3 reading summary

Adopting_Open_Source_Software_A_Practical_Guide_----_Chapter_6._Adoption_of_Open_Standards_in_Massachusetts.pdf

Home >History homework help >3 reading summary

6 Adoption of Open Standards in Massachusetts

INTRODUCTION 1

In 2003, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts launched a series of new initiatives that sought to foster the use of open standards and OSS. The centerpiece was an open standards policy that required all government- owned IT software to rely on open standards. As a result, Massachusetts became the fi rst U.S. state to adopt an open standards policy. In 2005, this policy was extended to include document formats, and Mas- sachusetts became the fi rst government to mandate the use of the open document format for offi ce applications (ODF). This mandate incorporated de facto use of Open Offi ce, an OSS, because it was the only implementation of ODF available at that time.

This chapter relates the history of the open standards policy with respect to the OSS adoption process model and describes the issues concerning the adoption of an open standard policy by applying the framework derived in chapter 2. The resulting analysis shows the utility of the framework for understanding the adoption of the open standards policy.

Fitzgerald, Brian, et al. Adopting Open Source Software : A Practical Guide, MIT Press, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/scad-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3339329. Created from scad-ebooks on 2020-04-16 19:15:26.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

86 Chapter 6

There are differences between open standards and open source. The defi nition of open standards has never been abso- lute, and several scholars regard it as a gray area (Krechmer 2006; West 2007). Massachusetts defi ned an open standard in its policy initiative (I. T. D. Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2004b):

For the purpose of this policy, open standards are defi ned as fol- lows: specifi cations for systems that are publicly available and are developed by an open community and affi rmed by a standards body. Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) is an example of an open standard. Open standards imply that multiple vendors can compete directly based on the features and performance of their products. It also implies that the existing information technology solution is por- table and that it can be removed and replaced with that of another vendor with minimal effort and without major interruption.

Open standards are specifi cations for developing software, but OSS is also an approach for developing software. OSS is based on the idea of making the source code for software publicly available. OSS typically relies upon and makes use of open standards. Proprietary software is an alternative devel- opment model for OSS, but even proprietary software can uti- lize open standards. In sum, an open standards policy should not affect the choice of a particular vendor because both open source and proprietary software development models can support open standards.

A number of governments and organizations, including the United States (Committee for Economic Development 2006), the United Kingdom (Offi ce of Government Commerce 2004), Belgium, Finland, France, Japan, Norway, Malaysia, South Africa, and Russia, have called for policies that strongly en- courage or mandate the implementation or further evaluation of open standards. Massachusetts is a pioneer in adopting an open standards policy.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Adoption of Open Standards in Massachusetts 87

This chapter applies the adoption framework to an open standards policy. In general, open standard policies are closely linked to decisions regarding OSS. Once an open standard exists, it is possible for OSS solutions to compete with pro- prietary ones. Without an open standard, there is no way to ensure that an OSS solution can always compete with propri- etary solutions. When Massachusetts initially mandated ODF, it appears to have understood that it would involve migrating from Microsoft Offi ce and to an OSS offi ce suite.

The chapter begins with a short history of the open stan- dards policy in Massachusetts and includes an emphasis on the open formats policy. This discussion relies on the his- tory and analysis of the Massachusetts open standards policy as analyzed in a previous article (Shah, Kesan, and Kennis 2008). In addition, Andrew Updegrove detailed the history of the standards policy in his e- book (Updegrove 2008). The remaining sections discuss the adoption process using the framework derived in chapter 2.

HISTORY OF THE OPEN FORMATS POLICY

In 2002, Jim Willis, who was then the director of e- government for the secretary of state in Rhode Island, pushed the imple- mentation of OSS within the state government (Vaas 2003). Willis was a pioneer—many state governments felt at that time that OSS was not ready for use at the enterprise level. Willis demonstrated that OSS was enterprise- worthy and much less expensive than proprietary software. One year later, Oregon considered a bill that would have required the state to con- sider using OSS when buying new programs. Although the bill did not give preferential treatment to OSS, it was defeated

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

88 Chapter 6

before a committee vote took place (Bowman 2003; Peter- son 2004). Massachusetts took a different approach than the other states with respect to OSS and navigating the associated political trenches.

