So here’s the deal: Very basically, the state’s Chief Information
Officer, Peter Quinn, has
proposed that for its computing, the state use document formats that
are completely open
and transparent to any vendor. That means you wouldn’t need Microsoft
Office programs to open Microsoft-created files. Genuine competition…
what a concept.
John Palfrey of the Berkman
Center for Internet and Society has a <a
href=”http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2005/12/13″>nice little
primer for what’s at stake.
- “Interoperability: Creating and maintaining
an open information ecosystem that achieves interoperability between
computing environments, applications, and sources of data – whether
created last year or 25 years from now – is the primary motivation for
moving to an open standards policy. - Access and Control: Ensuring that citizens
and the state have access to our data and the ability to control our
data long into the future, grounded in the knowledge that electronic
data is becoming more and more important. It’s about the users —
in the parlance of the states, the citizens — after all. - Choice and Cost: Establishing a truly open
standard can ensure that the Commonwealth, over the long-term, has the
greatest range of technology choices and the lowest technology costs
through competition. An open policy is not one that results in
lock-in to a single technology vendor, nor one that precludes any
vendor – which may be the most competitive – from
participating. - Innovation: Promoting the continued
innovation in information technology, on Rte. 128, in university
computer science labs, and in garages throughout the Commonwealth and
beyond, supporting economic development in the process.”
Here’s a <a
href=”http://www.consortiuminfo.org/newsblog/blog.php?ID=1825″>liveblog
of the hearing today, and if you’re really into it, a <a
href=”http://danbricklin.com/log/2005_11_09.htm#maforum”>long (long)
video. Thanks to the indispensible <a
href=”http://www.universalhub.com/node/2741″>Universal Hub.
