There is no end, but addition: Alex Brown's weblog http://adjb.net/index.php ISO committee takes full control of OOXML http://adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080409-221633
Harmony? Patrick Durusau, Jean Paoli and Brian Jones

Since my last blog entry a lot has happened. The big story of course is that DIS 29500 gathered enough votes to pass as an International Standard. Although the margin of votes in its favour was (surprisingly to me) reasonably comfortable, the overall mood of acceptance seems less of a "yip yip yahoo!" and perhaps more of a "well, alright". Everybody is now watching very carefully ...

Resolutions


Now however, the whole process moves forward into a much more significant stage. At the just-finished SC 34 meeting in Oslo a number of resolutions were passed relating to 29500. The most significant of these is resolution 4, "Creation of Ad Hoc Group 1 on ISO/IEC 29500 Maintenance", and it's worth looking at it in some detail. I will go through the complete resolution below with some explanation of my own ...

Background

SC 34 is the JTC 1 designated maintenance body for ISO/IEC 29500 (Office Open XML file formats).

simply states the fact that JTC 1 have handed full responsibility for the standard over to SC 34. We then have some informative text setting out SC 34's current orientation:

The passage of ISO/IEC 29500 has instituted a new era of standards activity in SC 34 related to document formats. ISO/IEC 29500 does not represent an isolated phenomenon, since SC 34 is also responsible for ISO/IEC 26300 and for interoperability between these and other projects.

SC 34 envisages the creation of three distinct working groups that meet the needs of:
  1. ISO/IEC 29500
  2. ISO/IEC 26300
  3. Work on interoperability/harmonization between document format standards
and wishes to incorporate existing expertise on these standards.

For these reasons, SC 34 hereby establishes an ad hoc group pursuant to the JTC 1 Directives, clause 2.6.2, for investigating how the first of these groups may be set up most effectively.

So, SC 34 has a plan: it envisages taking control of OOXML, then setting up a maintance procedure for ODF, and then working on cross-standard initiatives. As the first part of effecting this plan it is setting up a temporary group (in ISO parlance an "ad hoc group") to investigate how OOXML can be maintained. The rest of the resolution sets out the terms of reference for this new investigative group.

Terms of Reference

The terms of reference for the group are as follows:

The first of these terms of reference set out the task that the group is to perform:

The task to be completed by the group is to advise its convenor on creation of a document proposing structures and mechanisms for onward work on ISO/IEC IS29500. Onward work is defined as:
  • Maintenance as provided for by the JTC 1 Directives (in particular Section 15 - Maintenance of International Standards)
  • Handling new work items directly and exclusively related to ISO/IEC IS29500 (e.g. creation of new Parts of this Standard or evolution of this standard)

The proposal shall be drafted by the convenor as one or more resolutions (with supporting explanatory material) that may be discussed, revised and adopted by SC 34.

The ad hoc group should consider the following factors in making its recommendations to the convenor:

    a) A new working group should be created in SC 34 for the purpose of maintenance of ISO/IEC 29500 pursuant to Section 15 of the JTC 1 Directives for standards maintenance.
    b) Editors and editing teams should be nominated as well as mechanisms for the nomination of editors and editing teams for ISO/IEC 29500.
    c) Transparency of process, consistent with JTC 1 Directives, is a goal of the recommended process.
    d) Consideration should be given to how Ecma and ISO/IEC versions of ISO/IEC 29500 may be best kept synchronized.
    e) The proposal should recommend ways in which onward work on ISO/IEC 29500 may be carried out in as timely a way as possible, without recourse to the accelerated mechanisms of PAS or Fast Track procedures.


There are several things of note here. First is that the group activities are limited to OOXML only, and that the group will be purely advisory. It will advise its convenor who will weigh up the advice and report back to SC 34 who will in turn make a decision that heeds (or ignores) that advice.

Perhaps the most interesting thing here is the list (items "a" to "e") in which SC 34 gives a "steer" to the group on how it should be thinking about OOXML maintenance. What we learn from this is that the group should try to come up with a process that ensures maintenance activities are fully staffed, as open as possible, that keep Ecma and ISO versions of the standard in sync, and which sticks to the full rigour of normal committee working without any Fast Track or PAS oddities.

