Archives for April 2010

I am occasionally asked, what is the correct name of the ODF standard?  Is it “OpenDocument Format”?  Or is it “Open Document Format”, with a space between “Open” and “Document”?

I’d like (hopefully) to clear this up.

The naming decision happened back in 2004.  At that point Sun had contributed their specification for the OpenOffice XML format to OASIS,  and a new TC was using that specification as the basis for developing a new standard.  But what should the new standard be called?

Some wanted it to be called “OfficeDocument”, emphasizing its primary scope of use.  Others wanted to call it “OpenDocument”, making its openness (a new thing in the office-document world at that time) more central, and acknowledging that its applicability was for more than just office editors.

So, as only a committee can do, a compromise was forged incorporated both ideas.  The resulting official name of the standard became, “OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument)”.

If you are citing the standard for official reasons, that is the name to use.  (Or the ISO name which is even longer).  But clearly, that name is too long for casual use, or even use in technical writing,  so we need a shorter, more convenient name.  I’ll note the terms I’ve seen used, as well as my personal thoughts on whether they are  a good idea:

• ODF — This is what you’ll hear it called in OASIS, where the term is unambiguous.  However, in other circles ODF can mean other things, from “Organ Donation Foundation” to “Oregon Department of Forestry”.  So, in writing, even on this blog, I will typically use a longer form first, and only then use the acronym.  This is also more search-engine friendly.
• Open Document Format — This is certainly always correct and is my preferred longer form.
• OpenDocument — This is also correct, the short name explicitly given in the standard.  We use it, for example, in the registered MIME content types for ODF.  I tend to see this more used to refer to the technology rather than the format itself.  So, “OpenDocument applications” or “OpenDocument toolkits”.  But if I had omnipotent powers, I’d eliminate this short name and make the short name official “ODF”.
• OpenDocument Format — This is less correct, using the official short name and then appending a proper case “Format” after it.  It is hard to justify, but it does occur in many places.
• OpenDoc — This is absolutely wrong.  OpenDoc is the name of an unrelated technology Apple developed in the 1990s.

When the IBM Terminology group contacted me on this (and yes we apparently have such a group) my advice to them — and I commend  the same to you — is:

1. When citing the standard, use the official name “OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.1”.
2. When referring to the format in general, call it “Open Document Format”  at its first use in a document, and then feel free to abbreviate it as “ODF”.

There are those who say that standards also have a THIRD NAME, a secret name that they use only for themselves.  What deep and inscrutable name ODF calls itself is a matter of some speculation.

There has been a flurry of news articles about Oracle’s price change on their (formerly Sun’s) ODF Plugin for MS Office.  What was previously free (as in beer), at least for individual use, is now sold for $90 and with a minimum quantity of 100.  The broad coverage (ZDNet, BusinessWeek, CNET,  NBC, IDG, etc.)  of this minor story suggests someone was shopping this story around.  I wonder who?

At the risk of pouring oil on the fire, let me say that I think this is an exciting development for ODF.  We have three solutions for providing ODF support in MS Office:

1. Oracle’s Plugin
2. CleverAge Add-in
3. Microsoft’s native ODF support

These three solutions have always varied in terms of quality of conversion, versions of MS Office supported, versions of ODF supported, level of integration into MS Office, etc.  And now they vary based on price.  This is a good thing.  It is called “competition”.  I like it.

Although I personally think that Oracle has set the price too high, I realize that we have a market to sort these things out.  If they act rationally (and I assume they will) they’ll charge an amount that maximizes their return.  If they are not already at a profit-maximizing price point, they will adjust.  That is how prices are set in a free market.   But if Oracle can really get $90 per copy, with a minimum quantity of 100, then all the power to them.  I just hope that some of that money gets plowed back into their development of this and other ODF-related tools.  That is how we grow stronger and more powerful ODF tools.  Someone needs the impetus to make that investment.  If the profit motive drives investment in ODF,  then Praise be to Mammon!  And remember, if Oracle’s Plugin gets more people to use ODF, then that is a larger audience for your open source ODF tool.  This is a good thing.  The important thing is we’re growing the number of people using ODF.

We should want companies to invest in ODF tools.  We should want the demand for ODF to be such that ODF-based goods and services have value, can be sold based on that value, and that there is competition again in the market, something we have not seen in this area in many years.

2009-04-23 — Some further thoughts

It is probably worth reflecting why the Sun Plugin was necessary in the first place.  If Microsoft Office supported ODF fully, in a well-integrated and interperable fashion, then surely no ODF Plugin would be necessary. You would gain your ODF support simply by purchasing your MS Office license.  In effect, you are already paying for ODF support (along with all other Office features) when you purchase MS Office. If you are buying Oracle’s $90 Plugin, remember that you are essentially paying for ODF support twice: once to Microsoft and once to Oracle.

If I were paying twice for the same feature, I’d be upset as well.  But is the solution really for Oracle to continue subsidizing MS Office users by giving away their Plugin for free?  Or maybe Microsoft customers should ask their vendor why their Office ODF support is not adequate?  Ideally there would be no need for a Plugin because the out-of-the-box ODF support would meet customer requirements.  I’m sure Microsoft, like any other vendor, would value such feedback from their customers.   But to me it seems perverse to blame Oracle for no longer subsidizing their competitor’s product.