OpenDocument Alliance to Fight Digital Dark Age 185
OSS_ilation writes "A consortium of vendors and academic institutions -- including IBM, Sun Microsystems and the American Library Association -- has announced today that they are forming the OpenDocument Alliance as part of an effort to promote open file standards worldwide. The group will support the one truly open standard file format, OpenDocument, which is an XML-based file format used saving and exchanging editable office documents such as text documents, spreadsheets and presentations. Sun's Simon Phipps said he believed ODF would allow future generations to view all of today's digital docs and prevent a digital Dark Age from occurring."
THE one truly open format? (Score:2, Insightful)
There is more than one "truly open format", so using the word "the" is a bit pretentious.
Re:THE one truly open format? (Score:3, Interesting)
You see, even this text plain files are based on some conventions, this is, we all "know" that when your machine reads one of those files a 65 means the character A, 67 character B and so on. Thus, the generation that wants the information must be aware of those things.
Now, with digital information is a bit more difficult than with printed paper, as in 200 years people may
Re:THE one truly open format? (Score:2)
Assuming for a minute that all knowledge of ASCII is lost; given that during WW2 we were able to crack the enigma, I seriously doubt a simple substitution cipher will be a huge deal for our ancestors. People do more difficult puzzles with a p
Re:THE one truly open format? (Score:2)
<nitpick>
65 + 1 = 66
</nitpick>
I think it would take more than a couple hundred years for a language to die though. It will probably take more like a couple thousand - and an almost complete collapse of civilazion as we know it. Not entirely out of the realm of possibility, I suppose.
Still... like Linus once famously said, "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." So as long as t
Re:THE one truly open format? (Score:2)
Re:THE one truly open format? (Score:2, Insightful)
But I don't think that a harddrive will hold that much data over thousands of years anyway. Flash maybe...
Re:THE one truly open format? (Score:2)
I think GP misunderstands 'digital dark age' (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppose that a very important document is formatted in Billy's proprietary document format v1.21, but there are no more copies of Billy's wordprocessor which was discontinued 250 years ago, so the format has to be reverse engineered.
Now what happened if Billy's wordprocessor instead us
Re:THE one truly open format? (Score:3, Interesting)
You could argue th
Re:THE one truly open format? (Score:2)
Re:THE one truly open format? (Score:2)
Re:THE one truly open format? (Score:2)
Water can provide the mechanical energy needed to run it.
There are 2 buttons. One for "0" and one for "1" (or whatever). After a button is pressed, the water pops back up. After the 8th button has been pressed, it stays down, the wheels turn, and then a stone tablet with a letter carved in to it is raised. After a moment, the letter goes down, and the input buttons raise again for the user to input the next 8 bits.
As long as the users of th
Re:THE one truly open format? (Score:2)
In 200 years, people may not remember that ASCII had 8 bits, or that UTF8 can have 8 or 16 bits depending on the character. But if they know how our computer worked (that including the fact that we use a 8 bit quantum), the documents can be recovered. That is assuming that they can read our language, but we have plenty of translations out there to help with that.
We probably shouldn't worry about writting down into paper how our computers work for now. There are lots of texts out there already printed that
Re:THE one truly open format? (Score:5, Informative)
- it invents very little. The container format (jar) is well known, XML is well known, it builds on HTML for semantic structure, it uses other standards (XLink, XForms, SVG, etc.) where it makes sense to. It is, in effect, a "common subset" of standards which are all useful in creating documents (e.g., HTML is great, but you can't store images easily in an HTML file [tho obviously, yes, it is possible...]). This is in stark contrast to, e.g., MS XML.
- it has been well-designed from the start to actually improve the current state of the art, not replicate it. E.g., the metadata system is good and getting better.
- unlike text/html, competing implementations are actually interoperable: vendors are working through OASIS, which has standardised it from the start, and are making sure things work. HTML standards came a little late in the game, and there are still text/html pages out there which my poor Firefox can't handle.
There are a ton of reasons why OpenDocument isn't just "another format", but actually a significant step forward.
Re:THE one truly open format? (Score:2, Insightful)
Open Document Format, on other hand, is a strict XML format so it is both open and standard.