The later clauses flesh out some important further details.

2. The ad hoc group shall make its proposal to SC 34 for consideration at its plenary scheduled for 2008-10-01, at Jeju Island, Korea. A draft proposal shall be made available to SC 34 one month before the plenary.

sets the duration of the work. It will take place over the next 6 months or so and report in time for SC 34 to consider its findings at the next plenary.

3. The ad hoc group shall be open to participation from all SC 34 members, subgroup members, and liaison bodies. Participants shall be nominated by these bodies to the SC 34 secretariat in the usual way.

simply states that the usual people will be able to participate in the activity (SC 34 committee members, etc.)

4. The ad hoc group shall be convened by Dr Alex Brown, as nominated by the UK National Body (BSi).

says it is I who will be convening it - an honour indeed!

5. Administration and support for the ad hoc group’s activities shall be provided by the SC 34 Secretariat.

points out that our super-efficient SC 34 secretariat (of the Japanese NB) will be providing much needed assistance.

6. The ad hoc group shall arrange face-to-face, telephone and electronic meetings as required in accord with the provisions of the JTC 1 Directives. The first face-to-face meeting shall take place in early July in London, UK.

sets out some meeting details. The "main event" will be a two day meeting in London in summer.

and ... that's it. The resolution passed with unanimous support.

Bringing Ecma in


The above resolution says nothing of Ecma, since maintenance is now an SC 34 activity. Practically speaking, however, the Ecma TC 45 team are the guys who know more that anybody what is really going on with OOXML, so SC 34 issued a liaison statement (a fancy term for a "message") inviting these experts to participate:

SC34 recognizes that Ecma TC45 members have in-depth knowledge, technical expertise on ISO/IEC 29500 and will seek to preserve and allow for inclusion of this existing body of technical expertise in SC34. SC34 therefore invite Ecma TC45 members to attend and fully participate in ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 34 Ad Hoc Group 1 as well as in any future working group that will be dedicated to the maintenance of ISO/IEC 29500. SC34 intends to organize an efficient and timely process for maintaining and handling new work items to insure the evolution of the standard in following the JTC 1 Directives.


This encourages inclusion of the TC 45 people -- but they will of course have no power of vote at any level in the process.

Short-term maintenance


While all this investigative work is going on to determine the long-term maintenance procedure for OOXML, there is a more pressing task: recording the defects that are currently known and being found in the OOXML spec. With this in mind, a second ad hoc group is being established for collections of comments.

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 establishes Ad Hoc Group 2 in accordance with subclause 2.6.2 of the JTC 1 Directives, with the following terms of reference:

  • Definition of the task:
    • To define and put into operation a mechanism to compile a list of comments on ISO/IEC 29500 received from NBs, liaisons, and the general public.
    • To publish the on-going list as an open document on the SC 34 website.
  • Time frame: The collection mechanism is to become operational within 90 days from the end of the April 2008 ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 plenary. Once this is operational, collection will continue until a long-term maintenance process is operational.
  • Membership: Open to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 P and O members, liaison organizations, and subgroup representatives.
  • Convener: Makoto Murata (JP).
  • Meeting arrangements: Work will be handled primarily by email, with optional telephone conference calls at dates and times to be announced.


The main thinking here is that knowledge about defects must not get lost. This group, under the expert leadership of Murata Makoto, will make sure that does not happen, and that defects are carefully collected so that they might be fed into the onward maintenance process.

A little local difficulty


While all this work was going on, the OOXML backstory continued. In Norway there is a fuss that the NB (Standard Norway) did not adopt the recommendation of a technical committee. The situation was well explained by the excellent Lars Marius Garshol in his blog entry preceding the Norwegian vote. I can understand the crossness - I certainly would be miffed if our standards body (BSI) did not heed the advice of its technical committee, though in the UK case of course the technical committee recommended that BSI approves DIS 29500 ... What I find less understandable is how what is essentially a local spat (with SN rather obviously acting within its powers) has been blown up into something bigger ...


