourcing allocated through the prioritisation process. Under this pathway, a single legal entity acts as a ‘bureau’ which takes responsibility for managing the committee, its activities and projects under a formal agreement with Standards Australia.

This framework was developed in conjunction with, and has the support of, the Commonwealth Government and major member groups. In addition, the stakeholder funded Collaborative pathway is also available:

• Collaborative The Collaborative pathway offers stakeholders choice in resourcing levels and project timeframes. Collaborative projects will be subject to the same project proposal and Net Benefit requirements and will be assessed on the same criteria, but will not be prioritised and resourced as part of the twice yearly assessment and prioritisation process.

In brief, if a proposed Standards development project can demonstrate the delivery of Net Benefit to the Australian community, and to the extent that it is unable to be resourced from any other source, it may be progressed using Standards Australia resources allocated on a priority basis in accordance with the project prioritisation process outlined in this document.

The Standards Australia resources available for development projects will be determined annually by Standards Australia’s Board, taking into account the necessity to operate on a sustainable basis. The project prioritisation and selection process will be run twice per year, in April and October. Prioritisation and selection of projects will be determined by the Standards Development Committee using the framework and criteria described in this paper.

If Standards Australia receives more proposals than it is able to support then Standards Australia will not be able to resource all proposed projects, even if they satisfy the selection criteria. Standards Australia may also choose not to provide resourcing at the level sought by any particular proposal. ...

From: Project prioritisation process and criteria" (Version: 1.0, 5 February 2010), Discussion Paper , Standards Australia Limited, Version: 1.0, 5 February 2010)

Australian and International Standards Making

Greetings from the Standards Australia Council Meeting, being held in Sydney, where I am representing the Australian Computer Society. New directors elected were: Peter Burne, Peter Cockbane, Richard Brookes. The Consumer Electronics Suppliers’ Association (CESA) has joined SA.

There were three resolutions from members, for the annual report, quarterly, six monthly reports and a register of councillors. These were supported by the chairman and passed.

The financial report indicates that there has been loss, due to the Global Finance Crisis. The situation is not disastrous, but SA does not appear to have achieved all the savings it would with the move to online standards making. An expensive inner city office is not needed, as clients will never visit. No dedicated standards committee meeting rooms are needed, as most standards making will b online and the few rooms needed can be rented or got free from member organisations.

Dr. Alan Morrison, deputy SA Chair and President of the International Standards Organisation addressed the meeting. He noted that as developing nations expanded their economies, they will take up positions on standards committees. He commented that this was of concern to the USA. I can see how this would concern the USA, but it will be an opportunity for Australia, which has a . He noted a move in the EU for providing standards for free and this creates a dilemma for individual countries and for the USA. He argued that standards are not free, with meeting and coordination costs. He said that ISO is working on a measure of a value of standards to show countries why they should not be free.

There has been considerable controversy with Standards Australia's New Business Model, which was touched on by the CEO in his report. This model is essentially user pays, with those organisations who want a new standard to pay for the cost of its development. It itself user pays is not new or that controversial, those developing standards were already paying most of the cost through providing experts to write the standards at no charge. What has been added to this is a charge from SA to cover their administrative costs. The CEO indicated that some of this would be reconsidered following some concern from members.

Making user pays more controversial is that SA's exclusive publishing agreement with the company SAI Global, precludes the standards developed being available for free online. This was touched on briefly during the meeting.

As an individual IT professional I believe that SA's inability to make standards free and freely available online makes their standards process unworkable. I do not agree with the ISO President's view that a free open source approach will not work and have had doubts about the ISO process since reading Carl Malamud's book more than a decade ago: "Exploring the Internet: A Technical Travelogue" (1992), in which Australians figure prominently. So I will not be participating in any further SA or ISO standards making, instead I will be using open access standards bodies and recommending my colleagues do likewise. I will not be supporting future funding for ISO or SA. However, these views are my own and are not necessarily shared by everyone at ACS and there is no plan for ACS to withdraw its support for SA.

Australian Standards blocked from open access

Standards Australia and SAI Global have received the results of arbitration over the publishing and distribution rights for Australian Standards. The result is that SAI Global has exclusive publishing rights for standards issued by Standards Australia, even those standards developed by a third party. The effect of this would appear to preclude the provision of any SA endorsed standards in an open access format free online.

To avoid such issues, when asked to help draft a standard, I now first check that the standard will be available open access online. If the standard is not going to be free online, then I decline to take part in the development. Organisations such as W3C, IETF and OASIS make their standards freely available. Versions of these standards may later be made into government endorsed standards, but the text remains available.

The agreement between SA and SAI Global seems to preclude open access to standards, even where those standards were made by an independent body and then put through the SA process. I will therefore be declining to take part in any standards making through Standards Australia. I recommend that my colleagues in the ICT industry also consider withdrawing support for SA processes, due to the detrimental effect this closed process will have on the Australian ICT industry.

I will be asking the professional bodies I am a member of to withdraw funding and support from SA and transfer it to other standards making bodies which do not impose restrictions on access to standards. Also I will be asking my professional bodies to ask the Australian Government to withdraw endorsement and funding from Standards Australia for standards making.

Mr Michael McHugh, Arbitrator (and former High Court Justice), has published his decision in SAI Global’s application that Standards Australia only proceed with Australian Standards developed by third party accredited Standards Development Organisations (SDOs) where exclusive publishing rights for SAI Global have been secured.

Revenues derived from accredited SDOs have historically not been material but the arbitration addressed a long-standing point of disagreement between the parties on interpretation of the commercial-in-confidence Publishing Licence Agreement (“PLA”) of 2003.

Standards Australia contended to Mr McHugh that the PLA did not require Standards Australia to secure exclusive publishing rights for SAI Global for Australian Standards to be developed by third party accredited SDOs.

In his written award dated 23 June 2009, Mr McHugh has not accepted Standards Australia’s view and has confirmed that, under the PLA, Standards Australia must not permit or knowingly allow SDOs to develop Australian Standards without securing for SAI Global exclusive rights to publish, distribute, market and sell those Australian Standards.

Standards Australia will consult with relevant stakeholders in relation to Mr McHugh’s decision.

