W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > March 2007

end of WebCGM Charter

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:43:48 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

WebCGM WG --

Chris and I exchanged mail about it, and Thierry and I talked for a bit 
today.  Here is a summary, that hopefully will spur some discussion in the 
WG (and in the TC!).

Our WebCGM WG Charter expires at the end of May, 8+ weeks from now.  It is 
apparently typical for working groups to go on for some small amount of 
time (few months) beyond Charter's end, to handle post-Rec errata and other 
tidy-up that is within the scope of the Charter, without having to recharter.

In order for a WG to continue beyond Charter's end and take on significant 
follow-on work, such as working on a 2.1 that adds new functionality, there 
would need to be an amendment to the Charter and AC review (essentially, 

If the WG were to terminate without doing such a re-chartering, and then we 
decided later that we wanted to pick up a 2.1 project for W3C approval, 
then presumably we would have to go through the whole WG set up and AC 
approval process.

Right now, the fate of any potential 2.1 project rests with the WebCGM TC 
(CGMO-OASIS).  Ten months ago (Clearwater), we made a list of functionality 
that could comprise a quick 2.1 (stuff that was in-scope of 2.0, but too 
late to add), and another list of 3.0 (more significant and ambitious 

So far, the TC has not committed to working on 2.1.  There is currently a 
call for use cases (and requirements).  There is talk about a TC f2f 
meeting in late May.  Those who have commented opine that the TC must 
commit to 2.1 and a tentative functional list before then.  (Which also 
means ... vendors commit to implementing, etc).

To summarize this thread ... whether or not our W3C WG re-charters with 2.1 
in scope depends on whether the CGMO TC intends to work on 2.1.

Supposing that the TC commits and produces draft stuff at a May f2f, what 
would the nature of TC-WG collaboration look like?  Thierry and I discussed.

The model for Rec 2.0 was:  the CGM TC led to a stable advanced document 
status (close to LCWD), handed off to WG for refinement through CR, then 
back for parallel completion in both groups.  In theory, we would not have 
to follow the same pattern.  However, I (personally) have a hard time 
envisioning any other sort of model that the two organizations' managements 
and Legals would agree to.  Plus, the MOU anticipated future work and says 
it (the 2.0 collaboration model) can be used without further negotiation.

So I would recommend the same model -- TC leads up to a stable, LCWD-like 
status, then hands off to the WG, etc.  What I would do differently this 
time is to get W3C input to requirements *early*, rather than looking at 
them much later, as happened with 2.0.  At the least, we know that we have 
some postponed items to discuss with WAI.

Thierry pointed out that the WG could even produce a WG Note about 2.1 
requirements.  The WG would be relatively quiet otherwise, except for 
working on 1.0 (and 2.0) errata, and suchlike.

How fast could the TC get to LCWD-like maturity of 2.1?  It is a modest 
collection of stuff, so I'll throw out a wild guess ... 6 months?

Once again, this is all speculative.  The CGMO TC needs to commit and move 
first, before there is any point in serious planning of a TC-WG 

Comments welcome.

Received on Thursday, 29 March 2007 21:43:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:39 UTC