"Jim Wing (J W)" <jwwing@vnet.ibm.com> Fri, 11 February 1994 18:25 UTC
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04457; 11 Feb 94 13:25 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10275; 11 Feb 94 13:25 EST
Received: from vnet.ibm.com by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.13298-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Fri, 11 Feb 1994 17:34:58 +0000
Received: from MSNVM1 by vnet.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1331; Fri, 11 Feb 94 12:33:43 EST
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 11:33:52 -0600
From: "Jim Wing (J W)" <jwwing@vnet.ibm.com>
To: info-oda+@andrew.cmu.edu, ietf-oda@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Message-ID: <9402111325.aa10275@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
Proposed work for MDDI SIG of OIW. Interested folks should attend the March meeting of MDDI SIG to get this work going. Posted by: Jim Wing, OIW MDDI SIG member, IBM Software Solutions Div jwwing@vnet.ibm.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 14:05:27 EST From: Jon Stewart <jstewart@sst.ncsl.nist.gov> Message-Id: <9401241905.AA09107@sst.ncsl.nist.gov> To: 588467%LOCKOVM2.PROFS@KODAK.COM, 71207.2765@compuserve.com, I.Campbell-Grant.bra0118@oasis.icl.co.uk, MANOJ.MUNJAL@OFFICE.WANG.COM, Roy_M._Pierce.DlosLV@xerox.com, alexis@vnet.ibm.com, ansi@niwot.scd.ucar.edu, atm@tango.cos.com, bgray@sst.ncsl.nist.gov, bmarkey@sni-usa.com, brian@sgml.com, carl.cargill@eng.sun.com, cmitchel@mitre.org, defazio@nova.enet.dec.com, elevinson@accurate.com, fdawson@dalhqic2.iinus1.ibm.com, fisher@sst.ncsl.nist.gov, gary.robinson@east.sun.com, gml@almaden.vnet.ibm.com, imrana@microsoft.com, jak@frame.com, jgraber@mitre.org, jstewart@sst.ncsl.nist.gov, jwwing@vnet.ibm.com, kaikow@standards.com, keyword!greg@uunet.uu.net, knordby@dalhqic2.iinus1.ibm.com, kunz@ilt.com, landberg@sst.ncsl.nist.gov, liu@siemens.com, lsr@speckle.ncsl.nist.gov, m23371@mwunix.mitre.org, marilyns@microsoft.com, matt_king@notes.pw.com, medenism@huachuca-jitcosi.army.mil, miker@mml.ncsl.nist.gov, mxm@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov, nkp@cos.com, paul.pedersen@deltacom.cam.org, pedersen@mqou16.enet.dec.com, peltzmaa@cc.ims.disa.mil, pond@torolab2.vnet.ibm.com, pstephen@informix.com, rbarry@worldbank.org, russell@sst.ncsl.nist.gov, schulz@sst.ncsl.nist.gov, shinsato.osbu_north@xerox.com, shuford@oasys.dt.navy.mil, sies@sst.ncsl.nist.gov, spielman@nist.gov, tfrost@attmail.com, thagle@ddi.c3i.osd.mil, thornwall@sst.ncsl.nist.gov, ulery@pccvax.dnet.dupont.com, welsch@sst.ncsl.nist.gov, wilson@sst.ncsl.nist.gov, wud@cc.ims.disa.mil, xu9sgp@sunc.shef.ac.uk Subject: Open SGML Doc Interchange w/ Standard "Styles" Requirements and Proposed Solution for E-mail Interchange of Revisable Office Communication Documents with Standardized Presentation Styles Subtitle: Open SGML Interchange with Standardized Formatting Date: 24 January 1994 By: Jon A. Stewart, Acting Chair MDDI Purpose: Review at March 14-18 MDDI/OIW Meeting _______________________________________________ Statement of Problem -- Need for open, standardized E-mail interchange of revisable office communication documents containing multimedia content and standardized presentation styles (formatting specifications). Document preparation, formatting and viewing/printing should be possible with any "editor of choice" but interchange and archiving is always in ONE standardized SGML-encoded format. Definition: Office Communication Documents (OCDs) are defined here as: 1) relatively small (typically 1 to 25 pages), 2) containing multiple content types (therefore "multimedia"), 3) necessarily revisable in logical structure, content and presentation styles, 4) requiring online viewing and printing ("presentation") in accordance with the originator's formatting specification in order to properly convey the information in the document, and 5) having a high probability of being edited and/or merged into larger, more complex documents. Proposed Solution-- 1. Develop SGML DTDs for the Office Communication Documents (OCDs). These should include the following classes -- memos, letters, and technical reports. (PROPOSED: Initially use the classes already defined for the ODA interoperability testing with elements from the 28001A DTD defined for CALS.) 2. Develop a Standardized Style Sheet (SSS) based on FOSIs (28001B) and ODA layout semantics. Such a SSS will have an SGML encoding and possibly other standardized encodings. (NOTE: If used with the ODA formatter from the ODAC Toolkit the ASN.1 encoding will be required). 