BACKGROUND

Standards Australia entered into arbitration with its publisher and distributor, SAI Global, in July 2008 following the failure to resolve differences over the publishing and distribution rights for Australian Standards written by autonomously accredited Standards Development Organisations (SDOs).
This is a long-standing issue with Standards Australia in discussions with SAI Global since late 2005 regarding relevant terms of the commercial-in-confidence Publishing Licence Agreement (PLA) of 2003.

Central to the dispute has been the publication and distribution rights for Australian Standards developed by SDOs that have been accredited by Standard Australia’s autonomous Accreditation Board for Standards Development Organisations (ABSDO) and which have been approved by Standards Australia to be identified as 'Australian Standards'.

The Productivity Commission raised concerns in its 2006 review of Standards Setting in Australia that the publishing agreement could create a disincentive for organisations to become accredited Standards developers.

Under a long-term agreement, SAI Global continues to hold publishing rights to Australian Standards produced by Standards Australia. ...

From: ARBITRATOR CLARIFIES EFFECT OF PUBLISHING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC STATEMENT, Standards Australia, 24 June 2009

Dispute Over Publishing Standards in Australia

Standards Australia and SAI Global have entered into arbitration over the publishing and distribution rights for Australian Standards written by autonomously accredited Standards Development Organisations (SDOs). To avoid such issues, when asked to help draft a standard, I now first check that the standard will be available open access online. If the standard is not going to be free online, then I decline to take part in the development. Organisations such as W3C, IETF and OASIS make their standards freely available. Versions of these standards may later be made into ISO and Standards Australia standards which are not free online, but the original free version is still available.

The relationship between Standards Australia and SAI Global is governed by contractual arrangements including a Publishing Licence Agreement (PLA) dated 11 November 2003.

Standards Australia and SAI Global have entered into an arbitration concerning the PLA following the failure to resolve differences over the publishing and distribution rights for Australian Standards written by autonomously accredited Standards Development Organisations (SDOs).

Further details about the dispute are set out in our public statement dated 22 July 2008. While it was originally anticipated that the hearing of the arbitration would occur in the week starting 2 March 2009, the hearing has recently been rescheduled to take place from 6 to 8 May 2009. Further relevant developments will be advised via our website www.standards.org.au.

From: Communications, Information Technology and e-Commerce Services, Sector Updates, The Standards Australia, February 2009

New Business Model Needed for Australian Standards

Standards Australia, a non-government body which develops standards in Australia, has released "Introducing a New Business Model for Standards Australia" (April 08). Unfortunately I found the jargon in this document almost incomprehensible. It does not appear to address two issues which limit SA's role in ICT standards: open participation and open access. SA needs to adopt online standards development processes and provide copies of standards free online, if it wishes to remain in the ICT standards development business beyond the end of 2008.

I can participate in development of ICT standards online with a number of organisations around the world and obtain the standards produced free online. In contrast I can't participate in SA standards processes unless I attend meetings and I can't get copies of developed standards unless I pay money. As a result I no longer participate in SA standards development, nor do I recommend to my university students or colleagues that they use SA standards.

Some of these problems were brought to public attention with the controversy over standardization of OOXML. SA's processes were shown to be unable to deal with the issue.

The Australian ICT community needs to decide what is a suitable business model for standards development. Standards Australia was developed based on a business model which saw funding come from the sale of paper copies of standards, as well as from member subscriptions and some government support. However, after floating its publishing arm as SAI Global in 2003, only a small proportion of Standards Australia's income now comes from the sale of standards (about 16%).

It would be feasible for SA to pilot a low cost online standards process, which provided the standards for free online. SA could also facilitate the involvement of Australian experts in standards processes of international bodies.

The lower cost of online standards development, along with opportunity for online sponsorship, should more than make up for any loss in revenue from sales of standards. SAI Global could take the opportunity to provide services to complement the free standards, so that it does not suffer financially from the loss of standards sales.

OOXML Misses ISO Adoption

According to media reports, insufficient members of ISO voted OOXML (Microsoft's Office Open XML format) to be adopted as an International Standard. Standards Australia has voted to abstain. Countries have the opportunity to reconsider their vote in a later round. I suggest Australia should change to vote "no", unless there are substantial chages to OOXML. ISO already has an international standard for office documents with the ODF format.

Standards Australia abstains in OOXML vote

Standards Australia has voted to abstain from the ISO/IEC JTC1 ballot to adopt the DIS 29500 OOXML (Microsoft's Office Open XML format) as an International Standard. I suggested a "no" vote, but abstention seems a reasonable compromise.

Standards Australia has cast a vote to abstain from the ISO/IEC JTC1 ballot to adopt the DIS 29500 Office Open XML format draft standard as an International Standard.

The decision to cast an abstain vote from the current ballot follows months of consultation and a clear lack of consensus in Australia on this issue by stakeholders. ...

From: "Australia abstains on Office Open XML vote", Media Release, Standards Australia, 3 September 2007

There is an article on this: Australian apathy results in OOXML abstain vote by Liam Tung, ZDNet Australia, 03 September 2007. Also there is a map showing votes cast (note that the usual color convention is reversed: red shows for and green against).

The decisions for XML and web standards are likely to get harder in the coming years and I have suggested some ways the process could be made easier.

Text of Microsoft's OOXML Presentation

Microsoft's OOXML Presentation was included in the Standards Australia hosted forum on the proposed Draft International Standard ISO/IEC 29500, "Information technology - Office Open XML file format", 9 August 2007 in Sydney. I provided some excerpts and was asked to include the slide presentation. The presentation "The case for a positive vote for Office Open XML Standard (ECMA-376)", has similar content to the Microsoft OOXML web site. So rather than clog up the web with another slide show, I have just provided the text, without the graphics (available from the web site):

The case for a positive vote for Office Open XML Standard (ECMA-376)

Scope

• Not here to discuss JTC-1 process
  • Not here to debate minute technical details
• All specs have issues - resolved via process
• This is not a competing standard-just as ODF and PDF don't compete
• Question is: Does this spec have significant value for the Australian economy and citizenry?