At fi rst, Massachusetts appeared to follow the lead of Rhode Island and Oregon in not going beyond considering the use of open standards and OSS. Massachusetts—as well as other state governments that create, manage, and store vo- luminous electronic records—was constrained by IT compat- ibility, costs, and capability. In September 2003, Eric Kriss, then- secretary of administration and fi nance in Massachu- setts, released a memo to the state’s Information Technology Division (ITD) Director Peter Quinn, which stated (Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2006):

[W]e can no longer afford a disjointed and proprietary approach that locks in legacy systems, generates excessive use of outside consul- tants, and creates long, often misguided project plans. . . . Effective immediately, we will adopt, under the guidance of the Common- wealth’s Chief Information Offi cer Peter Quinn, a comprehensive Open Standards, Open Source policy for all future IT investments and operating expenditures.

On January 13, 2004, the ITD followed up with three sepa- rate policy statements concerning open standards and open source. The fi rst policy was an enterprise open standards policy that stated that Massachusetts was moving to open standards for its IT investments (Commonwealth of Massa- chusetts ITD 2004a). The motives for the new policy were clearly spelled out and included a threefold rationale: govern- ment services are delivered more effi ciently with system inte- gration and effective data sharing; IT investments should be based on total ownership costs that can be constructed once

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Adoption of Open Standards in Massachusetts 89

and used many times by different groups and agencies; and, lastly, open standards are cheaper to acquire, develop, and maintain and do not result in vendor lock- ins.

The second policy was an acquisition policy for all future selections of IT products and services (Commonwealth of Massachusetts ITD 2004a). It mandated “that information technology solutions are selected based on best value after careful consideration of all possible alternatives including proprietary, public sector code sharing and open source so- lutions.” This policy ensured that OSS could be used by the state.

The fi nal policy was an enterprise technical reference man- ual, which provided a framework for the standards, speci- fi cations, and technologies that must be incorporated into prospective IT investments (Commonwealth of Massachu- setts 2008). It continues to function as a living document and is updated periodically as the policy evolves. The enterprise technical reference manual is now at version 5.0 and repre- sents a diverse set of technological domains. Twenty- seven technology areas currently fall under its management. The remainder of this section focuses on the issues concerning the policy regarding document formats.

Document formats allow a computer to store memos or spreadsheets. Some well- known document formats are Micro soft’s .doc format for word processing, .xls format for spread- sheets, and .ppt format for presentations. Massachusetts sought to move away from Microsoft’s proprietary formats and toward open standard document formats. Massachu- setts shifted to open standards because it believed that it could lower costs and increase fl exibility. These advantages were signifi cant for Massachusetts because they feared that

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

90 Chapter 6

a proprietary standard locked to a proprietary application might result in documents that could become unreadable in fi ve, ten, or one hundred years. Given the rapid development and turnover of software, older proprietary software is often replaced. By using an open standard, Massachusetts believed that it could ensure that documents would be permanently readable.

On September 21, 2005, Massachusetts published version 3.5 of its enterprise technical reference manual, which re- quired that all new documents saved after January 1, 2007 meet the open format guidelines. The notion of open format was redefi ned to refer to two formats: open formats , which in- clude .txt, .rtf, HTML and ODF formats, and acceptable for- mats , which includes the pdf format. Microsoft’s document formats were excluded. This policy change would eventually prohibit the use of the default document formats found in Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint and other proprie- tary document formats used by other vendors. This exclusion was important and drew immediate attention to the Massa- chusetts policy.