3. Develop bidirectional translators between the SSS and the Proprietary Style Sheets (PSS) that control existing formatters and author/editing systems (such as Word Perfect, ArborText's ADEPT Series SGML Editor). (NOTE: An SSS to FOSI translator could also be designed for SGML formatters that use FOSIs.) 4. Use MIME to "package" the parts of an SGML document for E-mailing. The MIME envelope/package would contain 1) the SGML DTD, 2) SGML source markup instance, 3) SGML encoding of the SSS, and 4) non-SGML content elements such as CGMs and rasters. (NOTE: Use of MIME for this purpose has already been demonstrated, as reported by Ed Levinson of Accurate Information Systems at the December MDDI meeting.) Benefits to the Users, Including DoD and Other Government Users and Major Suppliers: 1. Allows use of "editor of choice" (e.g. WordPerfect) to prepare documents that are to be E-mailed. Such documents are prepared with the Proprietary Style Sheet (PSS) for that system and this formatting defines the appearance that the originator intends to convey to the readers of the document. NOTE: The SGML "export" converter for the editor of choice produces the revisable SGML document and separate non-SGML content files as required for actual interchange (such SGML converters are becoming common in the popular word processing/desktop publishing systems). 2. The receiver is NOT locked into the same system for editing/formatting as the originator since the PSS is converted into the SSS for interchange (NOTE: the receiver may either be an SGML-based system or another proprietary word processing/desktop publishing system that "imports" SGML). 3. The logical structure and content of the document is ALWAYS preserved and interchanged in only ONE format -- SGML (the non-SGML content elements are separate files whose formats are governed by other standards such as CGM or T.4 fax). 4. Because the DTDs of the OCDs are based on elements from 28001A (or other industry-wide common DTDs such as that of AAP) it is possible to merge these relatively small OCDs into the "larger environment" with ease -- that is, to subsume the smaller subdocuments into a larger more complex one as defined by the standards of the controlling environment. 5. MIME provides an existing widely used solution for E-mailing the OCD and all the parts needed to understand it -- content elements , SSS, etc. NOTE: X.400 and SDIF could be utilized for the same purpose. 6. OVERALL RESULT: The document is consistently formatted by all systems processing it, and all content and logical structure are preserved in SGML and separate non-SGML content elements governed by other standards. (NOTE: For successful presentation/display/print the receiver must faithfully convert the SSS into its own PSS for formatting; the OSINET ODA interoperability testing project defines criteria for judging the fidelity of interchange of the formatting control specification.) Proposed Initial Project-- Show feasibility by 1) completing the DTDs for OCDs; 2) defining a strawman SSS based on an alignment of ODA layout semantics, WordPerfect formatting and the existing FOSIs; 3) designing and implementing a bidirectional WordPerfect PSS to/from SSS translator; and, 4) interchanging and correctly processing a set of test documents in accordance with interoperability testing principles defined by the OSINET ODA testing project. NOTE: This initial feasibility study is to be limited to traditional "paper documents" (no audio or video content). Initial testing could utilize the OSINET ODA test documents. To demonstrate the goal of consistent formatting for open SGML interchange the test documents will be generated on one system and received on a different one. It is proposed that Word Perfect for Windows be the generator system and that another popular system (such as Framemaker or Word for Windows) be the receiving system. The test receiver system must be able to import SGML with the content elements required (CGM and T.4 fax initially) and the SSS must be translated (either by program or hand) into PSS to control the formatting of the receiver. The receiving system could also be an SGML-based system such as ArborText's ADEPT SGML Publisher that has FOSI-controlled formatting.