The vote we are casting…

• We are deciding, is Ecma-376 a fair representation of the OpenXML file format?
• Will it bring clear benefits to consumers of software in Australia?
• Do we want to grant access to the data that Australian citizens and businesses currently hold in binary Office formats?
• Getting Aust government and business involved in future development of Ecma-376, ISO DIS29500.

Respecting EU / IDABC Recommendations

• European Union (IDABC)
  http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/2592/5588

  "The use of open document formats, such as WordML, improves interoperability"

  "Microsoft should consider the merits of submitting XML formats to an international standards body of their choice"

Why OXML too?

ODF design goal - from the actual spec itself:

1. This document defines an XML schema for office applications and its semantics. The schema is suitable for office documents, including text documents, spreadsheets, charts and graphical documents like drawings or presentations, but is not restricted to these kinds of documents.
2. The schema provides for high-level information suitable for editing documents. It defines suitable XML structures for office documents and is friendly to transformations using XSLT or similar XML-based tools.

Why OXML too?

OXML design goal-from the ECMA spec

1. This Part is one piece of a Standard that describes a family of XML schemas, collectively called Office Open XML, which define the XML vocabularies for word-processing, spreadsheet, and presentation documents, as well as the packaging of documents that conform to these schemas.

2. Here is where OpenXML differs radically in its design goals from other formats:

   The goal is to enable the implementation of the Office Open XML formats by the widest set of tools and platforms, fostering interoperability across office productivity applications and line-of business systems, as well as to support and strengthen document archival and preservation, all in a way that is fully compatible with the large existing investments in Microsoft Office documents.

Multiple standard precedents

• Multiple standards for general purpose programming languages (C, C++, C#, FORTRAN, LISP, Eiffel, Pascal, etc
• Multiple standards for XML schema languages (SGML DTDs, RELAX NG, Schematron, Namespaceaware, DTDS, etc.), -have the same use.
• standards for both the POSIX ABI and Linux ABI; both have the same use

Office Open XML Formats

• Mature (>20 years) deep, broad set of characteristics used by billions of documents and millions of users - XML design and translation started 9 years ago
• Designed to represent all information of .doc, .ppt, .xls in XML
  • 100% compatibility with .doc, .ppt, .xls
  • All format characteristics, styles, content, options in binary formats represented in open XML formats
  • Default format for Microsoft Office from now on
• Billions of existing documents to be converted to XML
  • Free add-ons for past versions
  • Default file format for Office 2007
  • Bulk converters for documents

The Document Type Spectrum

ODF

Narrative Transactional

OXML

The Role of XML with Documents

Demanding Interoperability

Evolving Document-centric Customer Needs

Scenario	Example
Document Assembly Server-based or user-assisted construction of documents from archived content or database content	Create sales reports from financial and forecast data stored in a CRM system
Content Reuse Much easier to move content between documents, including different document types	Apply content stored in Word documents to Web pages quickly and efficiently
Content Tagging Add domain-specific metadata to document content to enable custom solutions	Tag presentations using a specific taxonomy to improve knowledge management efficiency
Document Interrogation Query document repositories based on custom data, content types or document metadata	Search for all documents containing a specific company name or sales contact
Document Sanitization Remove unwanted content like comments or embedded code from your document when appropriate	Remove all tracked changes and comments from a Word document before it is published

OpenXML-Custom Schema Support

Traditional document capabilities:

Facilitating a publishing process - Authoring, collaborating, sharing, printing etc

The new direction for documents:

Facilitating person-process interoperability

interoperabilityLinking user’s publishing activities and structured business data as part of business process – all in one XML document.

Example: XBRL and Open XML

User works on document with structured data from a back end system - document to update the system - all within a familiar Office environment.

Broad Industry support for OpenXML

Windows:

• Altsoft XML2PDF server 2007
• AltViewer documents preview
• Altova XML
• Spy Corel Office
• Create Word 2007 documents without Word installed
• doxc to RTF
• Madcap Flare
• Microsoft Office 2000, Office XP and Office 2003
• Microsoft Office 2007
• Mindjet's MindManager
• Monarch V.9.0 from Datawatch
• ODF-Converter
• OOX-UOF Converter
• Open ERP Software
• Open XML Translator
• Open XML translator for OpenOffice (for Linux and Windows Versions of OpenOffice.org)
• Open XML Writer PythonOffice (Python API to read and write Excel XML documents from within Python programming language)
• Sourceforge Project to allow .NET(C#) developer to have component that will interact with Open Xml file
• Special Templates for Master Thesis
• Word 2007 Map Editor for Mindjet MindManager
• Xpertdoc Studio 2007 reporting solution

Mac OS X:

• DOCX convertor for the Mac
• docx to html Konverter
• doxc to RTF Konverter
• MacLinkPlus Deluxe version 16 by DataViz
• Microsoft Office 2008
• Neo Office 2.1
• Sun Open XML import filter for spreadsheets
• Word Counter 2.2.1
• Apple iPhone

Linux:

• Gnumeric - open source Spreadsheet
• Open Office ..Novell edition
• Open XML translator for OpenOffice (for Linux and Windows Versions of OpenOffice.org)

Other Operating systems or Operating System independent:

• Docx2Doc Web Service
• DOCX convertor on Palm handheld devices
• OpenXML4J - Open XML framework for Java
• OpenXMLDeveloper.org (hundred of developers, multiple platforms)
• PHPExcel - Web Development (PHP)
• WebService with mailing of Document, docx to HTML
• Word 2007 file(docx) construction using Java

Change Creates Challenges

• An immense wealth of information is written in existing Microsoft Office formats
• Millions of users created Billions of documents over the past 20 years

Migration to XML could be damaging if not undertaken with due care for the practical reality

• Users mandate backward compatibility with existing documents and products
• Anything less could be massively disruptive to users and risk unacceptable loss of content

Migration to XML should not compromise performance or potential functionality

We have some precedents...