Sure, plain text is open and standard too, but most applications require a more structured document than you can get with plai
Re:THE one truly open format? (Score:3, Informative)
text/plain isn't a format. text/plain plus an encoding is a format. Which encoding would you like? Latin-1? That's defined in ISO/IEC 8859-1:1998 [www.iso.ch], which costs ~50USD to buy. UTF-8? That's defined in ISO/IEC 10646:2003 [www.iso.ch], which costs ~90USD to buy. Want text/html? On top of the character encoding issues, you'll also have to refer to the ISO 8879:1986 [www.iso.ch] standard, which costs ~170USD to buy.
What you claim are "truly open standards" are built on top of for-pay standards. You can't implement them fully
Re:THE one truly open format? (Score:2)
Re:THE one truly open format? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:THE one truly open format? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.apple.com/opensource/ [apple.com]
Re:Don't forget OpenXML (Score:2)
First Glance:
OpenXML is patent-encumbered and Microsoft's covenant not to sue specifically and deliberately excludes revisions to and future versions of the standard from protection against being sued by Microsoft. This means that if any OSS developer attempts to fix any bug or security problem in it, Microsoft could sue for patent infringement.
Wake me up when it's worth having that second glance.
not that I would be against.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:not that I would be against.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:not that I would be against.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:not that I would be against.. (Score:2)
Re:not that I would be against.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I have found TeXmacs pretty good too.
http://www.texmacs.org [texmacs.org]
They also have a (beta) version that runs on Windows (I tested it. Works fine.)
There are other commercial editor also.
Re:not that I would be against.. (Score:5, Insightful)
LaTeX is a typesetting system. It's designed for getting a nicely formatted PDF or PostScript file out of a source file that you can alter and modify on the spot. Typesetting is what it does really well. If you try to shove and bend it into other roles, it starts to get kludgy, especially when it concerns data exchange between large numbers of users with inconsistent package versions, automated processing of LaTeX documents with third-party tools or heavy use of international character sets.
Re:not that I would be against.. (Score:2)
Funny, I still can't see how the data that is in a LaTeX file may be lost. Maybe some formatation, but no tables, pictures, formula or text. Also, you can always infer the function of a package from the name if you don't have it, or read any manual from that time, there are always plenty of them. And it is not so hard to keep all combinations of packages, CTAN does exactly that. It is in no way worse than any other open format out there.
About it being dificult to parse (?!). Well, I think that it is the p
Re:not that I would be against.. (Score:2)
Also, you speak of maintaing compatibility. Will XML always be compatible? Will nothing in the various XML languages ever be deprecated?
As for the difficulty of parsing TeX/LaTeX, is that due to th
what are the comparisons: openxml vs. open doc? (Score:4, Interesting)
Open formats are definitely the standard for which to strive.
It appears Microsoft claims an open format, from the (fine) article:
Can anyone clear up exactly what OpenXML is? When I google it, I get vague references leading me to believe OpenXML is more of a container, and not Microsoft's specific document format. So, this sounds like another canard from Microsoft with the claim "open" obfuscating what is probably not.
Any /.'ers have more info about Microsoft's format?
On the other hand, the consortium (if you will) proposing a universal open document standard sounds more open and the proof will be in the implementation. Still, I'd like to know more specifically what that standard proposal is in detail.
Canards (Score:5, Informative)
Get thee to Groklaw [groklaw.net], my curious friend. The debate, along with fine technical details are found there.
On the other hand, the consortium (if you will) proposing a universal open document standard sounds more open and the proof will be in the implementation. Still, I'd like to know more specifically what that standard proposal is in detail.
The implementation is here. It's called "ODF," the "Open Document Format." It is the default file format of the Open Office suite of applications; KOffice is also moving (or *has* moved, I'm too lazy to look) to that format, as well. IBM's office suite will implement ODF.
Again, Groklaw has a lot of information, including pointers to the official specification.
