Lock-in To Be Locked Out In Portugal

“The use of non-proprietary open formats is essential to ensure technical and semantic interoperability, for interaction with citizens and companies and to gain the necessary independence from ICT suppliers

The discussion paper and the public consultation website list the proposed open standards. Examples include SQL for database queries, PNG and SVG for graphics, and PDF and ODF for electronic documents. There are also tables listing standards for electronic mail, for geographic information systems, computer networking and for IT security.”
See Portugal seeks feedback on interoperability policy
Gone are the old days when any large or small organization took whatever M$ and “partners” offered as the only way to do IT. Now countries all around the world are dictating what they will and won’t accept. That’s refreshing. It also puts GNU/Linux on the inside track because almost everything that runs on GNU/Linux will be able to follow such open standards. With That Other OS, one would always have doubts. I like IT you can count on to work for you and not against you.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Lock-in To Be Locked Out In Portugal

  1. oiaohm says:

    dougman really Satya Nadella is still ahead of Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates that had Blue/Red screens of death in Presentations.

  2. dougman says:

    As if Microshit is the alternative?…….LMAO!

    It would appear that M$ still cannot do voice yet. Check it out!


    Cortana is just another failure to add to the pile.

  3. Ivan says:

    IT you can count on? Linux? Go back to scaring deer out of hedgerows.

  4. Bob Parker says:

    Dr Loser you forgot the phrase “Fresnel Effect”.

  5. oiaohm says:

    As per normal DrLoser proves he cannot do a basic wikipedia search before commenting so goes off with a stack of bull crap.



    Because lexical interoperability is not Semantic Interoperability and has been for ever.

    Part of the reason I believe could say what ever bull crap I liked to people like DrLoser is the fact they go around making arguements without any homework so deserve to be responded to in kind.

    To properly claim Semantic Interoperability requires provability in other words a test suite/compatibility meet-ups for comparing implementations and making sure they are compatible.

    lexical interoperability only has to be theoretical. Semantic Interoperability to cover all real word cases has to be a very broad term.

    Extended Backus–Naur Form might be something you use when making a Semantic Interoperability solution or might not be. Testing and conformation is the big thing about Semantic Interoperability tell me where EBNF or Antlr mandate testing of the different implementations. The answer is they don’t.

  6. DrLoser says:

    I don’t suppose anybody here has a clue what “semantic interoperability” means. I certainly don’t.
    Let’s see now. Lexical interoperability would be a common understanding of how tokenization works, in respect of basic computer science theory. I’ll wave that one away as EBNF. If you prefer, you can choose Antlr or possibly even the lexer of the CLang bunch. In the old days, of course, it used to be Stallman’s flex. Which was excellent, btw.
    Syntactic interoperability, now, syntactic interoperability is the next level up. As befits layered systems, it presupposes lexical interoperability.
    Syntactic interoperability would seem to me to be nothing more and nothing less than a reference Abstract Syntax Tree. There may well be one out there: I don’t know.
    That would obviously be the fundamental goal of Syntactic Interoperability, but it’s reasonable to presume a solution that falls short of the reference model. Provided that one can provably map any given AST to any other AST, I believe we can say that there exists Syntactic Interoperability.
    “Semantic interoperability” is, however, a specious claim by either lawyers or marketroids or in very, very extreme cases the sort of person who claims that the likes of Web 2.0 means anything at all.
    It’s pure bullshit, isn’t it?

Leave a Reply