Steve Pepper

The demonstration passed off reasonably enough ... 100 or so geeks decamped from the adjacent open source conference to stand in the rain and wave placards while Steve Pepper had fun making a speech and brandishing a hairdrier (perhaps risking quips about 'hot air' in the process). There was some half-hearted chanting ("what's that smell? OOXML!"). Meanwhile some on-looking SC 34 people felt insulted. One neutral XML expert, who I know for a fact took a very close technical look at DIS 29500 asked "what are they saying? that we are incompetent? that we do not have the right to decide for ourselves?". Well ... were they?


Disharmony? the anti-OOXML protest

Standards of behaviour


Perhaps the most extraordinary document issued by SC 34 during this Oslo meeting was an "open letter", which received many signatures.

We the undersigned participants at this SC 34 meeting wish to make it clear that we deplore the personal attacks that have been made during the DIS 29500 standardisation project in recent months. We believe standards debate should always be carried out with respect for all parties, even when they strongly disagree.

We call on all organisations and individuals involved in SC 34 standardisation to support this view, and to refrain from initiating or engaging in any such personal attacks.

This content speaks for iself.]]> Trouble at t'Mill Road http://adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080329-091355
Let me explain. The part of Cambridge where I live is called “Romsey Town” – an area which might be variously characterised as “an urban village” or perhaps, as where the house prices are slightly less mind-bending than in other more college-dense parts of the city.

There has been much local agitation lately about plans by supermarket giant Tesco, the world’s third-largest retailer, to establish a local store on Mill Road (our high street, effectively). Anybody walking hereabouts cannot fail to notice the “No Tesco” posters dotted around in house and shop windows.

The No Mill Road Tesco Campaign is highly organised and professional, and as an opposition campaign is deserving of study. It is fascinating to compare it to the (somewhat less organised and professional) campaigns surrounding a certain ICT standard about which I sometimes blog – and it is a reality check to note that this local group of campaigners have managed to get more national media attention (BBC Radio 4 mp3 audio) than DIS 29500 ever did!

This gives some local flavour:


Things came to a climax at a crucial planning meeting a few weeks ago in which city council officials decided whether or not Tesco’s planning permission would be granted. Although officially the meeting was meant to focus on the acceptability of the planning application itself, the meeting kept drifting back to the question of who was behind it. And indeed it seems to me that it is the identity of Tesco which is a key feature of the opposition campaign (this is, after all, not a “no supermarket on Mill Road” campaign). So the campaign site quotes disapprovingly that Tesco announced £2.5bn (~ US$5 bn) profits in 2007 – shocking indeed!

As things stand we are at an impasse. The “no” campaign claims Tesco has lost because their planning application for a store extension was refused; Tesco are maintaining they can go ahead with their store without building an extension and are lodging an appeal against the planning decision. The claim that Tesco has “lost” looks premature to me.

And as for my opinion? Well, this is something I can happily defer to my head of delegation …]]> OOXML Purdah Again http://adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080310-094712 below) for NBs to consider (if they wish) in these final few weeks of the Fast Track process; and during this time NBs that voted in the 2 September ballot may (if they wish) change that vote – see the SC 34 Home Page for details.

While the National Bodies deliberate, it is once again time for me to enter a state of Purdah, and so I will be remaining silent on all things related to DIS 29500 for the time being. Let us hope (perhaps against hope) that the next few weeks will see some sensible, high-quality debate ...]]> BRM Documents http://adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080306-082306 ]]> BRM Perspective http://adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080304-191634 different perspective (and a clue to how I keep sane) ...


Badge & Gavel
]]> DIS 29500 BRM: 10 Things To Remember http://adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080213-111601

1. Read the FAQ


SC 34 has published a FAQ on the BRM. Attendees (and anyone interested in the BRM) should read it.

2. Heads of Delegation have their own preliminary meeting


An invitation has been issued to the Heads of Delegation of all attending National Bodies (NBs) for an informal meeting on the evening before the BRM (other delegates will not be admitted). In this meeting I will cover various points concerning meeting management and logistics. The meeting is entirely optional, and no delegation will be at any disadvantage whatsoever during the BRM itself even if its HoD does not attend this informational meeting.