Among the acceptable open formats listed was ODF, a stan- dard that began as an XML interchangeable fi le format for Sun’s Star Offi ce product. It was initially used in Star Offi ce and Open Offi ce, the latter being a freely available offi ce suite program. The adoption of ODF as an open standard for offi ce applications was made under the aegis of an industry con- sortium known as the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS).

Microsoft responded to its exclusion and the concerns that had been raised by Massachusetts. It began by opening up its new XML document formats, which are the successors to

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Adoption of Open Standards in Massachusetts 91

the current document formats (e.g., .doc format) and which eventually became known as Offi ce Open XML (OOXML). It submitted OOXML to two international standards bodies, the European- based Ecma International and the ISO. Micro- soft also posted a “covenant not to sue” regarding its Offi ce XML formats, thus easing the licensing requirements. The covenant was founded upon Microsoft’s earlier agreement regarding royalty- free licensing.

While Microsoft was responding to Massachusetts’s criti- cism, a new form of opposition to the document formats pol- icy emerged. Beginning in March 2006, disability advocates publicly voiced strong concerns over the planned switch from Microsoft Offi ce to an ODF- compliant OSS offi ce suite such as Open Offi ce. Disabled workers depend on extra technol- ogies that are usually developed by third- party vendors who primarily catered to Microsoft products due to their domi- nation of the document- creation market (Noyes 2006). The advocates for the disabled argued that without Microsoft they would lose accessibility.

A Massachusetts state senate committee, chaired by Sena- tor Marc Pacheco, released a blistering report in June 2006, which criticized the open standards measure (Senate Commit- tee on Post Audit and Oversight, Commonwealth of Massa- chusetts 2006). The report argued that the policy had been drafted and implemented in an undemocratic, closed- room manner and recommended delaying the plan’s 2007 imple- mentation unless the ITD acceded to a number of measures, including demonstrating its accessibility for disabled state workers.

Despite the public relations damage infl icted by the report and opposition by disability advocates, then- Governor Mitt

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

92 Chapter 6

Romney maintained his support for the plan, and the ITD did not delay its implementation. However, in order to address the concerns raised about accessibility, the ITD had to change its implementation strategy in order to accommodate Micro- soft Offi ce products. This required a plug- in for Microsoft Offi ce to support ODF and delayed the implementation pro- cess. The deadline was extended to June 2007. Even with this extension, as of late June 2007, only 250 of the state’s com- puters had been successfully equipped with software plug- ins that enabled conversion abilities (create, read, and save) for the change to ODF (Lai 2007b).

On August 1, 2007, version 4.0 of the enterprise technical reference manual offi cially added Microsoft’s OOXML to the approved list of open formats (Pepoli and Dormitzer 2007). In revising the enterprise technical reference manual, Massa- chusetts recognized that Microsoft had made several changes to OOXML, including moving OOXML to a standards or- ganization, adding a covenant not to sue, and getting it ap- proved as an open standard by Ecma International in 2006. Massachusetts offi cially reasoned that, “there is industry sup- port for Open XML and we believe that by adopting the stan- dard we will be able to accelerate the pace of migration to XML document formats” (Lai 2007a).

Despite the painstaking evolution of the enterprise tech- nical reference manual and Microsoft’s efforts to adhere to Massachusetts’s criteria for open standards, as of January 2008, both OOXML and ODF were little- used by the gov- ernment of Massachusetts. A Google search identifi ed 17,300 .doc fi les, 31 .odt fi les based on ODF, and 0 .docx fi les based on OOXML. These numbers include only fi les that are pub- licly available through the Web site for the Commonwealth

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Adoption of Open Standards in Massachusetts 93

of Massachusetts (<http://www.mass.gov>) but suggest how infrequently these standards are used. Nevertheless, the lat- est offi ce suites, such as Microsoft Offi ce and Open Offi ce, all make use of ODF or OOXML, so the numbers of fi les are likely to rise as users begin using these new formats.