Path to ISO:

Open XML: Microsoft -> Ecma-> ISO (via fast track: FAST TRACK)

ODF: SUN -> OASIS -> ISO (via fast track: PAS)

IP:

Open XML: : Microsoft -> OSP and CNS

ODF: SUN -> OpenDocument Patent Statement

Voting "YES" with comments:

Open XML: Tech issues raised through ballot -> BRM

ODF: Tech Issues raised by 8 countries

Office Open XML Cosponsors

• Apple
• Barclays Capital
BP British Library Essilor Intel Corporation Microsoft Corporation NextPage Inc. Novell Statoil ASA Toshiba The US Library of Congress

List of Applications with Office Open XML

Windows:

• Altsoft XML2PDF server 2007
• AltViewer documents preview
• Altova XML Spy
• Corel Office
• Create Word 2007 documents without Word installed
• doxc to RTF
• Madcap Flare
• Microsoft Office 2000, Office XP and Office 2003
• Microsoft Office 2007
• Mindjet's MindManager
• Monarch V.9.0 from Datawatch
• ODF-Converter
• OOX-UOF Converter
• Open ERP Software
• Open XML Translator
• Open XML translator for OpenOffice (for Linux and Windows Versions of OpenOffice.org)
• Open XML Writer
• PythonOffice (Python API to read and write Excel XML documents from within Python programming language)
• Sourceforge Project to allow .NET(C#) developer to have component that will interact with Open Xml file
• Special Templates for Master Thesis
• Word 2007 Map Editor for Mindjet MindManager
• Xpertdoc Studio 2007 reporting solution

Mac OS X:

• DOCX convertor for the Mac
• docx to html Konverter
• doxc to RTF Konverter
• MacLinkPlus Deluxe version 16 by DataViz
• Microsoft Office 2008
• Neo Office 2.1
• Sun Open XML import filter for spreadsheets
• Word Counter 2.2.1

Linux:

• Gnumeric - open source Spreadsheet
• Open Office ..Novell edition
• Open XML translator for OpenOffice (for Linux and Windows Versions of OpenOffice.org)

Other Operating systems or Operating System independent:

• Docx2Doc Web Service
• DOCX convertor on Palm handheld devices
• OpenXML4J - Open XML framework for Java
• OpenXMLDeveloper.org (hundred of developers, multiple platforms)
• PHPExcel - Web Development (PHP)
• WebService with mailing of Document, docx to HTML
• Word 2007 file(docx) construction using Java

The Path to Standardisation

• Documentation prepared by Microsoft and submitted to Ecma, based upon the Office 2007 file format and well documented customer requirements.
  • Need for backward compatibility and fidelity with billions of existing documents
  • Need for the file format to fully represent the features of the Microsoft office platform as a starting point
  • Ability to use the file format as a developer tool, enabling new types of data led applications
• Entities within Ecma worked on the standard, requesting and adding much more information;
  • Including… Apple, Barclays Capital, BP, The British Library, Essilor, Intel, Microsoft, NextPage, Novell, Statoil, Toshiba, and the United States Library of Congress
• Ratified as Ecma-376, a global published standard in December'06.
• Submitted to ISO for approval as DIS 29500
  • Contradiction period (looking at the role of this standard and the overlap with other existing standards) - approved to progress to a technical ballot
  • Approval by country ISO committees based upon technical merits of the standard
    • Yes (with or without comments)
    • Abstain
    • No (with comments, and suggest resolutions)
  • Ballot resolution meeting is the next stage, where those voting no, or simply wanting to discuss comments are invited to meet in person and resolve any outstanding issues in the spirit of positive collaboration.

The Evolution of ECMA 376

2005: ECMA International starts work on Office Open XML
• Founding members of ECMA TC 45:
  • Apple, Barclays Capital, BP, The British Library, Essilor, Intel Corporation, Microsoft, NextPage Inc., Statoil ASA, Toshiba
• Goal of ECMA TC 45:
  • create ECMA Office Open XML Format standard
  • contribute ECMA Office Open XML Format standard to ISO/IEC JTC 1 for approval and adoption by ISO and IEC
  • To steward future evolution of Office Open XML
• Open process
  • Technical Committee open to any ECMA member. Novell, US Library of Congress joined TC45 after creation
• Initial draft, about 2.000 Pages
• Work Progress/Transparency:
  • Weekly conference calls
  • Meeting regularly
  • Initial and Interim drafts posted publicly on ECMA web site
  • External feedback - SC34 experts, others
• 7. December 2006: ECMA General Assembly
  • Overwhelming positive vote
  • Approval to Submit to ISO Final
• Standard about 6.000 Pages (through changes and supplements in TC45)

SourceForge ODF Converter

• Microsoft is funding and providing architectural guidance to build ODF plug-in
• Set of open source tools on SourceForge under a BSD license
• Read and "save as" functionality of ODF in Office 2007 and previous versions (via compatibility pack)
• Tested for EU Document conformance
  • Eg. round-trip interoperability with a translation bureau working with ODF

Peaceful Coexistence

• ODF Converter for Microsoft Office
  • http://sourceforge.net/projects/odfconverter
• Open XML support for OpenOffice.org released by Novell
  • http://download.novell.com/Summar yFree.jsp?buildid=ESrjfdE4U58~
• Gnumeric spreadsheet software supports OpenXML
• Next version of Corel WordPerfect will support both Open XML and ODF (Mid 2007)
  • http://www.networkworld.com/news /2006/112906-corel-odf.html

Improving current position:

• Already in market:
  • growing base of users - Windows/non-windows
  • Massachusetts now endorses OpenXML
• Gaining ISO standard benefits all those users.
• Co-existence of format already:
  • Translator projects building a technical bridge between Open XML : ODF
  • Operational support for binary->XML (Office Migration Planning Manager)
  
  

Text of Rob Weir's OOXML Presentation

Rob Weir's OOXML Presentation was included in the Standards Australia hosted forum on the proposed Draft International Standard ISO/IEC 29500, "Information technology - Office Open XML file format", 9 August 2007 in Sydney. I provided some excerpts and was asked to include the slide presentation. The presentation "Some Thoughts Concerning DIS 29500 “OOXML" by Rob Weir, IBM, has similar content to his Blog. So rather than clog up the web with another slide show, I have just provided the text, without the graphics (available from his blog):

Some Thoughts Concerning DIS 29500 "OOXML"

Rob Weir
IBM
robert_weir(a)us.ibm.com
http://www.robweir.com/blog

(c) 2007 IBM Corporation

What is a Standard?

