As a member of ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34 Working Group 4 (which Mr Norbert Bollow of the Swiss mirror committee somewhat bizarrely refers to as “so-called”) and someone directly implicated in his recent blog post,  I thought it might be useful to help him understand the situation more clearly.

I have been heavily involved in spreadsheets over the last 14 years working at Datawatch.  For the last 9 years, I have been in charge of the Monarch and Monarch Data Pump products, which have interacted heavily with spreadsheets, both from an input and output perspective.  We supported (and still support older versions – the file format specifications are not available for later versions) Lotus 1-2-3 as well as Excel, stretching back to Excel 2.1 and Lotus versions well before that.

Datawatch is both a Microsoft and IBM Partner.

The Monarch product is primarily used in conjunction with Excel, with approximately 95% of our users reading, writing, appending and updating Excel spreadsheets, both the older binary formats and the new OOXML format.

We have a large user base of around 500,000 users worldwide and have gained fairly detailed knowledge of how people use and abuse spreadsheets in various ways, as well as how many other vendors import and export spreadsheets from their applications in the 18 years since the first release of Monarch.

Sowing the seeds – versioning

Consequent to the lack of a versioning scheme in ECMA376-1, applications created to consume and create OOXML documents were unable to distinguish between ECMA376-1 and future versions.  This should have been addressed in the original specification and certainly at the BRM.  It was not, which casts doubt on the unimpeachable sagacity which some seem to attribute to decisions made at the BRM.  This sacred cow status, especially surrounding ISO8601 dates is not a healthy thing-it should be subject to scrutiny and review, especially with far more time available to analyze the ramifications of changes than was available at the BRM.

Sowing the seeds – anyone for spreadsheets?

Another aspect of the BRM and indeed much of the process around OOXML is the lack of spreadsheet experts involved.  Practically all those involved in the process are really XML and document specialists.  Their background, depending on age, is almost always SGML and XML, not VisiCalc, Lotus 1-2-3, Quattro Pro, Excel, Gnumeric and Calc.

Spreadsheets then, became second class citizens in the process, with few people showing them the care and attention showered upon the word processing aspects of the specification. 

The XML experts came from the viewpoint of XML Schema, which, many may be surprised to learn, does not itself fully implement ISO8601 dates.  It wisely uses a tightly defined subset of ISO8601.  Many advocated that ISO8601 dates should be used within OOXML documents.  This approach is eminently sensible, since it is much simpler to consume documents with XML technology, if the date data can be easily consumed and processed by common XML tools.

However, spreadsheets have paid very little attention to XML, the file formats have historically been extremely terse and efficient and they have their own design goals which are distinctly different from word processors.  One thing that spreadsheets always do, is store and process dates as serial date values.  Almost every single spreadsheet file in existence contains serial date values.

The Leap Year Bug – or not

Mr Bollow refers to the the reintroduction of the leap year bug which was introduced by Lotus 1-2-3 and replicated in Microsoft Excel.  The very fact I say “introduced by Lotus 1-2-3” gives you an idea how venerable this bug actually is.

This bug has existed for an exceedingly long time and anyone that deals with spreadsheets is well aware of it.  In fact, it has really ceased to be a bug and become expected behaviour.  I can’t claim this is a good thing, but that is the way that it is. 

Now, when you start to deviate from expected behaviour that has existed for decades, you will run into problems.  The amount of spreadsheet consuming and producing applications is gigantic and changing the ground rules is not an option if you want any sort of interoperability.  The leap year bug itself is not an intrinsic issue with serial dates itself, but an application issue introduced by Lotus 1-2-3 which has become accepted practice. 

If Mr Bollow is saying that ISO8601 dates must be used everywhere without exception, then I am assuming he also advocates throwing Unix time over the side in favour of an ISO8601 implementation.  Good luck with that. Oh and OpenFormula too. (More later).

