By Paul DeGroot [bio]
Posted: Oct. 10, 2005

The following is the full text of an article published by Directions on Microsoft, an independent research firm focused exclusively on Microsoft strategy & technology. Each month we make one or more key articles available to non-subscribers.

Open Document Formats

The Massachusetts decision on file formats is a small part of a much larger IT initiative, called the Enterprise Information Technology Architecture, and accompanying guidelines called the Enterprise Technical Reference Model (ETRM). The model also outlines other components of a system architecture for access to government data by the public and other agencies, covering interoperability, application design, integration services, systems management, and security. The ETRM is based on an Enterprise Architecture Toolkit developed by an association of state chief information officers and a U.S. federal government enterprise architecture initiative.

Like many large organizations, Massachusetts has a wide variety (173 by one count) of often-incompatible computer systems, and the ETRM aims to reduce or eliminate many consequent problems, including the following:

• Lack of collaboration and sharing among government agencies, including not only state but municipal and federal agencies
• Inability to respond quickly to changing needs and new technologies
• High development and maintenance costs
• High prices for proprietary software.

In Sept. 2005, the state approved version 3.5 of the ETRM, which dictates that software purchased for state computer systems after Jan. 1, 2007, must be capable of saving files in one of two "open" formats: Adobe's Portable Document Format (PDF) and the OASIS organization's recently approved Open Document Format for Office Applications (ODF), an XML-based document format. PDF and ODF are both supported by the open-source OpenOffice.org desktop application suite, by Sun's StarOffice (based on OpenOffice.org), and by Corel's WordPerfect suite, among others.

Microsoft's Response

Microsoft's initial response to these requirements was to promote the company's upcoming Office suite (code-named Office 12), which will use an XML-based format as its default file format. The company has offered royalty-free licenses for the technology used in that format, and says it will publish the format's specifications, but it still does not fully meet the requirements laid out by Massachusetts, which defines "open" formats as having the following characteristics:

• Minimal or no copyright, legal, licensing, or patent restrictions
• Published specifications that are subject to peer review by other interested parties
• Approval and guidance by an external standards body.

The Office 12 format fails on several of these counts, in that some portions are copyrighted by Microsoft and may be covered by patents. In addition, Microsoft specifically prohibits software licensed under common open-source licenses, such as the Lesser General Public License (the LGPL, used by OpenOffice.org, among other products), from incorporating code from the SDK for the Office XML format. Office XML is also a Microsoft-owned format that is not subject to control by other agencies.

Politics may also have played a part: Massachusetts was the last state to accept the company's antitrust settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and other states. It had been pressing for much stricter penalties, including restrictions on Office, and only abandoned these claims when an appeals court rejected its appeal. Furthermore, the presence of PDF on the list of approved formats hints at a double standard. PDF is a published specification and is licensed on a royalty-free basis, but a single vendor, (Adobe), still exercises substantial control.

After Massachusetts released ETRM 3.5, Microsoft announced that the next version of Office will support the PDF format, although it's not yet clear whether this feature will be available in all versions of Office 12 or only in more-expensive editions. (For more information about PDF support in Office 12, see "PDF Coming to Office 12" on page 24.)

Why Open Matters

The move to nonproprietary document formats poses a long-term threat to Microsoft because most governments and businesses today use Office to create documents, and store those documents in proprietary Microsoft formats whose specifications the company has not published. Any organization contemplating an alternative to Office faces a daunting transition, since reading those formats with alternative software is sometimes a dicey proposition—an advantage to Microsoft but a drawback for customers who fear "Office format lock-in."

Nevertheless, many government agencies are concerned about their dependence on a single vendor's document format. They want any member of the public to be able to read public documents without having to purchase a vendor's software, and they want formats that are likely to be readable by a variety of products decades hence. In addition, they must interoperate with a variety of other government and business entities and want to share best practices and even software code, preferably built around XML-based systems that offer the greatest flexibility and reuse of documents. A database of land records, for example, could import XML-based building permits, surveys, and bills of sale and make them available for automatic analysis and reporting, without requiring that data be re-keyed into the database. This would significantly reduce costs, improve accuracy, eliminate duplication, and potentially speed building approvals and property sales.

Microsoft's decision to support PDF but not ODF is a partial step toward openness, but it may not fully satisfy the requirements of Massachusetts and any other agencies that follow suit. PDF is a "one-way" format that is best suited for displaying, disseminating, and archiving final versions of documents, but PDF documents are difficult to edit. Most PDF documents are created in some other application, such as Word or document layout software, and users who need to edit a PDF will generally use the original program to edit the original (non-PDF) file, and then re-export it to PDF, rather than working directly with the PDF. Thus, non-PDF formats are likely to remain the first choice for working documents and for use with XML-oriented document management systems, with PDF used only for the small number of documents that are actually issued to the public. With proprietary formats barred, even for internal agency use, Office would not be a practical choice unless it also supports ODF.

Impact on Microsoft

The Massachusetts guidelines, even if they eventually exclude Office, do not pose a serious short-term threat to Microsoft. The state has about 50,000 PCs that use Office, making it a large but not critical customer. In addition, the state could find that the transition to non-Microsoft editors does not go smoothly. To meet both the practical requirements of its staff and the mandates of the ETRM, the state could permit continued use of Office, but with a third-party filter that saves documents by default in the ODF format. In the long run, however, if Massachusetts makes a successful transition to a non-Microsoft desktop application suite, the stakes are much higher than 50,000 desktops. Other agencies that work with the state or receive funds from it, businesses that apply for state contracts, and IT partners that provide services to the state will also need to have ODF-capable software. Furthermore, Massachusetts could inspire other governments to follow suit.

Finally, Microsoft could relent and offer native support for ODF. Although the company argues that Office 12 XML is a superior format, Microsoft could add ODF to the lengthy list of alternative formats that it already offers to Office users. The availability of these alternatives has not harmed Office's market share or resulted in wide use of non-Microsoft formats, even though they are an option for Office users.

Microsoft has never positioned Office format lock-in as an explicit strategy. Instead, it has traditionally marketed Office as the best solution for desktop authoring, regardless of document format. ODF output would confirm that strategy and could dampen interest in alternatives, such as OpenOffice.org, StarOffice, and WordPerfect, all of which will offer ODF output at significantly lower cost, but which could require costly migrations and user training in the organizations that adopt them.

Resources

Massachusetts' Enterprise Technical Reference Model documents can be found at www.mass.gov/Aitd/docs/policies_standards/etrm3dot5.

Extensive discussion of Microsoft's position on the Office XML debate is available on Brian Jones's blog at blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones. Jones is the program manager for XML support in Office.

The Government Open Code Collaborative (GOCC), of which Massachusetts and many other government agencies are members, is at www.gocc.gov.

The Open Document Specification can be found at www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office.

Frequently asked questions about the Open Document standard are answered at www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/faq.php.