/. Australian Govt Re-Kindles Office File Format War

[Glen Newton]

"Office 2010, the agency wrote, provided “the highest level of
compatibility, interoperability and functionality across all
agencies”, provided “the highest level of compatibility for non
document-specific functionality currently used”, and featured the
“highest retention of document structure or information between
agencies”." - "agency' == AGIMO == Australian Government Information
Management Office

The second article (below) makes some good points about how narrow the
criteria were that were used by the AGIMO. Interoperability (across
their established install of Office-installed PCs) was a highly
weighted criterion, whereas other important issues were not part of
the evaluation.

"At the time, the move was criticised by some aspects of the community
who pointed out that most alternative office suites — such as
OpenOffice.org — could not write documents in the standard. Those
promulgating rival standards have described Office Open XML as being
riddled with Windows platform dependencies. Additionally, some
organisations, such as the National Archives of Australia, have picked
the ODF standard instead in the long-term. AGIMO subsequently defended
its decision, stating it had no vendor bias."

http://delimiter.com.au/2012/02/21/australian-govt-re-kindles-office-file-format-war/
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/02/24/025242/australian-govt-re-kindles-office-file-format-war

-Glen

--
-
http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/
-

[john whelan]

Just a couple of comments, the first is copyrighted fonts are actually a problem when you think about moving from one word processor to another.  It's difficult to get the page breaks etc correct across a group of people if you can't use the same fonts.  This was the justification for allowing Microsoft Word along side Wordperfect in one organization I worked for and I couldn't fault it.  Treasury Board used Microsoft Word.

Second across government the requirements for a word processor vary enormously, using Visual Basic to bring in data from one or two databases for form letters isn't uncommon.  Change the word processor and the first thing you find is not many have Visual Basic embedded in the software in the same way so that means rewriting applications and testing them which is expensive.

Also Word's richness for doing specialized tasks such as is unbeaten.  For example most people don't need an equation editor but for the people who do it is essential and there are lots of other examples.  One major barrier to change we found was very specialized electronic dictionaries that had been built up over time.

Third there is a whole industry of third party add-ons for Word, the relevant ones for Government concern tools for handicapped workers.  The Microsoft environment is simply much richer, this includes things like technical support, you need the document for a dead line how do you do something, and training.

Cost comes into the decision, my professional opinion is Windows desktops are cheaper than UNIX ones on ToC, and security but I'd prefer not to get into a debate here on the subject.

I think the final difficulty is that the richness of the integrated Microsoft suite is hard to beat.

Now having said all that there are very good reasons for creating documents for long term archival storage in some form of standard XML format and governments should accept electronic documents in a standard XML format and these two areas are winnable.  For the moment I don't believe changing word processors is unless a committee comes up with an integrated suite and its government funded.  Realistically it wouldn't be "open source" but it would be free to all levels of governments and charities.

Cheerio John

[Sydney Weidman]

This may seem trite or so obvious as to be not worth repeating: in a connected world, standards make communication possible. The economics of network effects will ensure that a single standard eventually becomes dominant. If that standard is owned by someone, a) one cannot participate in its development except as a market participant and b) lack of competition allows the owner to gouge. Perhaps that state of affairs appeals to you. It does not appeal to me. While a single standard may be inevitable, merely accepting a feudal model over a democratic, collaborative one is to abdicate one's responsibility for positive change.

If the same self-defeating attitude prevailed with respect to, say, civic recycling programs, we would be considerably worse off environmentally than we are.

We don't have to accept what the market dictates unless that's really what we want.

- Syd

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM, john whelan <[hidden email]> wrote:

Just a couple of comments, the first is copyrighted fonts are actually a problem when you think about moving from one word processor to another.  It's difficult to get the page breaks etc correct across a group of people if you can't use the same fonts.  This was the justification for allowing Microsoft Word along side Wordperfect in one organization I worked for and I couldn't fault it.  Treasury Board used Microsoft Word.

Second across government the requirements for a word processor vary enormously, using Visual Basic to bring in data from one or two databases for form letters isn't uncommon.  Change the word processor and the first thing you find is not many have Visual Basic embedded in the software in the same way so that means rewriting applications and testing them which is expensive.

Also Word's richness for doing specialized tasks such as is unbeaten.  For example most people don't need an equation editor but for the people who do it is essential and there are lots of other examples.  One major barrier to change we found was very specialized electronic dictionaries that had been built up over time.

Third there is a whole industry of third party add-ons for Word, the relevant ones for Government concern tools for handicapped workers.  The Microsoft environment is simply much richer, this includes things like technical support, you need the document for a dead line how do you do something, and training.

