open data formats

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has approved the PDF as a standard format for electronic documents. ISO has christened version 1.7 of PDF, the current working version, ISO 32000-1.
"As an ISO standard, we can ensure that this useful and widely popular format is easily available to all interested stakeholders," said ISO Secretary-General Alan Bryden in a statement. "The standard will benefit both software developers and users by encouraging the propagation and dissemination of a common technology that cuts across systems and is designed for long-term survival."

...

With Adobe relinquishing control of PDF, the ISO Document Management Applications Technical Committee will review any changes made to the format. The openly published standard provides the technical information required for writing software programs that can create and read PDF files, ensuring that organizations will always have some tools available to render PDFs, even if Adobe stops shipping its PDF viewer.

Awesome.

"ODF has clearly won," said Stuart McKee, referring to Microsoft's recent announcement that it would begin natively supporting ODF in Office next year and join the technical committee overseeing the next version of the format.

"We sell software for a living. The ability to implement ODF in the middle of our ship cycle was just not possible," he said. "We couldn't do that during the release of Office 2007. We're looking forward and committed to doing more than [ODF-to-OOXML] translators."

By owning the "standard" and developing it in secret, without participation from other vendors, in an Ecma rubber-stamp process, Microsoft rigs the system so they can author an ISO standard with which they are effortlessly compatible, while at the same time ensuring that their products maintain an insurmountable head start in implementing these same standards. There is no balance of interests in OOXML. It is entirely dictated by Microsoft, and voted on, in many cases, by their handpicked committees in Ecma and ISO.

...

Remember, standards bring interoperability, the ability to try out new tools and techniques, the ability to migrate, the ability to chose among alternatives, the ability even to run non-Microsoft products. If standards are meaningless and ineffective, then the incumbent' vendor lock-in will win every time. At that point, isn't it convenient for them to have a monopoly in operating systems and productivity applications? This, in my opinion, is the essence of Novell's 2004 complaint, Opera's present complaint, and the ongoing file format debate. Microsoft's monopoly power and the resulting network effects have lead to a relationship with standards where they win by winning, by drawing, or even by cheating so much that they discredit the system.

Adobe is submitting its DNG 'universal RAW' format to the International Standard's Organization (ISO), in a move aimed at increasing acceptance and usage. The format is being proposed as part of ISO's TIFF/EP (electronic photography), standard. We spoke to Adobe about the move.

Great, having all my photography locked in proprietary data formats is horrible.

AOL has done an about-face regarding third-party access to the company's AIM chat network. AOL's recently launched OpenAIM 2.0 provides open, uninhibited access to services like Meebo, or all-in-one IM clients like Pidgin, allowing them to freely and easily use the AIM instant messaging network.

That's quite a change from AOL's previous stance toward such competitors, which seemed to be somewhere between sticking its head in the sand and unleashing a pack of angry lawyers.

Nobody is buying it. Well. Employees, maybe. Microsoft is once again promising interoperability and adherence to standards, but its own version of each. Interoperability that is safe only for noncommercial software excludes Microsoft's number one competitor, Linux. It is noncommercial and commercial, depending on who is using it. So, right there it tells you that this is a promise to do nothing that matters. Microsoft is currently being investigated by the EU Commission regarding the same two issues, interoperability and its behavior pushing MSOOXML as a "standard". This is a promise to remain incompatible with the GPL, as far as I can make out.

Here's the response from the EU Commission. They totally get that this promise is insufficient. They've heard it before, at least four times. And it doesn't wipe the slate clean regarding past violations, even if they meant it. ECIS's Thomas Vinje also issued a statement [PDF] pointing out that the proof is in the pudding, that Microsoft doesn't get to define interoperability unilaterally, and as for standards, if it meant it, it would support ODF. What the world needs, he says, is "a permanent change in Microsoft's behavior, not just another announcement." ECIS' members include Adobe, Corel, IBM, Nokia, Opera, Oracle, RealNetworks, Red Hat, and SunMicrosystems. Here's Red Hat's statement. Here's Andy Updegrove's take. Todd Bishop's coverage on Seattle PI. And here's the video and transcript of Microsoft's conference call, with Steve Ballmer, Brad Smith, Bob Muglia, and Ray Ozzie. Look at Ozzie's expression in the photo on this page.

