Orcmid's Lair

status
privacy

about
contact

Welcome to Orcmid's Lair, the playground for family
connections, pastimes, and scholarly vocation -- the collected
professional and recreational work of Dennis E. Hamilton

Archives

Atom Feed

Associated Blogs

Edge City

Numbering Peano

Orcmid's Live
Hideout

Praxis101

Prof. von Clueless in the
Blunder Dome

Recent Items

On the Giving
Away

Interoperability
Principles, I: IE8 Rising

Document
Interchange: OOXML without Macros

To Sir, with
Respect

Some
Legacies Are More Legacy than Others

Interoperability
by Design

DMware:
Documents as Evidence

OOXML-ODF:
The Harmonization Hope Chest

Who
Wants ODMA.com Anyhow?

NewsGator:
Deja Vu All Over Again

2008-03-28

Public Availability of
Standards

Technorati
Tags: OOXML, ODF, standards-organization governance, document-format specifications, ISO/IEC, ECMA
International, OASIS

I've not had much to say on the DIS 29500 Ballot Resolution Meeting and
the posturing that has gone on since then while we await the March 29,
2008 (midnight Central European Time) close to the reconsideration
period.  I have no insider perspective, but I have found occasion to
fling a comment here and there when unsubstantiated claims arouse my
fact-checking instinct.

I have already
observed that it is far better to have an approved IS 29500 than a
disapproved DIS 29500, for the simple reason that re-introducing ECMA-376
(as repaired) as an ISO/IEC new work item is a very chancy and likely
contentious and interminable business no matter the
assertions protestations of anti-OOXML folk that
failing DIS 29500 does not mean forever.

But I have a far more personal and selfish reason for wanting to see IS
29500.  From my perspective, copies of the specifications for ISO
Standards cost too much money and they are too difficult to find and use
by your everyday practitioner, especially the rare individual who would
seriously like to confirm they are relying on the standard.

Public Is not always Free

Those of us toiling in the fields of information technology are
fortunate that a large number of specifications that might interest us in
our work are not only public but freely-available.  All IETF
materials, W3C specifications, OASIS specifications, ECMA
specifications, and many other consortium-produced specifications are
all freely-available for internet access and
download, whether as text files, web pages, or PDF.

There are other organizations, especially the non-commercial non-profit
ones, that extract revenue from the sale of their specifications.
ANSI does that in the United States, ISO does that everywhere.

For example, the ISO/IEC 9075:2003 multi-part specification for SQL is
available on a CD-ROM from ISO at today's price of CHF 356.00 (Swiss
francs).  At today's exchange rates, that is also $356.00 USD (Uncle
Sam's Dollars) and change plus whatever the exchange fees might
be.   You could buy those 10 parts separately as PDFs, but it
would cost far more.   Now, if you also want the additional
multi-media extensions to SQL, the three available parts will run you an
additional CHF 676.00.  If you want the allied specifications on
remote access security and geographical information, that's CHF 366.00
more.  There you have it.  To be abreast of the ISO and ISO/IEC
specifications that bear on SQL, you'll set yourself back a nice round
$1400 (depending on the standing of USD vs CHF on a given day).

In a more-cynical period of my life, I have wondered whether ISO loves
gigantic, multi-part specifications because they charge by the page.

I looked up ISO/IEC
26300:2006 today.  That's the official ISO/IEC specification
Information Technology — Open Document Format for Office Applications
(OpenDocument) v1.0.  Today's special is CHF 342.00.
That's right: $342 and change.  Don't buy it there.  Don't buy
it anywhere.

PAS and Fast Track Bargains?

Here's why I want IS 29500 approved as a BRM-updated updated version of
ECMA-376.  However this is managed, there are ISO/IEC specifications
that are not only public but also freely-available.  [Rob Weir
explains that JTC1 is empowered to arrange that in his comment,
below.]  ISO/IEC 26300:2006 is one of those.  You can find it on
the ISO/IEC
JTC1 list of freely-available standards.  These are free
downloads for personal, individual use (no redistribution) and you have to
click through your agreement to that.  That's it.  Your friends
and colleagues can each download their own copy.  In the case of
ISO/IEC 26300:2006, you have your choice of a PDF or XHTML, each packaged
in a (non-standardized) Zip container.

Because ISO/IEC 26300:2006 was produced by a PAS submission from OASIS,
you can also obtain the freely-available
OASIS specification.  You should obtain the OASIS Open Document
Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0 (Second Edition)
Committee Specification 1, dated 19 Jul 2006.  That is the same
document that is republished as ISO/IEC 26300:2006, with some ISO/IEC
front matter and the ISO/IEC 26300 designation inserted at the top of
every page.  Fortunately, the printed pagination of the OASIS content
is not changed, although the PDF sheet numbers differ because of the added
front matter.  By the way, this is a different version than the copy
of the 1 May 2005 ODF specification that was circulated as DIS
26300.  I have no idea why there are more pages in the Second Edition
and how it came to be used in IS 26300, but I am sure there is an
explanation somewhere.

Now ISO/IEC JTC1 is coy about the exact basis for having the ISO/IEC
version of the ODF specification be freely available for download.
But I notice there is a similar arrangement for many (but not all) ISO/IEC
specifications that are based on Ecma submissions.  The on-line
list of Ecma Standards indicates the corresponding ISO or ISO/IEC
number, when there is one, and also indicates whether there is a free
ISO/IEC download or a free download from ETSI, the European
Telecommunications Standards Institute.

Whatever this free-availability arrangement is, I want it to apply to
IS 29500, and it looks to me like that is more likely with it being an
ECMA submission than the creature of a new work item of ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34.

Of course, it is highly-desirable that any result of IS 29500
maintenance also be freely available, so we'll have to see how that goes
too.

If one is going to dive into standard specifications, contribute
comments, and also look at applications of standards in implementations,
it is valuable to lay hands on the honest-to-goodness official
specifications.  I need to have done that for reasons of proper
scholarship and auditability of my work, such as that related to the Harmony
Principles.  Even though I can't redistribute the
freely-available specifications, I must demonstrate that I have them (as
part of nfoWorks support materials) and
be able to show others how to obtain them.

I also want it to be very easy for others to check and duplicate my
work, so free availability is important for that as well.  I confine
myself to freely-available development tools for the same reason.

This doubtless puts me in the arm-chair standards authority
category.  I would even go so far as to label myself a
standards-process dilettante.  So be it.

[update 2008-03-29T14:48Z: I forgot to single out IETF
as an accountable, transparent gold-mine of specifications and related
material as well as having an admirable lifecycle for a specified
technology being a standard.  That's repaired along with pointing out
Rob Weir's explanatory comment.  I also like the idea of
self-identifying as an "Open
Standards Activist" along with being someone who, though not exactly a
stakeholder, finds the Microsoft technical ecosystem to be very important
to comprehend and acknowledge.]

posted by orcmid at 3/28/2008
08:27:00 PM

Comments:

It is actually
quite simple. In JTC1 we can vote to make any of our standards be on the
freely-available list. This is routinely done when the original source
standard was freely-available at the consortium level.

#
posted by  Rob: 29 March, 2008 06:18

Post
a Comment

You are
navigating Orcmid's Lair.

template
created 2002-10-28-07:25 -0800 (pst) by orcmid
$$Author: Orcmid $
$$Date: 07-12-26 16:37
$
$$Revision: 27
$