Bill Introduced in Minnesota to Require Use of "Open Data Formats"

Consortium Standards Bulletin ^ | 4/5/06

[steve-b]

I received an email yesterday pointing me to a bill, introduced on March 27, that would require all Executive branch agencies in the state of Minnesota to "use open standards in situations where the other requirements of a project do not make it technically impossible to do this." The text of the bill is focused specifically on "open data formats," and would amend the existing statute that establishes the authority of the Office of Enterprise Technology (OET), and the duties of the states Chief Information Officer. While the amendment does not refer to open source software, the definition of "open standards" that it contains would be conducive to open source implementations of open standards. The text of the affected sections of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 16E, showing the amendments proposed, can be found here.

The fact that such a bill has been introduced is significant in a number of respects. First, the debate over open formats will now be ongoing in two U.S. states rather than one. Second, if the bill is successful, the Minnesota CIO will be required to enforce a law requiring the use of open formats, rather than be forced to justify his or her authority to do so. Third, the size of the market share that can be won (or lost) depending upon a vendor's compliance with open standards will increase. And finally, if two states successfully adopt and implement open data format policies, other states will be more inclined to follow....

[Petronski]

The reason people are complaining is that public records should not be tied to one vendor's proprietary format, and the goodwill they might or might not show in providing access to that data. It amounts to a microsoft tax on the public.

[Beckwith]

This project is a two-year effort.

During that time, the state will organize a steering committee and action groups. There will be at least one half-day meeting per week, maybe all day.

These masturbatory meetings will focus on standards, data models and structures and my absolute favorite, "data naming conventions." I personally always favored the English dictionary.

At the end of the two years, the project team will produce their 450 page, Open Standards Document, "the OSD" which will only be understood by its authors.

The Chief Information Officer (CIO) will publish a directive mandating the implementation of the OSD "across the enterprise."

The OSD is incompatible with the state's existing $5 billion software portfolio and these systems will be exempted.

The managers of new software projects will ignore the standards using pressing deadlines, limited budgets and limited staff as an excuse.

At the end of the third year, the OSD will be placed on a shelf where it will be forgotten. The CIO and the Data Architect will be fired or resign.

In the following year, the newly hired CIO will direct his/her new Data Architect to begin a new initiative to implement open standards and enterprise data architectures.

Now, go back to first paragraph and reread.

[softwarecreator]

Thanks!

very informative and entertaining post.

[Beckwith]

Menawhile, the technical managers and staff, who have been on board for years, continue to do whatever it is they do.

[Knitebane]

The proper response is to do what I do.

Create a document, save it as RTF. Rename it to document.doc.

The idiot that requires .doc will open it without a problem.

[Knitebane]

Yes, because open formats like RTF, HTML, ASCII and XML have failed completely. /sarcasm

The important part is not what kind of money the government spends on this or what studies it makes.

What matters is that the purchase of software that does not properly save into open formats will be prohibited.

[Beckwith]

the purchase of software that does not properly save into open formats will be prohibited.

Never, ever, ever, ever gonna happen. You don't build software by fiat.

I've seen it tried. Doesn't work.

[softwarecreator]

Good idea.  Thanks.

Again, I must reiterate that I think ODF is a good idea and I can't wait for it to become the standard.  My whole point is not to box yourself into a corner just yet, it's still an MS dominated world.

[DesScorp]

"However practically ANYONE can read Microsoft formats, including those of you using your beloved freeware. "

Not with the upcoming revision to the MS office suite. They've got MS code that hinders other software from opening or creating that format. And they'll use the DMCA to keep it that way. While I don't blame them for defending their profits, its simply silly to make everyone dependant on software from one company. And the Professional version of the new suite will be over 500 dollars a pop. That's more than the cost of a new low end computer. Sorry, but putting your citizens in thrall to one company is bad governance.

[DesScorp]

"You guys are always claiming your beloved freeware opens Microsoft documents just fine, was that not true?"

Oh, it's mostly true. We can open word or excel or powerpoint files. But we can't open, say, access files, or windows media files. So why is that?

Because after the DMCA was enacted, it became illegal to even TRY to decode the formats for use with other aps without a license from Microsoft. What was once legal and accepted is now illegal. So...now if a new MS format is mandated by a goverment, rather than an open format, then I have to go out and buy new MS software. That's a tax by any other name.

[DesScorp]

"You do realize that MS provides free readers for all of its document formats, right?"

1 - Those readers only run on the Windows operating sytem.

2 - Those aren't writers. They can't create or edit content.

[Golden Eagle]

Pure FUD. Name one person Microsoft has ever sued for reverse engineering one of their Office data formats. They haven't even sued anyone like Open Office or Open Exchange for stealing their names.

[softwarecreator]

They haven't even sued anyone like Open Office or Open Exchange for stealing their names

You make a good point.  I actually would be pretty interested in seeing if anyone can come up with a situation where MS sued.  If not, this argument can be finally put to rest.  I'm just so tired of hearing how "evil" Microsoft is.  What do they do that other BIG corporations don't?

[Knitebane]

You don't build software by fiat.

People can build whatever software they want. But if they want to sell to the government it needs store the data in an open format.

It's been tried lots and works fine.

[Knitebane]

What do they do that other BIG corporations don't?

I'm glad you asked.

[Beckwith]

needs store the data in an open format. Define Open Data Format.

[Knitebane]

Define Open Data Format.

Open, ie, not proprietary. Completely documented such that any other organization can write software that can read and write documents in said format. Not encumbered by trademarks or patents. Open, like HTML, XML, TeX, ASCII, PostScript or RTF. PDF, while controlled by a single company, is sufficiently well documented as to also be considered open.

[N3WBI3]

MS sued a company called Lindows (now called Linspire)

[softwarecreator]

MS sued a company called Lindows (now called Linspire)

True.  And on this one they were 100% correct, IMO.

[FLAMING DEATH]

Maybe not 100% correct...

Once they started this litigation, two of Microsoft's initial claims were rejected. Microsoft realized that it was quite possible the judge might find the term "Windows" too generic to be trademarked, and then everyone could start calling their energy drinks, shoes, and dog food "Windows"

In the end, they bought the "Lindows" trademark from Linspire for about $24 million. Kinda funny, to initiate litigation and deciding the best conclusion is to PAY instead of collect damages.