Well, maybe semi-reintroduced

In addition, Mr Bollow fails to make the distinction between the two forms of OOXML: Transitional, which is meant to help support “legacy” information and provide a transition vehicle to the more pure Strict form of the standard. 

Serial dates for spreadsheet cell values were not allowed in the Strict form and have not been reintroduced in the Strict form by Working Group 4.  As far as I am aware, there is absolutely no intention to do so.  In addition, many thought that serial dates were allowed in the Transitional form, and it came as some shock to many when I pointed this out originally, back in February.

Another important point is that this only affects spreadsheet cell values, ISO8601 functionality is not being excised by these changes, in fact ISO8601 dates are still allowed in spreadsheet cell values in the Transitional form.  Personally, I don’t think this is wise, to fully avoid data loss issues, ISO8601 dates in spreadsheet cell values should not be allowed in Transitional, but be the only allowed date values in Strict.

There are many places where the ISO8601 date specification is used and will continue to be used in spreadsheets in the Transitional form, such as the WEEKNUM function, which has arguments to specify ISO 8601 week numbering.

Can’t we just leave it as it is and let users/vendors sort out the mess?

I have heard this argument, and it immediately marks out anyone who makes it as a complete dillettante with respect to the workings of finance.

In contrast to word processing documents, dates are far more pervasive within spreadsheets and in general, far more critical.  Most financial analysis is date-based, reporting is always date based and calculations of financial instruments are mostly date based.  It is safe to say that an extremely high proportion of spreadsheets contain dates and that the integrity of those dates is critical.

In ECMA376-1 all dates in spreadsheets were treated as serial dates, so any reading and writing of dates was using this format. With the enforcement of ISO 8601 Dates in the current specification (§18.17.4, §, § and the primary example (§ featuring the use of ISO 8601 Dates and the newly introduced d attribute (from §18.18.11 ST_CellType), all conforming applications must write dates in SpreadsheetML cells in ISO 8601 format.

This semantic change (no schema-enforced change exists) means that all existing applications fail to open IS2900 transitional spreadsheet documents correctly. The observed behaviour of applications differs from an inability to open the document to silent data loss.

This is a huge problem, if you combine the inability to distinguish two versions of the specification of instance documents with a semantic change, you have a recipe for disaster.  To simplify, imagine the chaos that would ensue if you silently changed the currency you use for accounting, but didn’t tell any of your finance staff when.

The silent data loss encountered is made even more problematic, in that the value may be parsed as an incorrect date, instead of a null value or other failure. This means that there is little to alert the user of problems. Dependent formulas will not fail with divide by zero errors, only when there is additional logic that takes into account date boundaries. Visual recognition of the failure will usually be required.

Some other scenarios to consider are when using spreadsheet files that are linked to other spreadsheets, or products that perform lookups to spreadsheets. This means that patching of older applications would have to be absolute and in sync across all organizations involved. For example, a spreadsheet in one country could be used as a lookup for data by spreadsheets in another country. This would mean that all branches, divisions and subsidiaries of an organization may need to ensure that all application software that consumed spreadsheets is patched in sync to avoid data loss.

The applications I tested are easily available ones, but we also need to consider larger applications such as ERP and BI software where bi-directional use of spreadsheets is used. This means that bad data in the local spreadsheet could be propagated to an enterprise-wide system. Patching such enterprise-wide systems is an extremely costly undertaking. Even patching Office suites is a very costly undertaking, in terms of testing and rollout, even if there is no additional software cost from the application vendor.

But how many ECMA376-1 consuming applications can there be?

Another argument is that this is a storm in a teacup, the primacy and purity of ISO8601 dates is more important than the pandering to the handful of applications out there that might encounter a later version and produce errors.

There are many of them out there, obviously Office 2007, which is fairly popular, I’ve heard, but also a huge amount by smaller vendors, such as SAP, Oracle, Lawson, IBM (e.g. support for Excel 2007 in Cognos)– people like that.  As mentioned before, most ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) and BI (Business Intelligence) vendors deal with XLSX files, some of them bi-directionally – meaning bad data could be propagated globally throughout these enterprise-level systems.

