From today's credweb call

Hi all – 

Sandro thanks so much for herding us. 

In my view, and echoing what was said in today’s call -  in spite of lots of projects underway, there continues to be a gap in the world around vocabulary and taxonomy around credibility signals (positive and negative).  Plus potentially in infrastructure and protocols to discover, use and  distribute these signals. A foundation here can make it simpler for private and public projects to build solutions and public policy on top.  

The question is whether this group wants to fill that gap, and take the work done so far to a place where it serves this purpose.  

If we do want to take this on (and I can see the reasons why we may not) I suggest to whoever is going to lead us that it’s going to take a bit of structure and process and driving, and won’t just happen through an informal set of conversations or email threads. I’ve added some thoughts to the bottom of the doc from today’s call – that are paraphrased below. 

Thanks – Chandran

Use what’s been started to create a widely cited reference document.  Doc fleshes out credibility signals (+ access and usage infrastructure?). Triage the signals by ease of implementation, impact, practicality. Flesh out the top few signals further, with the start to interoperability, technical spec, other.  Do all this with subgroups that will commit to investing time in this.  Stay within the charter of W3C community group - set up baton handoff for follow on work in working groups, elsewhere, to take it to the next level.