GOVERNMENT: DOCUMENTS :
GOVERNMENT: RECORDS: PRESERVATION:
Formatting for the Future

Formatting for the Future
August 31, 2006
By Shane Peterson
Government Technology
<http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.php?id=100356>

Massachusetts leaders had a seemingly simple idea: Government documents
produced by word processing, spreadsheet, database or presentation
software belong to the public record, and therefore, should be created and
stored in open formats that aren't tied to a particular program.

Massachusetts reasoned that storing electronic documents in proprietary
formats might create situations where documents were held hostage by those
formats. Important public documents could be rendered all but inaccessible
when the applications that created them went out of style.

The Massachusetts Information Technology Division (ITD) explained the
desire to move to an open data format on the frequently asked questions
page of its Web site:

"Ease of access to electronic records created in proprietary formats is
limited in time. Once the proprietary vendor abandons a particular version
of an application or format, documents created and formatted in those
applications and formats may become inaccessible to all readers. The
proprietary formats supported by our current office applications may place
a permanent lock on future access."

This is where Massachusetts' simple idea got complicated.

To create government documents using open data formats, the agencies
making those documents must use nonproprietary software tools. That means
a massive shift away from the dominant desktop software suite -- Microsoft
Office.

The threat of that change set off a pitched battle that led to the
resignation of state CIO Peter Quinn. And with the dust still not settled
in Massachusetts, another state -- Minnesota -- is exploring a move to
open document standards.

Microsoft -- intent on protecting its market position -- announced in late
2005 that it would submit its Office Open extensible markup language (XML)
format to a European standards body for review, a key step toward getting
Open XML certified as an open standard.

To further muddy the waters, experts warn that the lack of a clear
definition for open standards complicates states' move toward electronic
document formats that will be widely accessible over the long term.

<snip>

Quinn said he's still surprised that the Massachusetts open document
standard caused such a ruckus, especially since the prime motivation was
simply to create documents that would be available to anybody, now and in
the future.

"The mainstream business press completely ignores the issue," he said. "It
frustrates me, from the standpoint that what does get written are
snippets. There are no real in-depth articles that get written about this
and the importance of historical documents and access to those documents
by future generations.

"This is a significant issue that goes well beyond governments," he
continued. "If the general populace thought their kids or grandkids
couldn't get at a historical document -- like you can walk into a state
archive or state library today -- I think they'd be pretty incensed. At
least I'd like to think they'd be incensed."

Topics Covered in this article

Preserving Documents
Standards Are Good For You
Adapting to Open Format
Minnesota Eyes Open Standards
Necessary Spark
Sticking to One Definition
The Massachusetts Experiment

----------------------------------------

The complete article may be read at the URL above.

Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584
j...@temple.edu
Net-Gold
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/net-gold>
<http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/net-gold.html>
General Internet & Print Resources
<http://library.temple.edu/articles/subject_guides/general.jsp>
<http://www.learningis4everyone.org/>
<http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ringleaders/davidd.html>
Digital Divide Network
<http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/jwne>
Educator-Gold
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Educator-Gold/>