3. Heads of Delegation have a special role


Given the high level of controversy, HoDs have a particularly significant role in managing their delegations in such a way that the overall BRM is productive and succeeds in improving the quality of the text. ISO and IEC consider it crucial that this principal goal of the BRM should be fulfilled.

4. Don't bank on net connectivity


The BRM venue promises wireless internet connectivity, but experience shows that venues can have difficulty coping when 120 people simultaneously demand connectivity. Plan to bring offline copies of any electronic documents your delegation needs.

5. Remember the scope of the BRM


As this FAQ item makes clear, the BRM can only discuss matters which can result in instructions to the Editor to make changes to the written specification. I will permit no discussion on topics such as standards policy or IPR, unless they can reasonably lead to instructions to the Editor which he is empowered to enact. This is not to deny the fact that NBs may find such topics of interest; but a BRM is not the forum for formally airing them.

6. Be prepared


NBs should know what they want to discuss and know what their position is on the comments/responses which are significant to them. If any NB delegation actively wants to discuss the response to one of its (or any) comment, it should be prepared to state a concern when called on to contribute.

7. Remember the BRM does not vote on DIS approval


It is worth re-iterating, the BRM is a meeting which can approve a new text; it is not a meeting which decides whether the DIS becomes an International Standard. That is determined by the status of NB votes 30 days after the BRM has finished.

8. "ISO/IEC"


Bloggers and commentators take note: properly speaking OOXML is attempting to become an "ISO/IEC" standard, not just an "ISO" standard. JTC 1 is the body which carries out dual standardisation for these parent organisations.

9. Bring photo ID to register


In order to attend the BRM, a delegate must appear on the delegate list which has already been submitted by their national body to SC 34. They must identify themselves at the registration desk with photo ID (e.g. a passport).

10. Jaywalking


In Switzerland, jaywalking is illegal. Let this be symbolic for expected standards of behaviour at the BRM!

- Alex.]]> OOXML Homework http://adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080129-223209 Tracking OOXML issues
No matter where one stands in the DIS 29500 debate, one fact is indisputable: the vast amount of human effort that is being expended. This struck me yesterday as BSI technical committees met to agree a UK position on Ecma’s responses – a task that is nearly complete thanks, in no small part, to the use of Mantis for tracking each of the UK comments and its proposed disposition.

The work however does not end there as the UK must finalise its view on other NBs’ comments too. As the JTC 1 Directives explicitly state, the reason why all NB comments are distributed is to allow all NBs to form an opinion on all of them:

Upon receipt of the ballot results, and any comments, the SC Secretariat shall distribute this material to the SC NBs […] The NBs shall be requested to consider the comments and to form opinions on their acceptability. (13.6)

By extension, of course, NBs shall naturally be considering Ecma’s responses to these comments too. It is this considered national position that delegations will be taking to Geneva:

NBs […] shall appoint to the ballot resolution group one or more representatives who are well aware of the NB’s position. (13.7)

So, NBs need to do their homework so that delegations arriving at the BRM in Geneva are fully briefed. The delegation should ideally know their national position on all 1,000 or so distinct comment/responses that could be discussed. It is the responsibility of the delegation to faithfully represent their national position (not individual divergent delegate views), and to be prepared to respond to any fresh issues that arise in line with guidance their NB has given them.

1,000 responses in 35 hours?


Given the five day time limit of the BRM, a frequently asked question is: how can 1,000 issues be addressed in the time, even if NBs already know what their position is? The answer, I think, must lie in paper voting. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of meeting resolutions will be decided by voting (as allowed for by the JTC 1 Directives), and delegations will be given lengthy voting papers allowing them to approve, abstain, or disapprove for any proposed resolution. The voting papers are likely to have three kinds of proposed resolution listed on them:

  • Verbatim responses from Ecma's proposed disposition of comments (as contained in the document published by SC 34 as N 980)
  • Ecma responses that have been amended by the BRM
  • Fresh responses arising from BRM discussion

for the latter two types, consensus might well be reached during in-session discussion, in which case there is obviously no need to put the proposed resolution to the additional test of a redundant vote.