Re:Canards (Score:3, Informative)
Re:what are the comparisons: openxml vs. open doc? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2006/02 / 02/523469.aspx [msdn.com]
Additionally, it appears that they have adopted a covenant not to sue:
Re:what are the comparisons: openxml vs. open doc? (Score:2)
Re:what are the comparisons: openxml vs. open doc? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:what are the comparisons: openxml vs. open doc? (Score:2)
You misunderstand. It is Microsoft who is making the covenant not to sue. I don't see any strings attached, just worries about what might happen with an essentially unregulated standard (in the sense that MS will not stop people from creating supersets or subsets) - but to me, this is more freedom, and therefore good.
Re:what are the comparisons: openxml vs. open doc? (Score:2)
Re:what are the comparisons: openxml vs. open doc? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can anyone clear up exactly what OpenXML is? When I google it, I get vague references leading me to believe OpenXML is more of a container, and not Microsoft's specific document format. So, this sounds like another canard from Microsoft with the claim "open" obfuscating what is probably not.
MS is offering to license this format to people under particular terms and parts of this format are indeed binaries embedding in XML. It is also patent encumbered. The main objections to the licensing include restrictions making it unimplementable by GPLed programs and licensing for old versions expires as soon as MS releases a new version, thus providing no guarantee that future generations will be able to legally read the files. Basically it is MS trying to confuse the issue and claim their format is just as open as the Open Document, even though in reality it does not confer the benefits Open Document does.
Dark age already upon us (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dark age already upon us (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Dark age already upon us (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dark age already upon us (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dark age already upon us (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dark age already upon us (Score:2)
I would hope that anything of value has already been transferred to another archive format. Of course, CD-R's would not be a good format to use because their longevity is estimated to be only 2-5 years [technologyreview.com].
How much does CD-ROM creating equipment cost?
Solved, already (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Solved, already (Score:2)
Perhaps you haven't noticed that it's kind of laborious to back up data that exists only on paper. This is why so many texts from antiquity have been lost. The survival of texts in manuscript form is the exception, not the norm. People have never, until the last hundred years, devoted a very large or widespread effort to technology for preserving data: the lack and the need
Re:Dark age already upon us (Score:2)
Re:Dark age already upon us (Score:2)
Re:Dark age already upon us (Score:2)
Cool name! (Score:5, Funny)
DAAG (Score:2)
Re:Cool name! (Score:2)
Re:Cool name! (Score:3, Funny)
Digital Dark Age? (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean hell. I've got 1.25 terabytes of online storage at home and probably 250 CDs burned over the last ten years I can't reliabily ensure I'll still have access to in ten years. Half those CDs are probably unreadable now -- from recent experience at least 10% aren't.
If they want to solve the digital dark age problem, they need to figure out how gigabytes or terabytes of PERSONAL information will be saved for future generations, not filtered down government or commercial archives. File formats just aren't that big of a deal. Worst case someone has to reverse engineer it in a hundred years, if you actually HAVE the data in a hundred years.
Digital Dark Age My Ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, who gives a f*ck about your 1.25 TB of crap? Or mine? We're just two ants in the anthill. You really think you can look up any substantial amount of information on someone who lived 200 years ago? Hell, try *50* years ago. Aside from public records like tax information and housing details, and maybe some family photos, you are likly to come up with bubkus, unless that person was famous.
It's going to be no different 200 years from now, and frankly I don't see the problem with that. Only in the past decade has everyone gotten this weird urge to try and archive and record every unimportant detail of their daily lives (see MySpace.com, blogging, etc). What they don't realize is no one really gives a crap today, and they sure as hell won't give a crap in 100 years.
Historians want to know about culture as a whole, not in bite-sized chunks. Aside from the major move-makers (politicians, *some* celebrities), historians won't be any more interested people's musings on shit like Paris Hilton than I am.
Re:Digital Dark Age My Ass (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Digital Dark Age My Ass (Score:2)
Right. Because in the 1770s, absolutely no one in the colonies wrote anything stating that Washington et. al. were just a bunch of wankers who didn't feel like paying extra for tea, the greedy bastards. And no one ever wrote home a
Re:Digital Dark Age My Ass (Score:2)
Re:Digital Dark Age My Ass (Score:2)
That's true, but there is also a larger amount of worldly spread information in general, true and false. In fact, I would venture to say that the percentage of false information to true information is much lower now than it has been historically, simply because the average educational level of the world has increased dramatically in the last 100 years. So even though more bad information is out there, even more goo
Re:Digital Dark Age My Ass (Score:2)
Re:Digital Dark Age My Ass (Score:5, Insightful)
actually judging by what modern archeologists find really interesting, it is exactly what future archeologists will be interested in.