Cost comes into the decision, my professional opinion is Windows desktops are cheaper than UNIX ones on ToC, and security but I'd prefer not to get into a debate here on the subject.

I think the final difficulty is that the richness of the integrated Microsoft suite is hard to beat.

Now having said all that there are very good reasons for creating documents for long term archival storage in some form of standard XML format and governments should accept electronic documents in a standard XML format and these two areas are winnable.  For the moment I don't believe changing word processors is unless a committee comes up with an integrated suite and its government funded.  Realistically it wouldn't be "open source" but it would be free to all levels of governments and charities.

Cheerio John

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[john whelan]

Around thirty years ago the federal government department I was working at switched from one word processor to another.  The documents were in proprietary format on both the new and the old systems and it cost $1,000,000 to convert the existing documents.

I was under the impression that ISO/IEC 29500 is a formally approved ISO standard that has been through the standards process.  Documents written to the standard maybe opened in a variety of software and the file formats are fully documented.

It takes about five years to get something approved by ISO which is quite a long time in computer terms, things don't stand still.  For example today most people work in email programs rather than use word processing to print out a memo and sign it.  Word processing is becoming less important.

When you deal with complex software it should be expected that 100% compliance is not to be expected.  Even IBM noted in its main frame operating systems when it fixed one bug it often introduced another.

If the Australian government had simply specified that ISO 29500 file format was to be used and given a list of functional requirements that could be backed up by business needs then no one would be complaining and that's the way I would have done it.  I strongly suspect that only Microsoft has software today that meets those requirements but that is irrelevant to the debate.

What we really need is a government funded software package that works with ISO 29500 but that is an expensive proposition for any one government.

Cheerio John

On 26 February 2012 06:59, Sydney Weidman <[hidden email]> wrote:

This may seem trite or so obvious as to be not worth repeating: in a connected world, standards make communication possible. The economics of network effects will ensure that a single standard eventually becomes dominant. If that standard is owned by someone, a) one cannot participate in its development except as a market participant and b) lack of competition allows the owner to gouge. Perhaps that state of affairs appeals to you. It does not appeal to me. While a single standard may be inevitable, merely accepting a feudal model over a democratic, collaborative one is to abdicate one's responsibility for positive change.

If the same self-defeating attitude prevailed with respect to, say, civic recycling programs, we would be considerably worse off environmentally than we are.

We don't have to accept what the market dictates unless that's really what we want.

- Syd

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM, john whelan <[hidden email]> wrote:

Just a couple of comments, the first is copyrighted fonts are actually a problem when you think about moving from one word processor to another.  It's difficult to get the page breaks etc correct across a group of people if you can't use the same fonts.  This was the justification for allowing Microsoft Word along side Wordperfect in one organization I worked for and I couldn't fault it.  Treasury Board used Microsoft Word.

Second across government the requirements for a word processor vary enormously, using Visual Basic to bring in data from one or two databases for form letters isn't uncommon.  Change the word processor and the first thing you find is not many have Visual Basic embedded in the software in the same way so that means rewriting applications and testing them which is expensive.

Also Word's richness for doing specialized tasks such as is unbeaten.  For example most people don't need an equation editor but for the people who do it is essential and there are lots of other examples.  One major barrier to change we found was very specialized electronic dictionaries that had been built up over time.

Third there is a whole industry of third party add-ons for Word, the relevant ones for Government concern tools for handicapped workers.  The Microsoft environment is simply much richer, this includes things like technical support, you need the document for a dead line how do you do something, and training.

Cost comes into the decision, my professional opinion is Windows desktops are cheaper than UNIX ones on ToC, and security but I'd prefer not to get into a debate here on the subject.

I think the final difficulty is that the richness of the integrated Microsoft suite is hard to beat.

Now having said all that there are very good reasons for creating documents for long term archival storage in some form of standard XML format and governments should accept electronic documents in a standard XML format and these two areas are winnable.  For the moment I don't believe changing word processors is unless a committee comes up with an integrated suite and its government funded.  Realistically it wouldn't be "open source" but it would be free to all levels of governments and charities.

Cheerio John

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[Clinton Boyda]

That IBM quote/note is hilarious do you have specific URL for reference?

Sent Remotely

On Feb 26, 2012, at 7:02 AM, john whelan <[hidden email]> wrote:

Around thirty years ago the federal government department I was working at switched from one word processor to another.  The documents were in proprietary format on both the new and the old systems and it cost $1,000,000 to convert the existing documents.

I was under the impression that ISO/IEC 29500 is a formally approved ISO standard that has been through the standards process.  Documents written to the standard maybe opened in a variety of software and the file formats are fully documented.