In ISO (and as adopted by JTC 1), the word “consensus” has a specific meaning:

[...] general agreement, characterised by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. Consensus need not imply unanimity.

Different meeting chairs take different approaches to determining consensus. In general, if the existence of consensus is not beyond doubt on any issue at the BRM, it will be deferred to paper balloting alongside the undiscussed issues.

Now, paper balloting follows normal JTC 1 in-meeting rules:

In a meeting, except as otherwise specified in these directives, questions are decided by a majority of the votes cast at the meeting by P-members expressing either approval or disapproval. (9.1.4)

[Update 2008-03-06. This was the wrong clause. In-meeting Fast Track BRM voting is for resolving the comments of a constituency determined by the combined voting procedure (O-members + P-members) as per the JTC 1 Directives 9.5, and that is the understanding of the "normal JTC 1 procedures" in 13.8.]

Tied votes will be assumed not to have passed (unless they get the “further discussion” the Directives require during the BRM, which is unlikely).

Some commentators have been suggesting the BRM will be some kind of biased pro-OOXML love in, but this is laughably wide of the mark. As I have blogged before, a clear majority of delegations are from countries that either disapproved or abstained in the September letter ballot; taking P-members alone, this is even more so, with over two thirds of delegations being such non-approvers. This will be no love-in: I am expecting some hard work and high-quality technical discussion!]]> OOXML BRM - What Matters? http://adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080124-124941
In my last post I mentioned how the BRM could get through the “straightforward” issues by discussing them quickly in batches. Following feedback on this, and further thought, I am tending towards a more radical plan: not discussing these “easy” issues at all, but instead deferring them to ballot papers that NB delegations can complete “off line” so that valuable session time is not consumed considering missing commas and the like. This leaves the sessions clear to discuss more important matters.

And what are these important matters? Well, that is a question only the NBs can answer — and to that end SC 34 has issued a request for NBs to submit a shortlist of the comments/responses that they would most like to discuss. These shortlists will be used for more detailed planning of the sessions, helping to ensure that we get the broadest coverage we can of the most important issues, in the limited time we have ...]]> OOXML: DIS 29500 Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) Approaches http://adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry080107-183411

BRM delegation sizes fixed


National Standards Bodies have submitted their proposed delegations for the BRM to JTC 1 and, as anticipated, some have been reduced in size to fit the venue, which takes 120 people.

In all, 40 countries (plus Ecma) are sending delegations, and 14 of them (of more than four people) have been scaled back. The result is that delegations will vary in size between 1 and 6 people — this (precedented) adjustment hardly represents the sort of “disenfranchisement” that was being anxiously predicted in some quarters.

Given the purpose of the BRM the pattern of attendance, as expected, reflects a skeptical stance towards the DIS: 27 delegations are from countries that either disapproved or abstained in the September letter ballot.

Critical role of the Heads of Delegations


It is something of an honour, in my opinion, to be appointed Head of Delegation (HoD) by one’s National Standards Body, and at the BRM this role will carry greater than usual weight. A few points are worth making about HoDs’ responsibilities.

First, the HoD will be responsible for registering votes at the BRM (and it is worth re-iterating that any voting at the BRM is voting on the text, not voting on approval of the standard);

Secondly, in any voting, the HoD (in common with the whole delegation) will be presenting their National Body opinion, not their personal one. This (which is normally the case anyway) is especially emphasised in the JTC 1 directives, which state that BRM delegation members are “representatives who are well aware of the NB’s position”;

Finally, the HoDs play an important role in maintaining order during the meeting, since they are responsible for running their own delegation and keeping it in order.

Random agendas?