But these are just the tip of the iceberg, there are many bespoke in-house systems, especially in the financial space that rely heavily on Excel files.

But, won’t vendors have been slow to adopt the new formats, I hear you cry.  The answer in this case, is no.  The benefit of the OOXML format is that it has been much easier and quicker for vendors to implement support than the old binary Excel formats, which were horrible.  The documentation was obviously much better and the XML nature meant it was far easier to implement support on different platforms, which is key for enterprise vendors that run on a huge gamut of different OS and technology platforms.

In addition, there has been a lot of pressure from users to support the new formats, as the size of spreadsheets was greatly expanded with the introduction of OOXML.  Previously, Excel spreadsheets were limited to 65,536 rows.  Enough for any spreadsheet, you may say, but in my experience, they always wanted more.

We frequently had product enhancement requests to allow Monarch to export many hundreds of thousands of rows into spreadsheets, using tricks such as populating one sheet, moving on to the next when the limit was reached and so on.

I wonder about the wisdom of million row spreadsheets, but users will always seek to push the envelope.

Behaviour of existing applications when encountering ISO 8601 Dates

Some testing (earlier this year) was performed on easily available applications, to see what the scenario of using ISO8601 dates in an instance document would look like.  The following implementations fail when opening a file which contains no changes introduced in IS29500, except for ISO 8601 dates, with the t attribute of the cell set to “d”. Only Datawatch Monarch 10 will work without error, under the (unlikely) condition that the ISO-8601 date string only includes the date portion. All other tested implementations fail.

Office 2007 SP1

Warning dialog appears “Excel found unreadable content in <>. Do you want to recover the contents of this workbook …” On clicking Yes, the file is loaded but all dates are removed.

Office 2007 SP2 Beta

No warning dialog appears, dates are silently corrupted, but still exist within the file as valid, but incorrect dates.

OpenOffice 3.0.1 Calc

Similar behaviour to Office 2007 SP2 Beta

NeoOffice Mac

Similar behaviour to Office 2007 SP2 Beta

Apple iWorks 09 Numbers

Similar behaviour to Office 2007 SP2 Beta

Apple iPhone

Similar behaviour to Office 2007 SP2 Beta

Excel Mobile 6.1

Similar behaviour to Office 2007 SP2 Beta

Datawatch Monarch V9 / Monarch Data Pump V9

File cannot be opened

Datawatch Monarch V10 / Monarch Data Pump V10

File can be opened correctly if only the date portion of an ISO-8601 date string exists. If it is the long form, an error message warning of corrupt data appears, informing the user that it will be imported as nulls. The problem can be rectified, by changing the field type from date to character. Note that Monarch is often used in lights-out operation and Data Pump is only used in lights out operation.

Cleaning up the mess

So, the “so-called” Working Group 4 were faced with the following set of problems:

  1. For an existing ECMA 376-1 consuming application, there was no way to distinguish a later version, so the application would happily read and process any future instance, unaware of any changes (especially purely semantic ones!)
  2. For an existing ECMA 376-1 consuming application, there was no way to distinguish between a document of conformance class strict versus one of conformance class transitional.
  3. Changes to implement ISO 8601 dates in SpreadsheetML had not been thought out well at all in the BRM process.
  4. Changes to implement ISO 8601 dates per se had not been thought out well at all in the BRM process (i.e. no subsetting as per the XML Schema spec)
  5. Many assumed that serial dates were still allowed in the transitional form, which one could easily assume based on the lack of strong typing (the cell value, which is the target container for dates) is a string, not a date, with an optional attribute to indicate an ISO8601 date.  In addition, there is a large amount of text in the OOXML specification referring to serial dates. 
  6. The catastrophic silent data loss issue proven to exist in many applications designed for ECMA376-1.

