W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-app-backplane@w3.org > December 2008

Re: Agenda for Backplane XG telecon, Dec 16

From: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:12:02 +0100
Cc: public-xg-app-backplane <public-xg-app-backplane@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C029FBF4-00DA-4BBC-86B5-C78AB0A1CB7B@cwi.nl>
To: Charles F Wiecha <wiecha@us.ibm.com>


On 15 dec 2008, at 21:39, Charles F Wiecha wrote:

> AGENDA
>
> 1. Discuss whether to produce an XG report at the close of our first  
> year (i.e. roughly by the end of February), draft outline at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-app-backplane/2008Dec/0004.html
>
> 2. Alternative would be to request an extension into the second year  
> with the goal of producing one or more complete example  
> applications, showing both data and visually rich user interactions  
> before doing our final report.
>
> If you're not able to make the telecon, please weigh in on the above  
> question and forward comments on the draft agenda.
>

I'm going to try to be on the teleconf, but let me share my thoughts  
on the draft vs. extension question beforehand (and in case I don't  
manage to make the teleconf, busybusybusy.....).

I'm  not really sure whether we should aim at producing a report or an  
application, and the main reason why I'm not sure is that I don't  
really know who our target audience is. I think that what we really  
want, on a more abstract level, is to create enthusiasm for the idea  
of rich web apps, and demonstrate that there's nothing magic about  
them, and a lot of the technology is already available. I think that  
knowing our target audience is important, because it should influence  
what we produce. If we produce the wrong thing than we may miss our  
abstract goal.

As an example: the outline that Charlie provided for the report is  
something that I feel would be aimed more at managerial/strategic  
readers than at technology oriented people like myself. But a  
demonstrator would probably have exactly the opposite effect: it may  
work well for people who are used to ingesting ideas based on an  
"aha!" experience and then filling in the details with further  
reading, but  miss the more formal side.

Discussed this with my colleague Pablo Cesar just now, and he  
suggested looking at the deliverables of some other XGs, such as  
Multimedia Semantics (which has since then evolved into the Media  
Annotations Working Group). Maybe a split into multiple documents is a  
good idea, although I'm not exactly sure how the split should be done...
--
Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack
If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma  
Goldman
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 15:12:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 16 December 2008 15:12:44 GMT