It takes about five years to get something approved by ISO which is quite a long time in computer terms, things don't stand still.  For example today most people work in email programs rather than use word processing to print out a memo and sign it.  Word processing is becoming less important.

When you deal with complex software it should be expected that 100% compliance is not to be expected.  Even IBM noted in its main frame operating systems when it fixed one bug it often introduced another.

If the Australian government had simply specified that ISO 29500 file format was to be used and given a list of functional requirements that could be backed up by business needs then no one would be complaining and that's the way I would have done it.  I strongly suspect that only Microsoft has software today that meets those requirements but that is irrelevant to the debate.

What we really need is a government funded software package that works with ISO 29500 but that is an expensive proposition for any one government.

Cheerio John

On 26 February 2012 06:59, Sydney Weidman <[hidden email]> wrote:

This may seem trite or so obvious as to be not worth repeating: in a connected world, standards make communication possible. The economics of network effects will ensure that a single standard eventually becomes dominant. If that standard is owned by someone, a) one cannot participate in its development except as a market participant and b) lack of competition allows the owner to gouge. Perhaps that state of affairs appeals to you. It does not appeal to me. While a single standard may be inevitable, merely accepting a feudal model over a democratic, collaborative one is to abdicate one's responsibility for positive change.

If the same self-defeating attitude prevailed with respect to, say, civic recycling programs, we would be considerably worse off environmentally than we are.

We don't have to accept what the market dictates unless that's really what we want.

- Syd

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM, john whelan <[hidden email]> wrote:

Just a couple of comments, the first is copyrighted fonts are actually a problem when you think about moving from one word processor to another.  It's difficult to get the page breaks etc correct across a group of people if you can't use the same fonts.  This was the justification for allowing Microsoft Word along side Wordperfect in one organization I worked for and I couldn't fault it.  Treasury Board used Microsoft Word.

Second across government the requirements for a word processor vary enormously, using Visual Basic to bring in data from one or two databases for form letters isn't uncommon.  Change the word processor and the first thing you find is not many have Visual Basic embedded in the software in the same way so that means rewriting applications and testing them which is expensive.

Also Word's richness for doing specialized tasks such as is unbeaten.  For example most people don't need an equation editor but for the people who do it is essential and there are lots of other examples.  One major barrier to change we found was very specialized electronic dictionaries that had been built up over time.

Third there is a whole industry of third party add-ons for Word, the relevant ones for Government concern tools for handicapped workers.  The Microsoft environment is simply much richer, this includes things like technical support, you need the document for a dead line how do you do something, and training.

Cost comes into the decision, my professional opinion is Windows desktops are cheaper than UNIX ones on ToC, and security but I'd prefer not to get into a debate here on the subject.

I think the final difficulty is that the richness of the integrated Microsoft suite is hard to beat.

Now having said all that there are very good reasons for creating documents for long term archival storage in some form of standard XML format and governments should accept electronic documents in a standard XML format and these two areas are winnable.  For the moment I don't believe changing word processors is unless a committee comes up with an integrated suite and its government funded.  Realistically it wouldn't be "open source" but it would be free to all levels of governments and charities.

Cheerio John

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[john whelan]

Sorry no, I just used to work on IBM mainframes many years ago.  Software isn't as error free as many people would like to think.  If you search for software bugs over time you should find some references including pretty graphs that show the rate of software bugs detected over time.

Cheerio John

On 26 February 2012 10:36, Clinton Boyda <[hidden email]> wrote:

That IBM quote/note is hilarious do you have specific URL for reference?

Sent Remotely

On Feb 26, 2012, at 7:02 AM, john whelan <[hidden email]> wrote:

Around thirty years ago the federal government department I was working at switched from one word processor to another.  The documents were in proprietary format on both the new and the old systems and it cost $1,000,000 to convert the existing documents.

I was under the impression that ISO/IEC 29500 is a formally approved ISO standard that has been through the standards process.  Documents written to the standard maybe opened in a variety of software and the file formats are fully documented.

It takes about five years to get something approved by ISO which is quite a long time in computer terms, things don't stand still.  For example today most people work in email programs rather than use word processing to print out a memo and sign it.  Word processing is becoming less important.

When you deal with complex software it should be expected that 100% compliance is not to be expected.  Even IBM noted in its main frame operating systems when it fixed one bug it often introduced another.

If the Australian government had simply specified that ISO 29500 file format was to be used and given a list of functional requirements that could be backed up by business needs then no one would be complaining and that's the way I would have done it.  I strongly suspect that only Microsoft has software today that meets those requirements but that is irrelevant to the debate.

What we really need is a government funded software package that works with ISO 29500 but that is an expensive proposition for any one government.

Cheerio John