"[A] document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context

NOTE Standards should be based on the consolidated results of science, technology and experience, and aimed at the promotion of optimum community benefits."

-- ISO/IEC Guide 2:2004, Definition 3.2

FastTrack V Ecma's "value"

OOXML: a rushed standard

The technical case against DIS 29500 / OOXML

OOXML does not satisfy the criteria commonly used to define standards :

Standards should be repeatable, optimal/best practices and interoperable
Ref. ISO, British Standards Institute, ISO/IEC JTC1 Directives

1. NOT Precise, Repeatable, Common

"Compatibility Settings" of WordProcessingML, such as "autoSpaceLikeWord95", do not provide for repeatable practices. Many other properties are undefined.

2. NOT aspirational and a consolidation of best practices

Very little use of the consolidated best practices of the industry such as XForms, Xlink, SMIL and MathML

3. NOT Interoperable and Portable

Heavily tied to Microsoft Office applications and Windows, to the detriment of interoperability and portability. Example: clipboard only supports Microsoft formats, such as EMF, and WMF. Supports Internet Explorer, but not Firefox, Opera or Safari.

4. LACKS Cultural and Linguistic Adaptability

Example: NETWORKDAYS() defines a weekend in a way that will be improper in most parts of the Middle East.

Recommendations

• Vote "No, with comments," which is the JTC1-prescribed way of indicating "conditional approval" (JTC1 Directives, Section 9.8)
• Recommend that OOXML be resubmitted as normal working item in JTC1/SC34: V Split into a multi part standard: WordProcessingML, SpreadsheetML, DrawingML, Office Open Math Markup, VML, etc. V Have each part progress independently, at its own speed, within normal ISO processing stages V Encourage participation from OASIS to identify opportunities for harmonization with existing ISO 26300 "ODF"
• OOXML, as the default format in MS Office, is important. But as a standard it is full of inconsistencies, omissions, inaccuracies and errors. No standard is perfect, but OOXML, in its current state, does even not meet the minimum requirements.

Comments to Standards Australia on OOXML

Here are the comments I submitted to Standards Australia on the proposed Draft International Standard ISO/IEC 29500, "Information technology - Office Open XML file format". Please note that these comment are as an individual IT professional and do not necessarily represent the views of any organization I may be associated with:

The British Standards Institute have taken the innovative step of using a Wiki to help prepare input on how the UK should vote on ISO ballot on Office Open XML/OOXML ( DIS 29500). There is a set of very carefully prepared detailed UK comments on the draft standard.

The UK comments typically are suggesting that proprietary and obsolete Microsoft features in the standard be replaced with non-proprietary and more up to date ones. An example is to replace an old hash algorithm from Excell with a more robust one.

The comments get a little cheeky at times, such as suggesting a "doWrongDateCalculationsLikeExcel" tag. But as far as I can see these changes are feasible and would make the standard better at the cost of causing some minor inconvenience to Microsoft. However, if OOXML needs changes to make it suitable as an international standard, then its major feature (compatibility with Microsoft Office) is lost.

There is already an XML based international standard for office document formats: OpenDocument ISO/IEC 26300:2006. ODF has similar functionality to the proposed OOXML.

There is work already underway to provide translation between OOXML and ODF. When such a translation available, Microsoft Office users can then use the existing international standard format. There would therefore be no need top adopt OOXML as an international standard.

Both OOXML and ODF are derived from existing legacy proprietary software packages: OOXML from Microsoft Office and ODF from Sun Star Office (later adopted for OpenOffice.Org). ODF is based on newer software and so has fewer quirks. Both are based on XML formats, but neither is directly compatible with web browsers or other web software.

A better approach would be to base the word processor, which is the most used part of the office document format, on a modern web XML standards, such as XHTML 2. Work on the Integrated Content Environment (ICE), Digital Scholar's Workbench and ACS Digital Library show some of the possibilities. Have shown the feasibility of this for word processing documents and to a limited extent with presentations.

The way offices work and use documents is changing. The idea of a static monolithic document, which is a facsimile of a printed document is changing. Documents are becoming collections of links to data at different locations. Traditional office formats will not be usable in this environment. Work on modular document formats, incorporating techniques such as Microformats will allow more flexible documents. These can then incorporate new ways of working, such as social networking.

From: Message to Standards Australia, Tom Worthington 21 August 2007.

Notes from OOXML Standards Forum

Standards Australia hosted a forum on the proposed Draft International Standard ISO/IEC 29500, "Information technology - Office Open XML file format" on 9 August 2007 in Sydney. The notes from the event have been circulated by SA. With more than a little irony, the document was circulated as a Microsoft Word document (".DOC") embedded in a Microsoft Transport Neutral Encapsulation Format (".DAT"). For those who did not receive the message, or were unable to read it due to the formats used, here are some excerpts:

Draft International Standard (DIS), ISO/IEC 29500
Information technology — Office Open XML file formats

9 August 2007
Standards Australia, 20 Bridge St, Sydney

Introduction

Alistair Tegart (Standards Australia Program Manager, Forum Chair), opened the forum at 10am and welcomed the participants to the Standards Australia ad-hoc forum on ISO/IEC 29500 Information technology — Office Open XML file formats. The purpose of this meeting was to provide a forum for discussion by interested parties to advise Standards Australia in the development of its submission for approval by the Communications IT & eCommerce (CITeC) Standards Sector Board. Invitees to this meeting included industry, government, academic and other interested parties.

Alistair Tegart outlined the aim of the forum, which was to gather information and explore creative ways to provide a uniquely Australian consensus position. Standards Australia will utilise the forum as one of the mechanisms to formulate a recommendation to the CITeC Sector Board. He also outlined the process that needs to be followed for providing written comments by 21 August 2007. The Standards Australia CITeC Sector Board will consider all the feedback and comments received when formulating a submission and position which will be forwarded to ISO/IEC JTC 1.

Background

The European Computer Manufactures' Association International (ECMA International) adopted and published the Microsoft Open Office XML specification as ECMA 376 late in 2006. ECMA approached ISO/IEC JTC1, the international standards organisation for information technology, seeking to use the fast track process to elevate its standard to an International Standard status late in 2006. The JTC1 enquiry process opened on 1 January 2007, for a 30 day period.