We all know the various stories about the financial catastrophes that can occur with errors in spreadsheets.  Compounding this enormously at the file format level would not be popular amongst organisations such as EUSPRIG or indeed, anyone using spreadsheets at all, which is just about everyone.

So what did Working Group 4 decide to do about this?

Let’s take a look at the Scope statement for IS29500:

"ISO/IEC 29500 defines a set of XML vocabularies for representing word-processing documents, spreadsheets and presentations. On the one hand, the goal of ISO/IEC 29500 is to be capable of faithfully representing the preexisting corpus of word-processing documents, spreadsheets and presentations that had been produced by the Microsoft Office applications (from Microsoft Office 97 to Microsoft Office 2008, inclusive) at the date of the creation of ISO/IEC 29500. It also specifies requirements for Office Open XML consumers and producers. On the other hand, the goal is to facilitate extensibility and interoperability by enabling implementations by multiple vendors and on multiple platforms."

(For anyone that was wondering, Office 2008 was the Mac version.)

Although the preexisting corpus only references Microsoft Office, it certainly applies to the huge corpus of documents produced by applications other than Office, but consumable by Office too.

  1. Since the Transitional form is meant to help deal with the transition of legacy documents, it was decided to make best efforts to provide compatibility with ECMA376-1 in the Transitional form of OOXML, so that existing applications worked properly.  This involved clarifying or reintroducing, depending on your point of view, the use of serial dates for SpreadsheetML cell values.
  2. Since the Strict form is the ideal form of the specification (ISO8601 dates only etc), where applications should strive to end up over time, it was decided to change the namespace, so that applications designed for ECMA376-1 would not be able to read them, avoiding data loss issues.  In the absence of an existing versioning system, this was the only way to prevent existing applications from processing future version files that would likely create compatibility issues.

In addition, some members of Working Group 4 are determined to consider the implementation details of ISO8601 dates in spreadsheets, and wider, possibly using a subsetting approach like that found in XML Schema. 

There certainly needs to be definition of which forms of ISO 8601 elements should be used, for example, possibly specifying “Complete Representation in Extended Format” should be used for dates and times, with separators explicitly defined and so on.  Other considerations might be the expansion of the range of valid dates, less than zero and greater than 9999.  ISO 8601 allows for a fair degree of ambiguity, so honing down the allowable forms would make implementers’ lives much easier.

There are also a wealth of other aspects of ISO8601 that would need to be excluded, such as recurring time intervals.

In the final analysis, the venerable Leap Year bug, now, somewhat strangely, elevated to accepted behaviour, is far less dangerous than the silent data loss problem that not allowing serial dates in spreadsheet cells could be.

Further reading

Rob Weir (CoChair – OASIS ODF TC, Member – OASIS ODF Adoption TC, Member -OASIS ODF Interoperability and Conformance TC, Member – INCITS V1, Chief ODF Architect, IBM)

A leap back

This is an interesting post, but there are a few issues that I need to address here:

“If you guessed “Microsoft”, you may advance to the head of the class.”

Alas Rob, it was Lotus that thrust this onto the world when they were the dominant spreadsheet and the minnow Excel had to play ball!

“The “legacy reasons” argument is entirely bogus. Microsoft could have easily have defined the XML format to require correct dates and managed the compatibility issues when loading/saving files in Excel. A file format is not required to be identical to an application’s internal representation.”

That may well be true, but I would imagine that would cause a large technical burden when managing backward compatibility with fixes such as the Compatibility Pack, as well as for the tens of thousands of developers reading and writing BIFF8 (the older Excel native binary format) who likely consumed, processed and exported serial dates. 

Spreadsheets historically did not have date engines that could deal natively with ISO8601 dates and I doubt any do now.  They could, of course parse them in and out, but it is not a trivial amount of work to put in the plumbing and why take the performance hit.  Serial dates are great for date diffing and grouping, which is one of the most common operations – i.e how old is this debt, what transactions are in this quarter etc.

In addition, this argument cuts both ways, applications could convert serial dates into ISO 8601 dates if they so wished.  Anyway, as of today, we have to clean up the mess as best we can.

