incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joseph Gentle <>
Subject Re: OpenOffice and Wave
Date Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:53:49 GMT
Yep, I agree. Where should _that_ discussion happen?


On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Michael MacFadden
<> wrote:
> A google hang out amongst wave developers is a great idea. However this is not a substitute
for presenting and discussing the future of OT with the active research community.
> ~Michael
> On Jun 16, 2013, at 5:32 PM, John Blossom <> wrote:
>> Joseph, my thought is that we can have a Google+ Hangout and invite
>> everyone in the Wave community and beyond interested in OT and related
>> issues. Doesn't have to be perfect, we just need to get the
>> dialogue.rolling, it seems. We can always have more. Say Weds or Thursday
>> around 1700 UT+1?  Pick a number. John
>> All the best,
>> John Blossom
>> email:
>> phone: 203.293.8511
>> google+:
>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Joseph Gentle <> wrote:
>>> Sounds interesting. Where is this going to be held? It might be
>>> interesting for a few people on this list, too.
>>> -J
>>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Michael MacFadden
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> After hooking up with Google for wave. I have been the lead architect
>>> for an OT framework much like the real time drive API being built at my
>>> company. I am encouraging my developers to reengage the apache community so
>>> we can actively contribute back. We have also done a in depth literature
>>> review regarding OT and have worked with many other teams adding OT to
>>> several projects.
>>>> I personally will be chairing the 14th International Workshop on
>>> Collaborative Editing Systems (IWCES) at the ACM Computer Supported
>>> Collaborative Work (CSCW) conference next February. This workshop is one of
>>> the primary places where leading OT researchers, industry, and open source
>>> projects come to exchange ideas.
>>>> I think this would be a very good community for you to get involved with
>>> if you are looking at OT. There are a lot of lessons learned, especially on
>>> using OT for rich document editing (word, PowerPoint, Vim, etc. ).
>>>> I am sure there are more than enough extremely smart folks on the Open
>>> Office team, but perhaps I/we could help out if you are not to far along.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> ~Michael
>>>> On Jun 16, 2013, at 6:50 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>>>>> Adding Svante Schubert to the thread, from the ODF Toolkit project.
>>>>> He also chairs the subcommittee at OASIS that has been looking at OT
>>>>> for change tracking in ODF.
>>>>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Michael MacFadden
>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/16/13 2:51 PM, "Michael MacFadden" <>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Rob,
>>>>>>> I would be interested in continuing this conversation. I have
>>>>>>> working with the top minds in OT for the past few years. I am
>>> to
>>>>>>> hear the OO is interested in an OT supported mechanism. How far
>>> are
>>>>>>> you in the process?
>>>>> It is very early and mainly happening in the standards committee at
>>>>> OASIS.  The ultimate aim is to have something that could work across
>>>>> applications, not just between two OpenOffice instances.  So this
>>>>> requires a sensitivity to the document model abstraction, to work at
>>>>> the ODF level, not just with an application's internal view of a
>>>>> document.
>>>>> OpenOffice committers are involved in the standardization side of
>>>>> this, as well as LibreOffice and Calligra and Gnumeric, as well as
>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>> Initially it is about defining the document model, in a way that makes
>>>>> sense to the user.  Since tracked changes are visible to the user, to
>>>>> approve or reject, we need it at a granularity that makes sense to
>>>>> them.  Then based on those primitives, and the associated actions, we
>>>>> can develop an XML-based notation for expressing the state
>>>>> transformations.  That gets us to the static/stored form of
>>>>> traditional change tracking.
>>>>> Not in plan officially is the next step, which would be the protocols
>>>>> for exchanging such information in real-time.  But it is a possibility
>>>>> (even a likelihood) that is informing our design decisions.  We're
>>>>> mindful that the real-time collaborative editing is the logical next
>>>>> step and we're trying to lay the right foundations for that at the
>>>>> format level.
>>>>> One sub-goal, for enabling the real-time side of this, would be to
>>>>> standardize the protocols at some level, so clients from different
>>>>> vendors could do this kind of collaboration in a heterogeneous kind of
>>>>> way.  Is there anything in Wave that would be a good basis for a
>>>>> standard?
>>>>> Of course a perfectly valid approach would be to prototype first and
>>>>> then standardize.
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>> ~Michael
>>>>>>> On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Rob Weir <>
>>>>>>>> I'm not subscribed to this list, but Christian Grobmeier
pointed me
>>> to
>>>>>>>> John's post about how OT and Wave could be relevant to OpenOffice.
>>>>>>>> I wanted to mention that the idea is being discussed, but
at the
>>>>>>>> standards level.  The default document format for OpenOffice
is Open
>>>>>>>> Document Format (ODF), which is standardized at OASIS and
ISO.  (I
>>>>>>>> chair the committee at OASIS).  We're currently working on
ODF 1.3
>>> and
>>>>>>>> as part of that we're adding a new change tracking mechanism
based on
>>>>>>>> OT.  This is the traditional asynchronous change tracking
that office
>>>>>>>> suites have had for years, but modeled on OT terms.
>>>>>>>> And, although not specified at this point, we're also aware
that OT
>>>>>>>> enables more interesting modes of collaboration, including
>>>>>>>> synchronous/real-time, co-editing, etc.  That's the main
reason the
>>> OT
>>>>>>>> approach is attractive, is that we can have a single model
that will
>>>>>>>> work for change tracking as well as co-editing.
>>>>>>>> Once we get the standard side of this elaborated in more
>>> then
>>>>>>>> the next step will be to get it implemented in Apache OpenOffice
>>>>>>>> well as the Apache ODF Toolit (incubating).  But the pace
>>>>>>>> standardization is slow, and I wouldn't expect this before
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>> --
>>>>> Opinions expressed in this communication reflect the author's
>>>>> individual personal view, not necessarily that of an amorphous
>>>>> collective.  The above statements do not reflect an official position
>>>>> of any organization, corporation, religion (organized or disorganized)
>>>>> or national football association.  The contents of said note are not
>>>>> guaranteed to have been spell checked, grammar checked or reviewed for
>>>>> metrical infelicities.  The contents of this post may not be suitable
>>>>> for those whose native language is not logic.  Caution should be
>>>>> exercised when operating heavy machinery when reading this note, or
>>>>> even when not reading it.  Seriously, heavy machinery is dangerous.
>>>>> Be careful.

View raw message