In accordance with the JTC1 Directives (their process rules) Member countries were asked to list any apparent contradictions with existing standards (including ISO/IEC 26300: Information technology - Open Document Format for Office Applications. Some 19 countries did this, including Australia. The Standards Australia Communications, IT and e-Commerce (CITeC) Standards Sector Board (SSB) developed and approved Australia’s contribution.

ECMA provided a response to all contradictions raised and subsequently JTC1 made the document available as ISO/IEC DIS 29500 Information technology - Office Open XML file formats standard for actual balloting by the ISO/IEC member nations.

Voting options available to Australia

As a Participating Member of JTC1, Australia has an obligation review and submit a vote on the document. The options open are:

• Approve

• Approve with comment

• Abstain

• Disapprove with comment - disapproval of the DIS (or DAM) for technical reasons to be stated, with proposals for changes that would make the document acceptable (acceptance of these proposals shall be referred to the NB concerned for confirmation that the vote can be changed to approval)

The final vote will be submitted by Standards Australia by 2 September 2007.

Discussion

Rick Jelliffe –

Rick Jellife provided a broad overview of the working mechanisms of ISO and specifically his long involvement with ISO JTC1/SC 34 – Document Description and Processing Languages. He also discussed in broad terms ISO/IEC 29500 Information technology — Office Open XML file formats.

Karen Koomen -

Karen Koomen provided feedback and spoke briefly on behalf of the case for not ratifying ISO/IEC 29500. Karen stated she would like to add to her comments by providing further feedback from Rob Weir via a presentation (attached).

IBM pod cast slides:

Greg Stone-

Greg Stone articulated the case for a yes vote on the document (presentation attached), and had the following individuals state the case for a yes vote as part of his presentation.

Danika Bakalich (ComTIA)

Richard White (CargoWiseEDI)

Microsoft presentation slides:

Other contributions-

All participants at the forum were given an opportunity to speak publicly and present their positions. There were views expressed which supported the ratification of the document, and other participants supported a no vote on the document.

There were significant views expressed by the representative of Standards Australia Committee IT-019 (Computer Applications – Information and Documentation) and IT-019-01 (Information Technology for Learning, Education and Training), and National Archives of Australia. They voiced their concerns in the document being ratified at the ISO level.

Closing comments

Alistair Tegart thanked all the participants for contributing to a constructive and productive discussion. He invited participants to submit written comments by 21 August 2007, and reiterated that all the comments received by Standards Australia and the discussions at the forum will be utilised to formulate the submission that will be presented to the Standards Australia Communications, IT and eCommerce (CITeC) Sector Board.

The Standards Australia CITeC Board will discuss and formulate the final position from Standards Australia, which will be submitted to ISO/IEC JTC1 before the ballot closing date of 2 September 2007 .

Alistair Tegart stated that all the participants would be informed of the final position (vote) that will be submitted by Standards Australia.

Written comment closes COB 21 August 2007.
Mail to: michael.langdon(a)standards.org.au

The Forum closed at 1pm.

From: "Standards Australia DIS 29500 discussion forum record", message from Michael Langdon, STandrads Australia, Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:29:51 +1000

Attached to the word processing document was a list of attendees, plus PDF of presentation slides from IBM and Microsoft. The presentation "Some Thoughts Concerning DIS 29500 “OOXML" by Rob Weir, IBM, has similar content to his Blog. The Microsoft presentation "The case for a positive vote for Office Open XML Standard (ECMA-376)", has similar content to the Microsoft OOXML web site.

Australian Innovation Through Standards

These are some more thoughts on how Australia could better contribute to the development of global IT standards and also benefit the local economy. This is promoted by a visit from John Tucker, CEO, and John Castles, Chairman, of Standards Australia. They are in Canberra for a meeting with stakeholders in member organizations. On they way they are dropping in to visit me, as I am the Australian Computer Society's 's representative on the Standards Australia Council.

Making standards is a messy business, much like making laws, or as the quote attributed to Bismark puts it: "To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making.". However, better coordination of standards making is possible by using Web technology. This can make the process more open, transparent, inclusive and also less administratively expensive. Australia is a world leader in this technology area and it can help teach the world to make standards this way and earn income from emerging markets in India and China.

Some areas for more standards work in Australia might be:

1. Web standards: The Australian Office of the W3C is located in Canberra at CSIRO (on the other side of my office wall). They encourage Australian input for Web standards. Coordination between SA and W3C might avoid the sort of controversy which has occurred with the ISO ballot on Office Open XML/OOXML ISO 29500.
2. E-voting standards: In August the Federal Government announced trials by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) of electronic voting for the next election. The system to be used is developed by the same one which successfully built the system for Canberra local elections. Development of such systems is hampered in the USA, by a lack of standards. This could be an area Australia might make a useful contribution to the world.
3. Social Networking: The online collaboration features built into systems such as the Moodle system used for ACS Education, for structured online discussion could be applied to standards making. This could be used not only for keeping online discussion from getting out of control, but also in a face to face meeting.
   
4. E-publishing: The technology the ACS uses for its ACS Digital Library could be applied to standards development and distribution. The ACS now gives away publications online, while making money from them (at least to cover some of the costs). Technologies such as the Integrated Content Environment (ICE) can be used to build complex academic works and can be applied to standrads.
5. Academic Input: The federal government is funding the development of advanced systems for academics to collaborate online and publish their results. This is being done though projects such as the Australian Partnership for Sustainable Repositories (APSR), with impetus from the Australian Research Quality Framework (RQF). Australian researchers are building systems for doing research, publish the results and then work out who should get the credit for the work (and money from the Australian Government). These techniques could be applied to standards making to help develop standards and reward academics involved with credit for their contribution.
6. E-commerce: Standards development costs money and there is a need for funding. Some of the techniques for funding open source software development can be applied to standards work. In a way standards are a form of open source. Also web based e-commerce can be applied to pay the costs. As an example, where copies of standards are sold, those contributing to the process can receive a commission on sales. One systems, as used by Amazon.com, make this feasible.

