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 <jblos...@gmail.com> 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: jblos...@gmail.com > phone: 203.293.8511 > google+: https://google.com/+JohnBlossom > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Joseph Gentle <jose...@gmail.com> 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 >> <michael.macfad...@gmail.com> 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 <robw...@apache.org> 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 >>>> <michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 6/16/13 2:51 PM, "Michael MacFadden" <michael.macfad...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Rob, >>>>>> >>>>>> I would be interested in continuing this conversation. I have been >>>>>> working with the top minds in OT for the past few years. I am excited >> to >>>>>> hear the OO is interested in an OT supported mechanism. How far along >> 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 <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 details, >> then >>>>>>> the next step will be to get it implemented in Apache OpenOffice as >>>>>>> well as the Apache ODF Toolit (incubating). But the pace of >>>>>>> standardization is slow, and I wouldn't expect this before 2014. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>