After a lot of hard work, we've finally released doubleTwist desktop. The goal of doubleTwist is to simplify the flow of media across devices and social networks. To give an example: say you shot a video with your Nokia N95 cellphone. How do you send that video to your friend and make sure he'll be able to play it on his iPod or Sony PSP? Yesterday, the easiest solution was to give up. As of today, the answer is doubleTwist. With doubleTwist, you'll be able to share and sync digital media without worrying about codecs and bitrates.

Microsoft fired the latest salvo in the increasingly antagonistic document standards debate last week when the company accused IBM of orchestrating efforts to block ISO fast-track approval of Office Open XML (OOXML), a document format devised by Microsoft for its office software suite. IBM isn't taking the accusations sitting down, however, telling Ars that Microsoft is leading a fight against truly open standards.

...

We spoke to Bob Sutor, vice president of standards and open source for IBM, who responded to Microsoft's recent claims regarding IBM's involvement in the OOXML dispute. "IBM believes that there is a revolution occurring in the IT industry, and that smart people around the world are demanding truly open standards developed in a collaborative, democratic way for the betterment of all," Sutor told Ars. "If 'business as usual' means trying to foist a rushed, technically inferior and product-specific piece of work like OOXML on the IT industry, we're proud to stand with the tens of countries and thousands of individuals who are willing to fight against such bad behavior.

"In particular, we congratulate those countries who have already voted against OOXML in the JTC1 ballot, and the many more who we believe are now considering doing the same," Sutor concluded.

I think I personally drove our previous IT guru to retirement with my constant nagging about 'open source' that and 'free' that. (See this post from 2005 as an example.) His responses started off generous-but-condescending -- "that's an interesting idea, but as you know, we don't have the staff to support it" -- and eventually became downright testy. But it struck me as a good idea then, and it strikes me as even more so now. In a time when we're shrinking the cadre of full-time faculty to save money, why the hell are we buying servers and paying staff for our own internal email system? Why not use gmail (or something similar) and use the savings to, I don't know, hire faculty?

Going farther, why the hell are we sending boatloads of cash to Microsoft for a gazillion Office licenses when AbiWord and OpenOffice are out there for free? (Google Docs shows promise, too.) For that matter, why not try Linux instead of Windows? Let Bill Gates absorb the hit, rather than my English department. He's better able to take it. And the time we save with fewer system crashes wouldn't be trivial.

And have you tried Blackboard/WebCT recently? Sheesh. I mean, Sakai and Moodle are just sitting there...

The only semi-persuasive argument I've heard for continuing to feed the Windows pig is that it's the "industry standard." That's true, but circular. It's true until it abruptly isn't.

Also, if the Windows ecosystem used open document formats, then switching to another system (Mac, Linux, whatever) would be trivial.

The reasons that US primary care clinics have not adopted electronic health/medical record applications is because of the economics of doing so. Just the licensing of these applications can run into the tens of thousands of dollars. There are several open source alternatives that carry no license fees. However, the real costs of implementation of these systems include so much more than just licensing. Books such as "Computerization and Going Paperless in Canadian Primary Care" (ISBN-13:978-1857756234) detail these processes and expenses. It can easily take up to 24 months to transition from paper to electronic medical records. This is expensive in terms of not only training but in temporary reduced efficiency.

But, even if a clinic forges ahead with an implementation and they are successfully converting from paper to electronic; who gains? In a 2004 View Point paper by the American College of Medical Informatics (J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12:13–19. DOI 10.1197/jamia.M1669.) they identified some primary reasons for the failure of the health information technology market in the US. Two major ones are:

1) Misaligned incentives. Simply, the people being expected to pay for EHR systems are the ones gaining the smallest percentage of pay back. payors and employers have by far the most incentive to see EHRs implemented.

2) Lack of true interoperability standards. In order for payors and employers to gain their maximum benefits, the systems must be able to communicate semantically correct patient information using open standards. In order to be capable of communicating semantically correct information, they must first be able to STORE semantically correct information. I believe that this is a bigger problem than the health informatics community realizes.

Emphasis on the second one.