Allowing serial dates in OOXML also makes it easier to interoperate with the forthcoming OpenFormula specification, which reasonably eschews ISO8601 dates in favour of serial dates and datetimes as input.  BTW OpenFormula looks excellent and I must commend the work of Dave Wheeler and the rest of the OpenFormula SC.

As per the latest OpenFormula draft of May 9, 2009:

“A Date is a subtype of number; the number is the number of days from a particular date called the epoch. Thus, a date when presented as a general-purpose number is also called a serial number.” …

“A DateTime is also a subtype of number, and for purposes of formulas it is simply the date plus the time of day.”

I do hope Mr Bollow is pursuing the OpenFormula SC with the same vigour for their anti-ISO8601 activities, maybe we can convince him together!

Joel Spolsky (former Excel Program Manager) 

My first BillG review 

This explains the infamous leap year issue that Lotus created and Excel had to stomach.

The problem is that the horse has bolted, we now have to figure out to do the best with what we have.

Jesper Lund Stocholm (SC34/WG4 Member, Danish Standards)


Discussion of ISO 8601 dates in Spreadsheets

Alex Brown (SC34/WG1 Convenor, SC34/WG4 Member, British Standards)

ISO 8601 date discussion at Copenhagen WG4 meeting.

Apologies to my Business Intelligence readers, this post is pretty esoteric and refers to some strange goings on in the document standards world.

Apologies also to Rick Jelliffe, any resemblance to Schematron is entirely unintended.

After the drama of the initial Office 2007 SP2 ODF support was initiated by Rob Weir, related arguments spilled out all over the place.  I got involved in a few places, but then left it alone whilst I got on with some productive work.  There’s only so many ways you can say “it’s does not exist in the standard – admit it, fix it and move on”.

Needing something to accompany a coffee yesterday, I found that the argument was still raging on Alex Brown’s blog, so I settled down for some light entertainment.

Once again, Rob Weir was arguing with Alex about some interpretation of the ODF specification and calling Alex names.  Then ‘Marbux’  weighed in with possibly the two longest comments in internet history.

This highly esoteric, intellectual argument between Dr. Alex Brown (the Convenor of ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34 Working Group 1), Mr. Robert Weir (the Chair of the ODF Technical Committee at OASIS) and Mr. Paul E. Merrell J.D. AKA ‘Marbux’ (a Juris Doctor) essentially (and I simplify enormously) about whether something specified in the schema as required for a document instance to be valid/conformant, was not actually required, because Rob said it wasn’t and Alex and Marbux said it was.  Rob had his reasons for this, but they were completely lost on me.  I mostly understood Alex’s reasoning, but all this came at the cost of a Red Bull chaser after the coffee.

Note: I was always under the impression that it was good practice for something that was invalid against the schema to be deemed non-conformant.  Rob shows just what a absolute noob I am to assume that.

Here’s the selected highlights (I know it looks unexpurgated, but take my word for it)


“Alex, where do you read that validity of manifest.xml is required for conformance? That is news to me. Section 1.5 defines document conformance and says that conformance requires validity with respect to the OpenDocument schema. Section 1.4 defines that schema to be that described in chapters 1-16. This is confirmed in Appendix A. The optional packing format, including manifest.xml, is described in chapter 17, which the astute reader will observe is not between 1 and 16. Therefor it is not part of the OpenDocument schema to which validity is required for conformance.”


“Err, you’re reading the wrong version of the spec. The manifest invalidity problem only occurs for the two apps (OOo/Sun plugin) which claim to be using so-called "ODF 1.2"; so for the results here, the conformance section 1.5 of ODF 1.1, that you quote, is not relevant.”


