W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-social-web-talk@w3.org > February 2009

Re: New, Unified XG Proposal

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:43:20 +0000
To: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
CC: <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C5AF13B8.18C8%michael.hausenblas@deri.org>

Christine,

> Should  "finding out which aspects are worth being standardised" be done
> prior to forming the XG? Or during the XG?

Looking at [1] gives a pretty good idea what is possible. I'm not W3C team
or management, but AFAIK the XGs where introduced to address the problem
that WG would sometimes talk, put politely, a bit too long to deliver
results (maybe a W3C pro wants to chime in here and clarify this ;)

So, just as  I tell my PhD Students to look around for a year or so to
*find* a topic they'd want to go for, an XG in my understanding is
ultimately for identifying potential issues worth being standardised and
gathering about current state of the art (cf. also [2])

What you want, typically, after one year working in the XG is to go for a WG
[3] - or conclude that it is not worth it, also fair. For a recent example
outcome of an XG see [4].
 
> Just out of curiosity, are there, in the history of W3C, XGs which function
> well and yet are not focused on standardization?

We are operating on a standardisation bodies' turf. Now, if not
standardisation is the goal (which can in the long-term be measured by 'did
you produce a REC, and how long did it take you? How many implementers have
you got? Are there other. 'de-facto' standards around that compete with you,
etc.) of an XG - how would you measure 'functioning well'?

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/#About
[2] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/GuideBook.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/REC-track.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-rdb2rdf/2009Feb/0001.html

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan,
Galway, Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://sw-app.org/about.html


> From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:40:02 +0100
> To: <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: New, Unified XG Proposal
> Resent-From: <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:41:08 +0000
> 
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> I think maybe we have hit on a very important distinction between what has
> been commonplace in W3C and the goals with which I, for one, have entering
> the process. 
> 
> Michael spoke when describing successful past XGs of "finding out which
> aspects are worth being standardised"
> 
> So far I haven't seen any mention of standards in this Unified (or the two
> more focused) XG charter.
> 
> Should  "finding out which aspects are worth being standardised" be done
> prior to forming the XG? Or during the XG?
> 
> The objectives of the current charter(s) are more to map and identify
> gaps/propose strategies/build (as in the FOAF+ project Henry proposed).
> 
> Most of the deliverables are reports, a few use cases, the work of the group
> might be to prepare reports based on research it performs in the field.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, are there, in the history of W3C, XGs which function
> well and yet are not focused on standardization?
> 
> Christine 
> 
> Christine Perey  
> PEREY Research & Consulting
> 
> cperey@perey.com 
> mobile (Swiss): +41 79 436 68 69
> mobile in Barcelona +34 65218026 (February 15-19 2009)
> from US: +1 617 848 8159
> from anywhere (Skype): Christine_perey
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 09:44:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:10 GMT