The little bits of detritus that make up individuals lives are far more interesting than the "big picture" history which is usually heavily loaded with spin, and therefore a bit of chore working out what actually was happening as opposed to what people wanted you to believe was happening.
the fact that people ARE musing on shit like Paris Hilton IS going to be interesting to future historians, because it gives an insight into how people were living their lives and what was important to them at the begining of the 21st Century.
all of those pictures from our camera phones, and whining live journals may not be a terribly flattering picture of our lives, but for an archeological point of view, it's exactly the sort of evidence you want.
Re:Digital Dark Age My Ass (Score:2)
And if they saw slashdot browsing below 5, they'd write us off completely
Re:Digital Dark Age My Ass (Score:4, Insightful)
I have nearly a hundred glass negatives of photos from my family a hundred years ago.
A hundred years from now, its unlikely any of the 500 gig of digital photos or DV videos I have in there will be available to anyone. Hell, I'm worried that a couple of bad failures in quick succession could mean the same for myself or my future children in a lot less time!
You clearly are not a historian or a history buff... because I don't know any that would make such a blatently rediculous statement that they are not interested personal writings and other forms of media.
Re:Digital Dark Age My Ass (Score:2)
DRM could be the real cause of the Digital dark ages. The pirates may be the only thing that will let th
Re:Digital Dark Age My Ass (Score:2)
Re:Digital Dark Age My Ass (Score:2)
Re:Digital Dark Age My Ass (Score:2)
Right now, the oldest culture on earth was the ancient egyptians. They were nice enough to leave lots of written records, but it took us hundreds of years to figure out what their writing meant - and we had to cheat to do it (by the lucky discovery of the roset
Re:Digital Dark Age? (Score:2, Funny)
"...figure out how gigabytes or terabytes of PR0N information will be saved for future generations..."
Now we have a problem that needs to be solved. Get to it!
Re:Digital Dark Age? (Score:2)
In 500 years, if an archeologist wants to learn more about the 20th century, he or she will have the means to work out these document formats. Who gives two squirts what the formatting was, at that point, in a Word document? The text is there, you can use "strings" and get it out. That archeologist won't care in the least what the data the US government chose to archive, it doesn't tell you a
I truly wish them luck (Score:5, Insightful)
While packages like open office etc exist, they have for a while and are perceived as "not being ready for prime time" by most businesses. The only advantage many see is the ability to save as PDF (another proprietary format). For ODF to take hold, governments and some very large publishing concerns are going to have to adopt it. Else, not much will change and the march towards increasingly proprietary formats will continue.
Re:I truly wish them luck (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity, why is PDF as bad as...say...a Word document? How else can something like xpdf, or any number of PDF converters and/or readers exist?
And to be quite honest, if this 'open document' inititive falls through, I dont see why there can be a concentrated effort to reverse engineer the Word document format to a satisfactory standard. It's stayed almost identical since Word 97.
Re:I truly wish them luck (Score:2)
Re:I truly wish them luck (Score:2, Insightful)
Adobe owns the PDF standard outright, and the thing about proprietary formats is the originator can change the spec anytime they want without any input from anyone.
But that doesn't prevent Free apps from specifying that they read and write PDF 7.0. On the other hand, do you think Free specs don't change? Look at the rewrite-from-scratch that is the XHTML 1.1 to XHTML 2.0 transition.
In order... (Score:2)
So how do they decode the English language? (Score:2)
for it to be truly open and future-accessible, it would have to specify everything from the bottom hardware level up - from how bits are encoded on whatever the storage medium is, through to file system layout, and only then starting to talk about the contents of the data itself.