The agenda for the BRM will be published soon, probably later this month. While the details are yet to be finalised it is clear that the agenda will not be “random” — in a five-day meeting of 120 people that would be a recipe for disaster. It is also clear that the mainspring of the agenda will be the body of comments submitted by National Standards Bodies in the 2 September ballot. A secondary consideration will naturally be the responses the submitter (Ecma) has made to those comments. Assuming comments are partitioned into common clusters, (e.g. by parts of the DIS) then within each cluster there are likely to be three categories of submitter response:
  • straightforward acceptance (everyone agrees on the comment, its NB-proposed remedy is adopted as is);
  • modified acceptance (the gist of the comment is accepted, the proposed response differs from that originally suggested);
  • non-acceptance/non-response (the comment is not accepted).
There is little to be gained dwelling in areas where everyone is in agreement, and so I expect the meeting to move quickly through batches of comments which have straightforward acceptance. This will leave time for review of the more contentious responses. Inevitably, there is likely to be insufficient time to review all comments in detail – in this case, some will be held until later in the BRM; others will be deferred to maintenance (should the DIS get approved).

Kyoto aftermath


Following informal discussions with some NBs in Kyoto, I think it is perhaps worth re-emphasising that the BRM will be a meeting which concerns itself with the DIS 29500 text, the comments NBs made on it in the 2 September ballot, and Ecma's proposed responses to these comments. The FAQ already spells out some topics which are out-of-scope, and in addition the following should be noted:
  • the JTC 1 Directives make clear that comments NBs may have after 2 September are out-of-scope: “comments received after the normal voting period will not be taken into account, except that they will be submitted to the appropriate SC Secretariat for consideration at the time of the next review of the IS in question” (13.6)
  • the behaviour and conformance level of any applications which claim to implement DIS 29500 is irrelevant to the standardisation process. ISO/IEC standards have to be complete in themselves without reference to applications, to avoid the possibility of difference (and thus divided authority) between the text itself and any so-called “reference” implementation. In other words, MS Office will not be discussed.

Other Geneva meetings?


It seems the OpenForum Europe is organising a meeting to coincide with the BRM: same time, same venue. It’s not clear from the announcement what time of day this seminar is scheduled to take place, though an invitation is issued to BRM attendees. I will be disappointed if those involved in this event expect BRM delegates abandon their work in session to attend this meeting, as that can only diminish legitimate participation in this important ballot resolution process.]]> Back from Kyoto http://adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry071215-123604
At the SC 34 Closing Plenary

The closing SC 34 plenary passed, as expected, without controversy – but instead with some warmth of feeling as the attendees expressed their appreciation for the outgoing SC 34 officers.

The Unclogging of SC 34


SC 34 seems to be getting over the worst effect of its influx of new members: ballots not getting passed because of insufficient voting. Some NBs attending these meetings were even able to submit votes for open ballots, getting us up to the required numbers just in time. Talking to them it seems the problem has (as usual) been “cock-up rather than conspiracy”, with problems occurring such as emails going awry in the bureaucracies of the new members’ standards bodies.

This means that my working group (WG 1) was able to progress its work on DSDL and the part I am editing (DTLL) is due to advance to FCD (Final Committee Draft) stage early next year. I was also able to continue work on an implementation of a DTLL validator in Java – this is open source and on sourceforge, though I don’t recommend checking it out unless people want a very early view, or want to help with the coding effort (yes please!)

Impressions of Japan


This was a very enjoyable and worthwhile trip, and it is reassuring to have seen SC 34 continuing to function effectively. The Japanese people are very friendly, the food fantastic, and the temples and gardens so beautiful (Kyoto has the highest density of World Heritage Sites of anywhere on the planet). I regretted not taking a more serious camera than my battered Canon compact. If there’s one place in this world that merits lots of megapixels and fine optics, it’s Kyoto.

And OOXML?


Though DIS 29500 was off the agenda, it was, out of session, on most people’s lips. It is my hope that good faith engagement with the process and principled discussion from all (what might be called SC 34 characteristics) will ultimately triumph, though (as patrollers of the blogs will know) feelings seem to be running high in some quarters.

No neutral observer is being so foolish as to predict what will happen – on the long flight home I was pondering this and found (possibly as a result of too much in-flight Sake) a Haiku coming to mind which seemed to sum this up:

Six thousand pages,
And five days in Geneva;
Maybe it will pass.



Mirror Lake at Ryoan-ji Temple]]>