Several other states have considered legislation that would mandate open standards for document formats. OOXML was only recently approved as meeting ISO standards, and these bills effectively encouraged or mandated the ODF format. To date, open format initiatives have failed in many states, in- cluding Connecticut, Florida, Texas, Oregon, California, and Minnesota. These failures can be explained by the fear of the implementation problems that arose with ODF and an initial lack of cost savings, which made the transition to ODF too problematic to undertake. As a result, states are beginning to move in a slower, more measured manner. In New York, a recent bill resulted in a study of how government can incor- porate open formats (New York State Chief Information Of- fi cer 2008). While it is true that states understand the benefi ts of open standards, they are currently taking a more cautious approach to open formats and are seeking a clearly specifi ed set of benefi ts.

ANALYSIS OF OPEN STANDARDS ADOPTION

This section discusses the adoption of the open standards pol- icy using the framework derived in chapter 2.

Managerial Intervention The open standards policy persisted due to a strong organiza- tional commitment for the policy, despite occasional criticism.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

94 Chapter 6

The Massachusetts open formats policy broke new ground. Massachusetts was the fi rst government in the world to man- date ODF. Initiating and maintaining such a policy required resources, knowledge, and commitment. The state govern- ment faced considerable criticism for its decision from the Massachusetts Software Council, the legislature, and advo- cacy groups.

This policy lasted for several years due to the commitment of a number of key public offi cials: Information Technology Division’s (ITD) CIO Peter Quinn and Director Louis Gutier- rez, Secretary Eric Kriss, and Governor Mitt Romney. These offi cials understood the relevant issues and trusted the techni- cal judgment of the ITD and its implementation plan. Without their strong organizational commitment, the standards policy initiative would have collapsed. Their support helped pressure Microsoft to change its licensing policy, move its OOXML document format into a standards body, and support ODF plug- in technologies.

A central part of the adoption framework is managerial in- tervention. In this case, without the leadership and the knowl- edgeable and committed support, Massachusetts would not have decided to transition to open formats and would not have sustained its policy for four years while attempting to implement a pioneering policy. This managerial leadership was a key difference between Massachusetts and other states that considered, but did not implement, such a policy.

Subjective Norms Subjective norms concern how individuals believe their peers and coworkers expect them to behave in relation to technol- ogy. From the values and norms perspective, the ideology

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Adoption of Open Standards in Massachusetts 95

represented by OSS can infl uence the adoption process. In the case of Massachusetts, the ideological values of OSS were constrained by the importance of making reasoned and prag- matic government decisions.

The subjective norms in the adoption process were domi- nated by concerns regarding pragmatism and saving money for the citizens of Massachusetts. For example, Peter Quinn, the former CIO, refers to the decision making as being “driven by the business of best value and good government” (Quinn 2006). In a similar manner, the guidance for the stan- dards strategy suggested that standard strategy “rationalizes IT investments, reduces risk, fi nds best ways to extend IT, and promotes fl exibility and interoperability” (Massachusetts Information Technology Commission 2003). These norms show how little infl uence there was over the subjective norms of OSS.

Facilitating Conditions Chapter 2 discussed several innovation attributes that previ- ous research has determined infl uences innovation adoption. This section discusses the attributes that are most relevant to the open standards policy—relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, and trialability.

Innovation Attributes

Relative Advantage The open standards policy was seen as offering two distinct relative advantages in Massachusetts. These advantages con- stitute part of the reason why the policy was initiated and sustained.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

96 Chapter 6

First, the policy appeared to have the potential to produce signifi cant economic savings. Massachusetts saw open stan- dards as having the potential to reduce costs not only through competition but also through a reduction in total ownership costs. The ITD said that open standards are a “more cost- effective ‘build once, use many times’ approach” (Common- wealth of Massachusetts ITD 2004b). The central idea was that once a standard is put into use and implemented, it can then be used many times by different groups and agencies.

