ivhalpc wrote: > Open standards alone are an artificial separation of code and data > that is un-tenable. Source code without data and data without source > code are not very useful. To be circular: a .odt (Open Document Text) > file without OpenOffice.org is a .odt file without Openoffice.org.
Ignacio, have you heard of Koffice? Runs unde KDE, very good, and it reads and write .odt files too. So do other software products ege Google Docs and Spreadsheets - there is a comprehensive list here: http://opendocumentfellowship.org/applications The whole point of the ODF specs is to remove dependence on a single source of software, regardless of whether that source is open or closed source. I think a more correct assertion would be that data without metadata are not very useful, and that is analogous to saying that medical data stored in an openEHR system are not useful without access to the archetype definition used to store them. Which is why I have been trying to elucidate the precise licensing of the openEHR archetype definitions. Tim C