The "Compact Disc Recordable" and "ISO 9660" formats are already fairly strictly specified, and abridged versions of the specs could be etched onto a durable substrate and included in the time capsule. Trouble is that these spec
Oh my, this reminds me of something (Score:3, Funny)
Seven for the HURD-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Microsoft Men doomed to die,
One for the Big Blue on his sparc throne,
In the Land of Sun where the Shadows lie,
One Standard to rule them all, One Standard to find them,
One Standard to bring them all and in the darkness unite them
In the Land of Sun, where the Shadows lie,
The One Truly Open Standard.
More 90% is MS format? (Score:2)
Re:More 90% is MS format? (Score:2)
Dark Information (Score:5, Insightful)
Some pieces of information did really exist long ago, but we only have references to the information, not the information itself. This could be from the lack of copies, or from suppression from religion or government.
In our digital world the same could happen with information, including software, books, music, and movies.
In an effort to absolutely control the information, different information industries attempt to control the media, using secrets, encryptions, and government control. These industries intend to profit from this information control as long as possible. The end of this control is assumed and mandated not to exist.
The problem is that at some point in the future the information could become non-valuable to these information industry. But currently, no mechanism exists such that these industries would be required or motivated to reveal the secrets or encryption mechanisms that would make the information useful. One cause could be that other information uses similar encryption or secrets, and the profit possibility of that information may be jeopardized.
The result is that unprofitable information may silently disappear, as whatever backups of the original expire.
Some examples would be:
A software company writes software, selling binaries only to the public. The copyright for the software is 100 years. Far before the end of the 100 years (perhaps 10 years),
the original source was no longer kept by the company. So in the future, looking back at the state of software in the year 2000, perhaps there may be some pictures of "Windows XP", but it may be unclear what it did, as no source exists, and it's not really worth reverse engineering. While somethings called Linux and BSD did exist, and the complete information/source about these would still be available. History can really focus only on the known, not the hidden.
Similarly, assume that the recording and music industry come up with the "perfect/unbreakable" encryption. They spend much of there resources hiding anything close to raw digital information from the consumer. But this DRMed songs eventually become unpopular. Obviously the DRM mechanism could still not be revealed as they still use it for other songs. They have essentially subverted any copyright limits, to impose an infinite limit. After the point of dis-interest, the DRM songs/movies may just fade away. I suppose Creative Commons music/movies of the time may survive instead. Obviously these may not represent what was seen at the time.
Re:Dark Information (Score:2)
Ira Goldklang has collected thousands of TRS-80 programs at trs-80.com [trs-80.com] but when the authors of some of these programs were tracked down, they admitted that their original source code had been lost - thrown away or media unreadable.
Digital dark age is coming regardless (Score:2)
No way, either they'll be able to read it or they won't, it doesn't make any difference if we tag the text. I personally think sticking to ASCII would at least yield some possibility they could get the text back, because at least t
Re:Digital dark age is coming regardless (Score:2)
They had me on-side (Score:2)
If they ain't agin MicroSoft, they ain't with me ;-)
OpenDocument not the answer (Score:4, Insightful)
The Digital Dark Age people talk about is not about file formats. Mostly, it's about data storage and retention. Most of what historians/archeologists know about entire civilizations and time periods comes not from the official documents, but from the personal, off-the-cuff type stuff. Historians love reading journals, diaries and personal letters, and archeologists glean the most information from household and personal items. These are the things that give you insight into the *people* who lived in that age, and how the political events of the times (which are generally well preserved) were perceived.
However, most of our personal letters are now emails, which regularly get deleted, lost, blown away in a formatting, or simply forgotten about and tossed with the computer when we upgrade. Our journals and diaries are now blogs, which are subject to the same problems. In 2500 years when some archaeologist digs up your laptop, he must first decipher the machine to find where the data is stored, then extract the data, then decode it and translate it into his own language, before he can even start working on the meaning and significance of your emails, all of which contain complicated headers and multiple encodings (text, HTML, etc.). Contrast this with his finding a paper letter... the machine deciphering and data extraction is already done. All he has to do is decode the symbols and translate the language.
Data about our society will exist, but most of it will be in a digital form, and this places lots of extra burden on the person trying to understand the data. As a result, there will be many more gaps in our history, because the data is much harder to decipher.