Massachusetts believed that a move to ODF could save money. The ITD conducted a back- of- the- envelope fi nancial analysis and determined that switching to ODF and adopting Open Offi ce would cost about $8 million. Open Offi ce was a freely available implementation of ODF at that time. In con- trast, remaining with Microsoft Offi ce and paying for Micro- soft’s Offi ce 12 would result in costs of $34 million. ITD thus thought that it could save the state $26 million by using ODF and OSS (Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2006). These fi gures were later called into question and shown to be erroneous. How- ever, at the time, ITD believed that it was saving money.

Second, the use of open standards for document formats of- fered Massachusetts freedom from being locked into propri- etary formats. This allowed it to ensure that the history of its documents would be available to all. No party could control access to public records.

At the outset of Massachusetts’s announcement of the new open standards policy, it was made clear that the greatest in- centive for the change was avoiding vendor lock- in (Common- wealth of Massachusetts ITD 2004b). Vendor lock- in occurs whenever customers’ buying choices are tied to their prior

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Adoption of Open Standards in Massachusetts 97

purchases of related products. Consumers of IT products are particularly susceptible to vendor lock- ins. The signifi cant cost of switching is the essential component that determines vendor lock- ins, which prevents the realization of user choice and fl exibility (Marks 2004).

Massachusetts ITD offi cials hoped that putting an open standards measure into place in relation to document formats would limit vendor lock- ins. Eric Kriss, the Massachusetts secretary of fi nance and administration, elucidated this ratio- nale regarding open formats in stark terms (Weisman 2005):

Open formats are at the very heart of our democratic process. The question is whether a sovereign state has the obligation to ensure that its public documents remain forever free and unencumbered by patent, license, or other technical impediments. We say, yes, this is an imperative. Microsoft says they disagree and want the world to use their proprietary formats.

Compatibility Compatibility was not initially believed to be an issue in the Massachusetts decision. This quickly changed, however, once the ITD realized that it had overlooked an important stake- holder in the process. Compatibility problems slow the adop- tion of OSS.

The Massachusetts open formats policy suffered a serious setback when it failed to take into consideration the impact of changing software on all of its users (Offi ce of the State Au- ditor 2006). Before Massachusetts mandated ODF, disabled workers and their representatives voiced their concerns to the ITD. According to the president of the Disability Policy Con- sortium, John Winske, these concerns met with no response from ITD. This turned out to be a mistake for the ITD. The representatives of disabled workers took their concerns to

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

98 Chapter 6

the press, where they received sympathetic attention. In ret- rospect, the former CIO of the ITD, Peter Quinn, admitted that this was a key tactical error and that, if he were able to do things over again, he would have handled matters differ- ently and paid more attention to the concerns of the disabled workers. In fact, shortly after the policy was formulated, Quinn went so far as to apologize for having neglected to con- sult with the representatives of disabled workers at a public hearing held in October 2005 (Gardner 2005).

The core problem was that Microsoft Offi ce supported the accessibility software that was required by some disabled users, while Open Offi ce and other OSS offi ce suites did not provide robust accessibility features. Microsoft Offi ce did not support ODF, which forced the ITD to look for a way to make Microsoft Offi ce compatible with ODF. The resulting approach was not well- thought out and technically complex. It required a plug- in to make Microsoft’s offi ce suite compat- ible with the ODF. As a result, compatibility between ODF and Microsoft became a signifi cant problem. Massachusetts missed its timetable for implementing ODF due to the delays that resulted.

Complexity The complexity issue is related to the compatibility issue. Massachusetts initially believed that the adoption of ODF and the shift from Microsoft Offi ce to Open Offi ce would not be very complex. However, once it began the transition, it found that the transition was substantially more complicated than anticipated. For example, during the transition, Massachu- setts was forced to switch from using an open source offi ce suite back to Microsoft Offi ce with plug- ins. This switch was

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Adoption of Open Standards in Massachusetts 99

done to accommodate the community of people with disabili- ties. However, this change also proved problematic, because plug- in solutions did not yet exist and had to be developed. The resulting technical issues were unforeseen and prolonged the process of implementing ODF.

