Interoperability challenges for open standards: ODF and OOXML as examples

ABSTRACT

This project assesses the current state of interoperability among different software implementations of the document formats OpenDocument Format (ODF) and Office Open XML (OOXML). Numerous governments are considering mandating either or both formats for their electronic documents. For ODF, the dominant implementation is OpenOffice.org and for OOXML, the dominant implementation is Microsoft Office. This research scores the performance of other alternative implementations for ODF and OOXML. The goal is to assess the current state of interoperability for document formats. The results show that there are no alternative implementations, for either ODF or OOXML, that offer 100% interoperability with the dominant implementations. The results are troubling and cast doubt on the exuberance surrounding open standards. The results suggest an emphasis on improved interoperability testing. Without such testing, governments will be locked-in into the dominant implementations for either standard.

REFERENCES

• 1: Rivals Set Their Sights on Microsoft Office: Can They Topple the Giant? Knowledge@Wharton, 2007.
• 2: Berkman Center for Internet&Society at Harvard Law School. Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystems, 2005.
• 3: Committee for Economic Development Open Standards, Open Source, and Open Innovation: Harnessing the Benefits of Openness. Committee for Economic Development, Washington, DC, 2006.
• 4: Ecma International. Office Open XML Overview, 2007.
• 5: Brian Kahin, The Internet and the National Information Infrastructure, Public access to the Internet, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995
• 6: James D. Kindrick , John A. Sauter , Robert S. Matthews, Improving conformance and interoperability testing, StandardView, v.4 n.1, p.61-68, March 1996 [doi>10.1145/230871.230883]
• 7: Moseley, S., Randall, S. and Wiles, A., Experience within ETSI of the combined roles of conformance testing and interoperability testing. In Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology, (2003), 177--189.
• 8: National Institute of Standards and Technology. XML Technologies Conformance Testing, 2008.
• 9: Office of Government Commerce. Open Source Software: Use within UK Government, 2004.
• 10: Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards. Open by Design: The Advantages of the OpenDocument Format (ODF), OASIS, 2007.
• 11: Saurez-Potts, L. OOXML and ODF and the politics of technology as Foss comes of age on the desktop O'Reilly Open Source Convention, 2008.
• 12: Shah, R. and Kesan, J. Evaluating the Interoperability of Software Implementations For Open Standards: ODF and OOXML As Examples Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, 2008
• 13: Rajiv C. Shah , Jay P. Kesan, Open standards and the role of politics, Proceedings of the 8th annual international conference on Digital government research: bridging disciplines & domains, May 20-23, 2007, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• 14: Shah, R. C., Kesan, J. P. and Kennis, A. Lessons for Government Adoption of Open Standards: A Case Study of the Massachusetts Policy. Journal of Information Technology&Politics, 5, 4 (2009), 387--398.
• 15: Carl Shapiro , Hal R. Varian, Information rules: a strategic guide to the network economy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1998
• 16: Weir, R. Anatomy of Interoperability, 2007.
• 17: Peter Zehler, Interoperability testing for the Internet printing protocol, StandardView, v.6 n.4, p.180-184, Dec. 1998 [doi>10.1145/338183.338192]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.4 COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY
      K.4.1 Public Policy Issues

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.0 General

General Terms:
Measurement, Standardization

Keywords:
Office Open XML (OOXML), OpenDocument Format (ODF), document formats, interoperability testing, open standards, public policy