Keeping our data in open formats is not really the issue; they still rely on conventions such as ASCII, XML, and PNG, that may or may not be lost. The truth is that the data only exists as 1s and 0s, and whether the data is in Microsoft Word format or OpenDocument format, it will still need to be deciphered and decoded. If all knowledge of ASCII/Unicode mapping and 32-bit RGBA color encoding is lost, does it matter if the XML schema of the format is documented somewhere in some different string of 1s and 0s?
What the OpenDocument format solves is the problem of near-term data access. In relatively short time spans, say 100 years or so, the OpenDocument will still be readable long after all proprietary formats have been abandoned. For this reason, OpenDocument should be used to keep documents available long after the company that provided the creation software has gone under. This is a noble and very valid goal, but let's not confuse it with the larger issue of the "Digital Dark Age."
Re:OpenDocument not the answer (Score:2)
certainly published books documenting PNG and XML. ASCII is a trivial thing to reverse engineer, noticing that
all/most(perhaps some bit rot) of the files you discover are a multiple of 8 bits is pretty easy. After that if you
you know the charatcer frequency distribution of English/Latin/Hawaiian you should be well on your way to
recovering all of Project Gutenberg's texts.
Apple Supports OpenXML? (Score:2)
OK, so do like or hate Apple today? They're obviously fellating MS in order to continue to have versions of Office created for them, no?
Re:Wow! (Score:3, Insightful)
If it weren't for the end-of-civilisation hype, most Y2K bugs would have remained unfixed until early 2001 by buraucratic laxity, not resulting the end of the world, but in a major headache for many companies.
Sometimes you need a catchy image to get people to take notice.
Re:Wow! (Score:2)
Sometimes you need an incorruptible, sane image to focus people's notice on what really matters.
Anybody got one?
Re:What about an OpenDVD standard? (Score:2)
How about you solve the Palestinian question first? It's easier.
Re:What about an OpenDVD standard? (Score:2)
Re:What about an OpenDVD standard? (Score:2)
I won't go so far as to say open source is completing incompatible with DRM in a technical sense, but it's the closest you can possibly come to it. As far as incompatible in a philosophical sense... well, if you can't figure that out maybe you shouldn't worry about philosophy.
Re:The one truly open standard file format? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, you can argue that they aren't as "rich" as Word, PDF et al, but they're standard and they're open.
For that matter PDF is open too. No this basically a crusade against MS proprietary formats and I'm all for it. I have inherited Word files that already cannot be opened with any product available on the market today. Governments especially need to be encouraged to move all the data that belongs to the public into open file formats and one of the best ways to do that is to proscribe an open standard f
Re:The one truly open standard file format? (Score:2)
Re:The one truly open standard file format? (Score:2)
I have a number of files that only Open Office would open and it does a much better job than Word, in general. I do have files it fails on as well, although I don't have the most recent version of OO these days as my Windows machine died and the mac version of OpenOffice is lagging far behind. I suppose I could fire up the GUI on NetBSD. Submitting most of the documents, however, is not an option due to the sensitive nature of the content. Thanks for the suggestion though.
Re:The one truly open standard file format? (Score:2)
unless the content is _extremly_ confidential (or embarrassing
Re:The one truly open standard file format? (Score:2)
You just answered your own question. ODF is meant to provide a way of encapsulating all the metadata for office-style documents. Meaning it's specifically designed for word processor documents, spreadsheets, presentation graphics, etc. These are highly rich formats just like Word, PDF, etc.
Re:i can see it now (Score:3, Informative)
Re:first post (Score:2, Funny)
Why can't we have Slashdot set up so that ACs can't post until a logged-in user has made the first post? That would put an end to the riduculous "first post" trolls.
Re:Digital dark ages (Score:2)
Re:Digital dark ages (Score:2)
Re:I declare SHENANIGANS! (Score:2, Insightful)
What you really have to consider, is which outcome you personally prefer. I prefer OpenDocument, because I'd like, long term, for us all to be able to exchange information freely. If that means that IBM and Sun sell a bunch of software, that I have an option