How to submit comments on OOXML ISO/IEC 29500

Following last week's forum on the Draft International Standard ISO/IEC 29500, "Information technology - Office Open XML file formats", Standards Australia have invited written comments by 21 August 2007:

Attached is the ISO template for comments for DRAFT INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO/IEC 29500, Information technology - Office Open XML file formats. Please insert your comments in this template.

Comments will be collated in a master template. The master comment template will be updated on a daily basis until COB 21 August 2007 which is the close off date for comments, after which collated comments will be provided to the Standards Australia Communications, IT & eCommerce (CITeC) sector board meeting.

Please note the structure of the ISO comments template. There are three types of comment: ge = general, te = technical, and ed = editorial. Comment type can be listed in column 4. Comments can also list a clause number(s), paragraph, figure, table or note number. Insert comments and list the proposed change in the next column.

Email the template back for addition to the master comment template. Please do not email other Standards Australia employees, or email lists, this as the comments just come back to me for compilation anyway: michael.langdon (a)standards.org.au ...

From: Michael Langdon, Project Manager, Commerce, Standards Australia, 14 Aug 2007

A copy of the draft ISO/DIS 29500 is available from the Standards Australia web site, at the Communications, IT and e-Commerce Sector Board. However, the draft is in the form of a 46 Mbyte Zip file. The text of the standard is 5220 pages of PDF.

Here is the text of the comment template, for information. If you want to submit a comment you should request a copy of the template from Standards Australia:

Template for comments and observations

Date: Due to Standards Australia by COB 21Aug 2007

Document:DRAFT INTERNATIONAL STANDARDISO/IEC 29500 Information technology - Office Open XML file formats

1	2	(3)	4	5	(6)	(7)
MB1	Clause No. / Subclause No. / Annex (e.g. 3.1)	Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note (e.g. Table 1)	Type of comment2	Comment (justification for change)	Proposed change	Observations on each comment submitted
AU

ps: I note that SA are distributing the template as a 34 kbyte RTF file. If converted to the international ODF format, it reduces to 11 kbytes.

The ODF standard (ISO/IEC 26300:2006) is 728 pages (14 Kbytes) of PDF from ISO and costs CHF 342.00 (about $US285). At this rate, the OOXML standard will cost $US2,000 a copy. ;-)

Making Standards Online

The recent controversy over the ISO ballot on Office Open XML/OOXML ISO 29500 highlights a problem caused by innovation in standards development. The ballot is for the adoption of the OOXML format of Microsoft Office as an international standard, alongside the existing ODF standard. The issue has caused concern amongst IT professionals worldwide for lack of transparency in the process. But much of that concern is due to the assumption that the tools developed for Internet and web standards are used for ISO standards.

IT professionals now routinely using the Internet and the web for the development of standards. Unfortunately the international and national standards making processes have not kept up with these developments. The result is that standards development in increasingly taking place outside the formal national and international processes. There is a need to incorporate these new ways of working online into the formal processes, otherwise ISO, SA and other bodies will cease to be relevant to standards making for IT. As the same online methods of working are adopted by other professional areas this will result in the breakdown of national and international standards process.

A few small changes needed to standards working processes to allow for meshing with an online work process. Standards Australia has made some moves in this direction with its "Consensus Builder" web based application. However, more needs to be done. New XML based web developments will make this process a lot easier. It will also reduce the cost of administering the standards process. Australia is one of the leaders in development of technology in this area and could lead the world in standards development.

Australian OOXML Standard Process

Standards Australia are hosting a forum on the proposed Draft International Standard ISO/IEC 29500, "Information technology - Office Open XML file formats" on 9 August 2007 in Sydney. Standards Australia have sent out an agenda for the meeting which details the decision process, which I was unable to find this on the Standards Australia website, so here are some excerpts:

Proposed Draft International Standard (DIS) ISO/IEC 29500 Information technology - Office Open XML file formats standard

Standards Australia Industry Forum ...

BACKGROUND

The European Computer Manufactures' Association International (Ecma International) adopted and published the Microsoft Open Office XML specification as ECMA 376 late in 2006. Ecma approached ISO/IEC JTC1, the international standards organisation for information technology, seeking to use the fast track process to elevate its standard to International Standard status late in 2006, as per its recognised status as a Publicly Available Specification (PAS) submitter. The JTC1 enquiry process opened on 1 January 2007, for a 30 day period.

In accordance with the JTC1 Directives (their process rules) Member countries were asked to list any apparent contradictions with existing standards (including ISO/IEC 26300: Information technology - Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument)). Some 19 countries did this, including Australia. The Standards Australia Communications, IT and e-Commerce (CITeC) Standards Sector Board (SSB) developed and approved Australia’s contribution.

ECMA provided a response to all contradictions raised and subsequently JTC1 made the document available as ISO/IEC DIS 29500 Information technology - Office Open XML file formats standard for actual balloting by the ISO/IEC member nations.

PROCESS

As a Participating Member of JTC1, Australia has an obligation to vote on this document. The options open are:

• Approve
• Approve with comment
• Abstain
• Disapprove with comment (disapproval of the DIS for technical reasons to be stated, with proposals for changes that would make the document acceptable (acceptance of these proposals shall be referred to the NB concerned for confirmation that the vote can be changed to approval).

This contribution will be approved in advance by the CITeC Standards Sector Board by consensus.

The final vote will be submitted by Standards Australia by 2 September 2007.

PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING

The purpose of this meeting is to provide a forum for discussion by interested parties to advise Standards Australia in development of its submission for approval by the CITeC Standards Sector Board.

Invitees to this meeting include:

• Members of Standards Australia’s committees:
• IT-004 Geographical Information Systems
• IT-015 Software & Systems Engineering
• IT-019 Computer Applications – Information & Documentation
• IT-027 Data Management & Interchange
• IT-031 Computer Modelling and Simulation
• Members of the CITeC SSB
• Interested parties who have submitted comments since the beginning of the initial comment period in January 2007, by e-mail or letter.

Participants are invited to contribute their comments in writing following the forum by 21 August 2007 to ensure that they are considered in development of the submission to the CITeC SSB.