Trialability During the discussions in Massachusetts regarding OSS adop- tion, trialability was a benefi t Peter Quinn raised. He was a fan of OSS because he liked the idea of being able to share code. He also liked the idea that something could be built once, and everyone could then share it (Quinn 2006). This offered a crucial advantage over proprietary applications, for which sharing code with other states through the negotiation of individual contracts was untenable.

The ITD supported a related trialability project—sharing OSS between governments. This project is known as the Gov- ernment Open Code Collaborative. Its mission is to encour- age sharing, at no cost, computer code developed for and by government entities where the redistribution of this code is allowed.

Organizational Attributes One important organizational attribute of Massachusetts was the willingness to be fi rst. This characteristic may have in- fl uenced its adoption of the open standards policy. The ITD often pointed out that Massachusetts has a long history of being fi rst when it comes to public issues. More specifi cally, Massachusetts was the fi rst state to create a public library, a public school, and a public subway. Without taking anything away from the strength of the individual leaders within the

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

100 Chapter 6

Massachusetts government, this commitment to the broad advancement of overarching public policy efforts contributed and made it comfortable for Massachusetts to embrace an open standards policy. That said, some of the initial, broad commitment to the development of open standards was mediated, with the passage of time, by the realities on the ground.

Secondary Adoption Process and Assimilation Stage Secondary adoption in this case study is mixed. The move- ment to OSS essentially ended once OOXML was approved. After the approval of OOXML, there was no longer a serious impetus to use Open Offi ce. However, there was some limited testing of various types of OSS. The ITD initially tested the use of Open Offi ce, and 250 of the state’s computers were later successfully equipped with OSS software plug- ins that enabled conversion abilities (create, read, and save) for the change to ODF (Lai 2007b).

CONCLUSIONS

The chapter examined the Massachusetts policy shift toward open standards for document formats using the adoption framework discussed in chapter 2. The adoption framework highlights several crucial issues that affected the adoption of the open standards policy and OSS. A summary of the anal- ysis is provided in table 6.1 .

The major factors that initiated, pushed, and maintained the adoption of the standards policy included the manage- rial leadership, the relative advantages of open standards, and the trialability of OSS. However, during the process,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Adoption of Open Standards in Massachusetts 101

Table 6.1 Massachusetts’s Open Standards Policy

Open standards policy

Managerial intervention

Strong leadership, together with knowledge- able and committed support, allowed the policy to persevere.

Subjective norms

The ideological values of OSS were con- strained by the importance of making rea- soned and pragmatic government decisions.

Facilitating conditions: Innovation attributes

Relative advantage First, the policy had the potential to pro- duce signifi cant economic savings. Second, open standards offered Massachusetts more freedom.

Compatibility Compatibility was initially overlooked but later become a major issue when Open Offi ce turned out to be incompatible with software that helps disabled people.

Complexity Complexity became an issue when the ITD was forced to switch from Open Offi ce to a more complex plug- in solution for Microsoft Offi ce.

Trialability Trialability was seen as an attractive and use- ful feature of OSS.

Facilitating conditions: Organization attributes

There was a history of path- breaking public service projects from an organizational view; this helped the strong state leadership main- tain a commitment to open standards.

Secondary adoption process and assimilation stage

There was an initial trial of Open Offi ce and plug- in solutions.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

102 Chapter 6

developments related to compatibility and complexity slowed the adoption process. Finally, other issues, such as subjective norms, organizational attributes, and the secondary adoption process, played secondary roles in the adoption process. In sum, the adoption framework in chapter 2 is a useful analytic approach for understanding the adoption of the Massachu- setts open standards policy.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

1. M

IT P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .