RSSLibrarians Voice Support for OpenDoc
By Ed Oswald | Published December 16, 2005, 10:23 AM
Five library associations voiced their support for the use of OpenDocument (ODF) in Massachusetts this week, sending a letter to William Galvin, the Commonwealth's Secretary of State. In it, the groups say the open source format is the best choice, as everyone has access to its specifications.
Secretary Galvin has publicly derided the plan, saying he has "grave concerns" about switching to OpenDocument from Microsoft Office. He also had been rumored to be pushing the various state agencies to decline to participate.
First announced September 1, the Massachusetts plan to switch to open standards drew immediate criticism from Microsoft, which called it "inconsistent and discriminatory." The state seemed to warm to Microsoft in late November, apparently pleased with company's attempt to open up Office through the Open XML format.
"An important aspect of fostering access to information is ensuring that future generations will be able to read government information created today," the letter reads. The groups argued that although digital technology is creating new ways to access more information, it has made libraries' preservation role more difficult.
Now, not only do these libraries have to store documents, but also ensure they have backwards-compatible applications to view them.
The letter was backed by the American Association of Law Libraries, the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, the Medical Library Association and the Special Libraries Association. The five groups together represent over 139,000 libraries in the United States employing 350,000 librarians.
"Such backwards compatibility may be difficult to achieve in 100 years because the developer of the program used to create the document may have gone out of business and the proprietary specifications of the document format may have disappeared," the group explains.
With ODF, due to its open nature, in that same 100 year period it is much more likely the specifications would be around to help open these documents, they say. For that reason, the groups have decided to come out in support of the initiative.
The libraries additionally say they look forward to open standards on audio-visual materials. A message for OASIS was also included in the letter regarding ODF's limited accessibility features.
"We also strongly urge OASIS to work simultaneously to ensure compatibility standards for all users for whom barrier-free access to government documents is critical. In particular, steps must be taken to ensure compatibility for the disabled community and other users whose access may be compromised."
Massachusetts has until the end of 2006 to implement ODF across all executive agencies under the current plan.
go Mass. go!
FILE
> WIZARDS
>> DOCUMENT CONVERTER
Score: 0
|WEll in the very end everything is a single .txt (or any other format for linux). It's not that hard for people to create a program to just scan for the ascii text and convert it to another format and if they want full compatibility just use plain text .txt files
Score: 0
|We don't need to speculate 100 years in the future - just think 10 years.
Current versions of Word cannot even open Word docs created just 10 or 11 years ago!
And, Microsoft likes it this way. They're constantly changing the format to make it harder for others to open their files -- so hard, that even Microsoft can't keep up with their changes evidently
(or rather, it's not worth the extra effort for them to be backwards compatible).
It really says something that some people would be *opposed* to an actual open standard.
Score: 0
|Can anyone name ANY file format which has EVER been the slightest bit popular on PCs (or even pre-IBM PC microprocessor-based computers) but is no longer readable by any software currently still available? I'm certain that there are NO such formats in the 30-year history of desktop computers. There are native Win32 programs available today that read WordStar documents, MultiPlan spreadsheets, Harvard Graphics presentations, Borland Reflex databases. Emulators let you continue to run existing CP/M, Apple II, TRS-80, OS-9, CBM/PET/C-64/128, TI 99/4, and even Sinclair programs. Even the data stored by relatively obscure and proprietary line-of-business apps written in Ryan-McFarland COBOL and MicroFocus COBOL can be readily accessed today by utilities and ODBC drivers.
This file format argument is purely a political game; if these people were truly worried about being able to access 100% of today's data 100 years from now, they would be stockpiling 5.25" and 3.5" diskette drives. What's that you say? "Nobody" uses those anymore? Well what happened to all the data which was stored on those? That's right -- everything of value gets gradually migrated to newer storage. If Microsoft somehow vanished and took crucial information about doc, xls, ppt, pst, etc. formats with them, the simple fact is that people would migrate data forward to other formats, using tools widely available already. And they'll have plenty of time to do it because Microsoft couldn't possibly vanish overnight, any more than floppy diskettes vanished overnight. Anyone realize that IBM will still sell you a brand-new copy of Lotus 1-2-3 if you ask?
Score: 0
|I can name one: Microsoft Word 5 for DOS.
I happily used this program for years - it did all that I wanted. But Microsoft's own current Word programs won't read these files correctly. Microsoft isn't even compatible with Microsoft. They killed compatibility with the old format to force users to upgrade to the Windows versions of the software. And this inaccessibility didn't even require that Microsoft go out of business!
Sure you may be able to get at the insides of these documents with octal dumps, binary viewers, etc, but that's not the same as being a supported and accessible format.
I'm only certain that your certainty is misplaced. There were so many programs that flourished in the 80's for PCs which used proprietary formats, and databases that existed before the availabiity of ODBC drivers.
Besides, you contradict your own argument by citing ODBC as an example of how the data of these legacy applications are accessible. ODBC is an *Open* format allowing non-proprietary access to the data, in the same way that OpenDoc would allow. If it wasn't for the existence of ODBC, you wouldn't have the kind of access that you cite. You've unwittingly made the argument *for* open formats.
Score: 0
|"I can name one: Microsoft Word 5 for DOS. "
Apparently you haven't seen the "Compatability" tab under "Tools->Options..." before...
Score: 0
|"Apparently you haven't seen the "Compatability" tab under "Tools->Options..." before..."
And apparently you're making another glib comment, since it's evident that you haven't actually tried this yourself.
The tab you refer to has to do with preferences in how Word behaves within its so-called "compatibility". Just because they call it "compatibility" don't make it so.
When you actually try to open a Word 5 document, it comes up garbled - your formerly embedded and invisible printer information and style sheet info appear as some kind of jumbled page header, and you lose your formatting.
Score: 0
|希望这些政客能够ç£ä¿ƒå¤§å¦çŽ¯å¢ƒé‡Œä½¿ç”¨ODF。教育系统是一个很é‡è¦çš„å®£ä¼ é€”å¾„ã€‚
Score: 0
|Very informative post, dude.
If you can read my post, I'm being sarcastic as yours looks like garbage characters (language translater issue?)
Oh, and 希望这些政客能够ç£ä¿ƒå¤§å¦çŽ¯å¢ƒé‡Œä½¿ç”¨ODF。教育系统是一个很é‡è¦çš„å®£ä¼ é€”å¾„ã€‚ to you to.
Score: 0
|This is not really an issue anymore, but I wonder what's worse: an obsolete, unsupported open-standard or a supported closed-standard?
Software isn't something that is done once and forgotten. It has to be constantly updated to work with new platforms and integrate with evolving standards and technologies.
I ask, what company will be around in even five years to support OpenDocument? Sun Microsystems is the only company who supports it (I mean real support, not just in theory). Have you looked at Sun's financials? They appear to be in an irreversible nosedive. With their debt declared junk and McNealy dumping stock, bankruptcy seems to be their destiny.
I think the best bet for archivists is not to throw all their data into a single format but to store data in several formats, updating as formats change, so as not to get stranded on a dead one.
That said, I still think that important legal and historical data should be stored on paper. It's less subject to intentional and unintentional corruption, it's resistant to technological change (who wants to bet paper storage will outlast any contemporary computer storage format?) and one doesn't need electricity to observe the information.
Score: 0
|You...you are correct. I wonder why they don't blame this on money though--that almost certainly is the big thing in question and the only real reason for considering open-source at this point in time.
Score: 0
|First of all, there are several programs out there besides OpenOffice and StarOffice that support ODF. http://opendocumentfello...g/Applications/HomePage shows this and also note the many applications that will soon support the format. Since OpenOffice is open source, it doesn't need Sun for development to continue and I'm sure there are companies that would support it as well. I do however agree that it would be a good idea to store things in more than one format, and I am sure that is happening in most cases, just the one format that is going to be required is ODF.
Score: 0
|You're missing the point. The difference between open and closed standards in 100 years time is that open standards are just that: open! This means that in theory, someone can look at the standard, and re-write a program in 2105 that will can open the documents based on that standard.
On the flip-side, a closed-source document may be more difficult to open - the would-be programmer will need to reverse-engineer the original document or program to create a new program that can open the document.
As stated in the article, it is far more likely that an open standard, available to anyone, can be supported in the future, than a closed "standard" for which only one company *may* have source to provide.
What I fail to see is WHY people would resist an open standard at all. There is no rhyme or reason to it - and even Microsoft have recognised the benefits of an open standard for their next version of Office (albeit with some proprietary add-ons that make it anything but a 'standard').
Score: 0
|The library associations are very right. Companies come and go, go bankcrupt, drop their projects and products. Libraries live long, much longer than companies. Therefore they should support long lasting, open formats.
I can give you a perfect example. I was involved in the project of remastering the Pilsudski sound library. Bronislaw Pilsudski was Polish and sent in exile by the Russian Gov. to Siberia, where he recorded the voices and songs of the Ainu, who lived in Sakhalin (Russia) and Hokkaido (Japan) then (they almost extincted and no one speaks the language anymore). He made it for his own (he was married with an Ainu woman and he was an ethnologist). He was, probably, the only one who did it. The government of Japan sent specialists to Poznan (Poland) where the records are stored now. The problem is that the records could not be remastered for more than a decade, however we had everything: enough of money and three studios with outstanding sound engineers. Why? Pilsudski recorded everything on untypical Edison wax cylinders. And the company said: "no, we do not want you remaster it by your own. And if you will do it we will send our lawyers 'round. You can do it in our labs only" (but the cost would be around 40 times higher!). If not the influence of the Ministries of Culture of Japan and Poland the company would never agree.
I do not want similar situations in the future and therefore I will strongly support open formats.
edit: a bit more about the cylinders is here: http://www.sfs.nphil.uni.../issues/16/16-1020.html You can Google it by yourself (keywords: Pilsudski, cylinders, Ainu, etc.) too.
Score: 1
|"With ODF, due to its open nature, in that same 100 year period it is much more likely the specifications would be around to help open these documents, they say. For that reason, the groups have decided to come out in support of the initiative."
OMG! Real men and women of genius here, folks. Heh, in 100 years who knows and who cares? Really? Will we even need word processors in 2105? Or even PROCESSORS for that matter? Do they have a crystal ball the can look 100 years into the future with? What if we will all have Virtual Brains by that time, using a Virtual Telekenesis Link that allows every thought that goes through our mind to be permanately stored in a database? These idiots are wasting their time with something they don't (and CAN'T) even understand. They're out of their minds--where have they been the last 25 years? The whole process will CHANGE and get EASIER--compatability from now till 2105 is the LAST thing anybody should think about. LOL besides even "Y2K" compliant systems only go through the year 2099 if anyone hasn't already noticed.
BTW: I don't mind them switching over because of money. If they're willing to suffer through the transition phase for OpenDoc then fine. The reason they are giving is complely absurd bullsh!t designed to reassure opponents of their reason, but they don't really give a #$%! about 100 years from now.
Score: 0
|Many laws still enforced in the United States were established over 100 years ago. If a government is going to be keeping records electronically, including legislation, you better believe there is a need for them to last more than 100 years. If we're going to be reliant on computers moving forward, we must ensure the data is still accessible.
What happens if even 25 years from now people can't look back and review court cases because they are stored in a document format no longer used? Many of the United States' most important judicial rulings these days are based on decisions and opinions given decades ago.
Electronic mediums are important and incredibly powerful, and we can't keep using paper forever. But we need to ensure those electronic documents are just as readable in 50 and 100 years as hard paper documents are now.
You can't be shortsighted when talking about things like this, you have to plan. That's the whole reason the Constitution exists.
Score: 0
|"What happens if even 25 years from now people can't look back and review court cases because they are stored in a document format no longer used?"
Apparently you skimmed my post. If technology progresses in its current rate, in 100 years we will not necessarily even have document formats per se. We may store everything in a microcell in our thumb by speaking, we may do something like I spoke of above, or whatever. Microsoft is 95% of the market...if we don't allow conversion from that to open-source in 50 years we'd be dumber than house flies. OpenSource WILL be outdated...Microsoft WILL be outdated. It is a question of when and how, not if. WHEN MS is outdated or WHEN opensource is outdated you better believe there will be a way to convert it over. Read my post again.