CONSIDERATIONS TO NOTE

Standards Australia is recognised by the Government as Australia’s peak standards body. It develops Australian Standards® of public benefit and national interest and supports excellence in design and innovation through the Australian Design Awards.

Standards Australia is Australia’s representative on the International Organization for
Standardization [ISO], the International Electrotechnical Commission [IEC], and the Pacific Area Standards Congress [PASC].

Participation in international committee work is dependent on our capacity to consult and respond through the Australian committee structure. The CITeC Standards Sector Board is responsible for this vote.

This forum is being conducted by Standards Australia as a courtesy to stakeholders. It is an extraordinary meeting that we are not required to hold, but do so to provide an open process. We appreciate your attendance and expect that you appreciate our effort in making this opportunity available to you.

Standards Australia values its vote as a participating member of all international committees, and does not exercise it injudiciously. We provide considered Australian viewpoints that are beneficial to Australian stakeholders, including industry, government, academia and the general community, through the facilitation of trade and the inclusion of clear Australian requirements in international standards.

The JTC1 process has established that the ECMA-376 document is not contradictory to existing standards and ECMA has responded to a number of technical considerations raised in the initial consultation period. This forum is not to debate the merits of the JTC1 decision making process or the validity of the ECMA response.

While technical comments are welcomed, it would be entirely counter productive to use this forum to reiterate technical comments that have already been raised and are likely to be debated in every JTC1 member body in some form.

We are looking for creative, positive contributions that emphasise our commitment to representing truly Australian views to the international community.

To ensure the best outcome for the meeting, we ask you to note the guidelines and agenda below.

GUIDELINES

• Standards Australia will document the meeting and will share with attendees/interested parties not able to attend. Discussion will not be recorded, in line with our general committee meeting policies.

• When general discussion commences, please limit your contribution to no more than five minutes.

• Speakers should be allowed to complete presentations, prior to inviting questions or comments. Responses, including questions, should be raised through meeting chair.

• When individuals do comment, they should state their name and organisational affiliation, if any.

• Respect others’ opinions.

AGENDA

10am Opening of the meeting and attendance (please sign attendance list)
10.10am Introduction - Standards Australia
10.30am Invited discussion openers
10.30 -10.40am General overview of the standards process
10.40 – 11.00am Objections to ISO/IEC adoption of DIS 29500
11.00 – 11.20am Case for ISO/IEC adoption of DIS 29500
11.20am 20 minute break
11.40am General Discussion
12.45pm Summary and next steps
1pm Close

Participants are invited to contribute their comments in writing following the forum by 21 August 2007 to ensure that they are considered in development of the submission to the CITeC Standards

Sector Board.

CONTACT

Please confirm attendance via e-mail to: michael.langdon (a) standards.org.au

Australia to decide on OOXML Stanadard

Standards Australia are hosting a forum on the proposed Draft International Standard ISO/IEC 29500, "Information technology - Office Open XML file formats" on 9 August 2007 in Sydney. OOXML is European Ecma standard 376 and is based on the format used in Microsoft Office 2007. The Forum is limited to 30 persons and seats can be reserved by email to: michael.langdon (a) standards.org.au Comments on the standard can be sent to: alistair.tegart (a) standards.org.au

The British Standards Institute have taken the innovative step of using a Wiki to help prepare input on how the UK should vote on ISO ballot on Office Open XML/OOXML ( DIS 29500). There is a set of very carefully prepared detailed UK comments on the draft standard.

The UK comments typically are suggesting that proprietary and obsolete Microsoft features in the standard be replaced with non-proprietary and more up to date ones. An example is to replace an old hash algorithm from Excell with a more robust one.

The comments get a little cheeky at times, such as suggesting a "doWrongDateCalculationsLikeExcel" tag. But as far as I can see these changes are feasible and would make the standard better at the cost of causing some minor inconvenience to Microsoft. However, if OOXML needs changes to make it suitable as an international standard, then its major feature (compatibility with Microsoft Office) is lost.

There is already an XML based international standard for office document formats: OpenDocument ISO/IEC 26300:2006. ODF has similar functionality to the proposed OOXML.

There is work already underway to provide translation between OOXML and ODF. When such a translation available, Microsoft Office users can then use the existing international standard format. There would therefore be no need top adopt OOXML as an international standard.

Both OOXML and ODF are derived from existing legacy proprietary software packages: OOXML from Microsoft Office and ODF from Sun Star Office (later adopted for OpenOffice.Org). ODF is based on newer software and so has fewer quirks. Both are based on XML formats, but neither is directly compatible with web browsers or other web software.

A better approach would be to base the word processor, which is the most used part of the office document format, on a modern web standard, such as XHTML 2.

Standards agreement between China and Australia

Standards Australia have signed an agreement with their Chinese equivalent, the Standardization Administration of China:

Standards Australia and China's peak standards development organisation have signed a major international covenant ensuring future standards development in each country will not stand in the way of free trade...

Under the agreement, Australia and China's peak standards development bodies will:

• Notify each other of the Standards that may cause significant influences on the trade between both countries;
• Exchange national Standards catalogues, information and experiences on standardisation;
• Provide advice on technical regulations;
• Engage in expert visits and academic exchange;
• Carry out joint Standards research projects; and
• Collaborate in dealing with international Standards organisations....

From: New agreement to help Australian business trade with China, Standards Australia MEDIA RELEASE March 22, 2007

SA is a non-for-profit Australian company, while SAC is an agency of the Chinese Government. They represent their respective countries at bodies such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC):

Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China (SAC) is authorized by the State Council and under the control of AQSIQ to exercise the administrative functions and carry out centralized administration for standardization in China. While relevant competent administrative departments of the State Council shall be assigned the responsibility of managing the work of standardization within their respective professional sectors. The competent administrative bureaus of standardization in the provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities, cities and counties shall execute unified administration of the work of standardization in their respective administrative regions. The provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities, cites and counties are also setting standardization departments in their governments. The SAC execute business administration of those province-level bureaus of technical supervision and execute directive administration in the system of under province-level bureau of technical supervision.

From: Standardization Administration of China, Chinese National Committee of the ISO/IEC

ps: I represent the Australian Computer Society on the SA Council.