“You misread the standard. But rather than admit and accept that, you are now trying to redeem your post by a back-up argument, which tries to apply your interpretation and prediction of what Part 3 of ODF 1.2 will say when it is eventually approved. But this text has not even reached Committee Draft stage in OASIS. It is merely an Editor’s Draft at this point. Are you really going to persist in making bold claims like this based on an Editor’s Draft, which has not been approved, or in fact even reviewed by the ODF TC, especially when contradicted by the actually approved ODF 1.0 (in ISO and OASIS versions) and ODF 1.1?”


“No, Rob – you are the one misrepresenting ODF.
The ODF 1.1 standard states: "[t]he normative XML Schema for OpenDocument Manifest files is embedded within this specification." (s17.7.1)
How is it anything other than non-conformant, for an XML document to be invalid to a normative schema?”


“Alex, as you know, normative clauses include those that state recommendations as well as requirements. So ‘shall’ is normative, but so is ‘should’ and so is ‘may’. Normative refers to all provisions, not merely requirements. Please refer to ISO Directives Part 2, definitions 3.8 and 3.12. So normative does not imply "required for conformance". The conformance clause defines conformance and that clause clearly defines it in terms of the schema excluding chapter 17.”


“I’m sorry, but you have veered off into the surreal now.
If you’re maintaining that "the normative XML Schema for OpenDocument Manifest files" is in fact NOT REALLY "the normative XML Schema for OpenDocument Manifest files", then we’re going to have to disagree.”


“Alex, read more carefully. I never said that schema was not normative. What I said is that "normative" is not the same as "required for conformance", as you had been asserting. But now I think you may be confused on this as well.”

Joe Sixpack Developer Trying To Implement ODF:

WTF!!! This is completely crazy – it would be easier and quicker to send someone round to every user’s desk and type it out in the app of their choice instead”

This reveals a real practical problem, should I wish to implement ODF.  I would need to consult the Oracle of Westford (Rob Weir) about every detail of the entire implementation, in order to be on fully safe ground.

Now if Alex Brown and various other highly qualified commenters can misread the ODF specification so heinously, needing the expert advice from the ODF Technical Committee Chair himself to put them right, what chance do lowly developers have?

It appears from this there is no chance that any developer will be able to interpret the specification properly, since only Rob Weir (and perhaps the folks working on OpenOffice) has the intellectual capacity to navigate this ball of semantic string. 

Having to cross-reference this file format equivalent of the newest, most advanced physics paper on the planet every time you write a line of code is going to lead to madness.

This leads to a huge scalability problem, with developers worldwide having to get an opinion from Rob Weir on every implementation detail – although he could save a few hours a day by giving up the blog posts and comments, it would not be anywhere near enough to cope with the deluge of requests.

So, the solution to this is clear – we need to implement Rob Weir as a web service, a Weirotron if you like. That way, everyone can query the Weirotron and get back the definitive answer to any ODF question, without having to deal with the obviously labyrinthine spec that has bamboozled so many leading XML experts.

In addition, the Weirotron could help solve those pesky interoperability issues that stem from some areas that ODF relies on the OpenOffice source code for, like Formulas, and areas where the spec is a bit light, so to speak, like Change Tracking etc.  I’m sure that this would really assist Microsoft and many other struggling developers in implementing support for ODF (or rather the Weir-approved cod-ODF) correctly, with the inherent blessing of the ODF TC Chair.

Business Intelligence is a term that covers a multitude of sins.  It is also a term which is extremely open to interpretation, depending on your viewpoint, technology mastery, user skillset and information environment.

Creating new terms, especially acronyms is what the technology industry does best, they delight in it, but it does serve some purpose other than the amusement of marketing folks and analysts.

To go back to an old paradigm, creating labels or categories is an essential part of the market.  Not just the BI market, but any village market, or supermarket. 

Categories help consumers navigate quickly to the types of products they are interested in, like finding the right aisle to browse by looking up at the hanging signs in the supermarket, or the area in the village market where the fruit vendors gather.  Labels give more information, such as pricing, size etc and then it is down to the product packaging and the rest of the marketing the consumer has been exposed to in terms of advertising, brand awareness and so on.