Anyway XML is a universal standard so again why do they make this point at all? They're liars...they're in it for money (which is fine) and they want us to believe they have our best interests in mind so they make up sh!t (which is NOT fine)
Score: 0
|I thought most comps were set from 1930 to 2029?
Score: 0
|however we will still be able to read these documents because it will be a matter of opening a file that we can find out the inner workings of. You can look up how open source documents work right now and make your own office suite 100% compatible with openoffice and others. Now try to tell me the inner workings of an MS Office Document.
Score: 0
|XML as promoted by MS has not yet been used in any product! It doesn't currently 'exist' in any product that MA could even use! Oh, yes, it is purported to be released in a future product, but, we have all heard that before!
ODF exists in products, freely distributed, plus, in retail boxes (for the 'support' packages).
Funny, but, the freely available Open Office and Sun Star Office suites can read all MS Word formats back to the beginning. MS office products can only read back two revision levels.
The Open Office and Star Office run on most platforms.
Microsoft's Office product runs only on their current proprietary platform. Without Open Source innovation you'd need their past licenses, on appropriate hardware, running those older Office suites, to read any documents beyond the past two revisions.
What a total RIP OFF, but, what did you expect from the multiple convicted FELON Microsoft?
http://openoffice.org
http://sourceforge.net
Score: 0
|Firstly, I am forced to use M$ Office for the place I work but, I have yet to find a document that can be correctly converted from M$ Office 2003 to PDF using Acrobat 7... But they ALWAYS convert perfectly with Open Office and without as many accessibility errors. We have had to s*** everyone who publishes documents to the web to Open Office just to do our jobs...
Second, I feel that if any format or other that has become a standard should immediately loose any and all patents and copyrights related. A public standard is supposed to be a good thing for the people. It is CRIMINAL to require anyone to purchase a product at any cost or make them agree to end user licenses just to use or develop for the PUBLIC standard. Governments are supposed to protect the public from this kind of thing, yet many of these politicians cater to them. This is what is CRIMINAL... I am sure if someone dug deep enough, someone is being paid-off... Why else would anyone in their right mind choose a proprietary format over an open one...
If anyone ever finds a public document that they can't open FREELY, without any license restrictions or end user agreements, I suggest they file a lawsuit. Huge class-action suits are the only way to turn things around and make things right...
Steve
Score: 0
|When someone tells me not to be concerned about something, I look around for someone trying to sell me something.
Having worked on a few document repositories and document conversion projects, I have to say that documents stored in an open and standard format have a much better chance of surviving conversion. Whether it is for display only, or converting a whole repository to a new standard format, too much work goes into the process to ignore the consequences of a document format choice.
Stating that it doesn't really matter, to me, sounds ignorant.
Score: 0
|Oy, so much muddled thinking, I don't know where to start. Virtual Telekenesis (sic) Link? You've been watching too much Battlestar Gallactica, my friend.
It is precisely because things will be so different in the future that we should think about access to these documents in posterity. That the storage and transport mediums will change is irrelevant. It is the access to the content which open formats address. Document format is different from document storage medium. Format is how the bits are arranged and interpreted, storage is how the bits are saved. The format will persist whether stored on a thumb drive or bio-mechanical nerve endings.
The need for access to content will never be obsolete. Plato is still relevant today. But you are never not going to require protocols for communication & formats for information - there will always be a need for organization in communication, no matter what the form. These are enduring requirements no matter how different the means of transfer and exchange become.
Even if there is mind-reading in the future, information transfer will require protocol and format. And the only way to guarantee full access to content is to make these protocols and formats free and open.
Open Source will be oudated? Again, you're confusing dssimilar concepts. Microsoft is a corporation. Its document formats will eventually be replaced.
Open Source is an ideal, a freedom, a principle. That will never become outdated. Will the concepts of Democracy or Individual Freedom become outdated? Open Source will evolve in implementation, but it isn't a thing that obsoleces like a data format.
Suggestion: take two boxes labeled "Apples" & "Oranges", then Sort.
Score: 0
|