Business intelligence is a pretty long aisle.  At one end, the labels are pretty narrow but at the other, very very wide, to accommodate the zeros after the currency symbol and ‘days to implement’ information.

The problem is the the long aisle – vendors need to break that aisle up into manageable (walkable) segments to help the customer navigate quickly to the solution they need.

The other problem is that in this case, the supermarket is not in charge of the category names, not even the vendors or analysts are – it’s a free for all.

This means chaos for the poor consumer, all capering around in the aisle like some kind of Brownian motion.

Thinking about this, after being bombarded with a panoply of BI terms lately, I thought of INCOTERMS, which is a standard set of terms used in international sales contracts.  These terms are strictly defined and published by an independent organization so that both parties in the transaction know exactly where they stand.

According to Boris Everson of Forrester Business Intelligence is “a set of processes and technologies that transform raw, meaningless data into useful and actionable information

Not sure about that one myself – who acquires and stores meaningless information? Other than maybe Twitter.  Other suggestions most welcome.  It might help show the possible technologies Forrester are referring to.

This certainly excludes my product, since we work with data that theoretically, people are probably already making decisions from. They just need to slice and dice it differently.

I can’t complain too much about Forrester though, at least they have Report Mining in their buzzword bonanza (courtesy of Curt Monash), our little niche.

The concept of transforming raw data is easier to work with (in the Forrester BI definition sense anyway) as it could refer to something like a web log, which is pretty difficult to gain any insight from by looking at it in a text editor, unless you have an eidetic memory and the ability to group and summarize the various keys and measures in your head.

Now, as often is the case when you start writing about a topic, the research you do unearths people who have written pretty much the same thing before you.

Going back to definitions, finding Todd Fox’s decent definition of BI – “A generic term to describe leveraging the organizations’ internal and external information assets for making better business decisions.” from a define:Business Intelligence search on Google, leads to Todd’s own attempts from a Data Warehousing perspective, which, in turn was prompted by James Taylor’s post on the confusion around the term analytics (in the context of BI). In addition, even Kimball was involved with his “Slowly Changing Vocabulary” section in one of his books.

This at least tells me I’m on the right track, if not entirely original.

In 1989 Gartner’s Howard Dresner defined BI as “a set of concepts and methods to improve business decision making by using fact-based support systems

More definitions can be found from Larry English and probably ad infinitum, or at the least, ad nauseam.

The depressing thing here is that we have only got as far as the “umbrella term” as BI becoming popularly known.

<Aside> A Dutch student at the University of Amsterdam even wrote a paper titled “Business Intelligence – The Umbrella Term” complete with an umbrella graphic on the cover page.  (It’s a doc file, so I won’t include the link.  Google it if you’re interested)</Aside>

When we start to address even Forrester’s BI buzzword hoard, never mind the others out there, it begins to lead to a total breakdown in the tried and tested categorization mechanism.

To revisit the source of the proliferation, it appears that analysts (likely as a proxy for large vendors) and vendors themselves are the main culprits.  The analysts, by virtue of some level of independence and a cross-vendor view can be seen to be the arbiters of the terms.  The problem here is that the analysts often use slightly different terms or at least different meanings for the same terms.

Naturally, both vendors and analysts want to proliferate and blur terms to aid in differentiation, or to try give the perception of innovation and progress. 

Although this is very seldom the case, as new terms are often just fracturing or rehashing existing categories and terms.

However, in some cases, drilling down into more narrow categories or updating terms due to changes in technologies or approaches is not necessarily a bad thing, if the terms/categories still aid in establishing a contract of understanding between vendor and consumer.

If we want to accommodate this, the ability to establish a common understanding, based on input from across the board – analysts and vendors, would be beneficial to all.  The problem is, you need a real independent organization that can accommodate the horse-trading, as well as maintaining an authoritative definition of terms which is acceptable to all parties.

Some amusing aspects of this I can foresee would be “Active Data Warehouse” – would you have to then create a new term “Passive Data Warehouse” to group the applications that did not fit the criteria of “Active”.  I imagine a semantic arms race that would have to be kept in check – IBMCognoStrategyFire pushes for a “Smart ETL” category, which forces the other ETL vendors into the “Dumb ETL” pigeonhole.  Dealing with this is what standards bodies do.

This is more musing than actually being stupid enough to think this is ever going to happen.  I do have sympathy with the poor customer trying to navigate the shelves of the BI supermarket though.  As someone just trying to keep a lazy eye on the machinations of the industry, it can be overwhelming.

Here’s a short quiz.

What BI term does this refer to?

“centralized repository of information about data such as meaning, relationships to other data, origin, usage, and format.”

Was this your first guess? This?

No.  Much earlier.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Maybe we could just provide a thesaurus, so when someone is puzzling over the latest buzzword, they can look it up and say ahh, I know what that is, we tried to implement something like that back in the early nineties.


UPDATE: Read this excellent article from Colin White – I didn’t see it before I wrote this – I promise!

The catalyst for Colin’s article (Stephen Few) can be found here and follow-up by Ted Cuzillo here.

It seems like the rancour around the Open XML / ODF soap opera still simmers away.

Even though the volcano has erupted and the ash has cooled, it won’t be forgotten.

For those who don’t know the tale and want a recap:

Sun buy the commercial product StarOffice, then give it away for free. When that still doesn’t arouse too much interest, they decide to open source it instead in a move to reduce MSOffice dominance.  It is called, or OpenOffice ->

IBM and Sun dream up strategy of beating MS Office with government mandate stick via standardisation route.  Open Source folk find it an intoxicating bandwagon too->

OpenOffice file format is morphed into a standard and hurried through standardisation->

IBM put coin and feet on the street into strategy and start to make progress with some government bodies.  An IBM services bonanza beckons.  Sun wonders (as usual) how are THEY going to make money->

Microsoft, either reacting to this strategy, or in parallel, being forced by European Union, also morph their Office suite into a standard and hurry it through standardisation->

(note – slightly more fuss/interest around this than the ODF process)

IBM/Sun/Open Source folks call foul and IBM throws its toys out of the pram regarding ISO’s value.

During this debate, there are numerous mentions of corruption.  Some of it is well documented and looks like the usual lobbying that one might expect.  IBM + friends went at it hammer and tongs, so did Microsoft.

However, these nebulous claims still remain. I am reminded of Tim Bray every day I look out of my window, since the UK office of OpenText is visible from my home, a company which Tim co-founded.

One would have thought even a plain speaker like Tim would be able to voice his concerns, which should naturally have been weighed up in the context of the ‘theatre’ (in the war sense, and others) and must therefore be so heinous that he fears legal action (from Microsoft, one assumes) and has decided that discretion is the better part of valour.

I have an idea.  Anyone with any of these obviously very juicy stories can put them up on WikiLeaks.  I suppose you could always use Groklaw, but I can’t figure out if it’s one of those ‘ironic’ parody-style sites or not. It smacks of those religious site parodies, which are pretty much indistinguishable from the real thing.

I took a quick look on WikiLeaks and the only things I could find were all from Stefan Krempl, just links to published articles on  Not very juicy.

So if anyone has any top notch dirt, I encourage them to use WikiLeaks.  I would welcome some new material to read, as the flywheel still seems to keep spinning on the same old energy.  Maybe we’ve found the perpetual motion machine.

Come on people, it’s catharsis time.  You’ll feel better. 

In a more positive vein, it looks like everyone is going to play nicely in the new ISO maintenance structures. I only said it looks like.

In the spirit of full disclosure, the company I work for are Microsoft partners (as we are IBM partners) and have implemented Open XML spreadsheet reading and writing in our products.  We are Excel-centric, so most of our customers have never heard of ODF.  Still, maybe once they get hold of Office 2007 SP2 and the ODF support, they’ll start clamouring for it.