Re: What we might produce

Hello everyone,

(My name is Alek, I’m the co-founder and Strategy Director at Open Future, a European think tank for the Open Movement. I’ve been lurking until now on this list).

Indeed, the Data Act proposal has broad interoperability provisions, including those for European common data spaces, switching between cloud service providers, and smart contracts for data sharing. We’ve published today a short brief with an initial analysis:
https://openfuture.eu/blog/a-first-look-at-the-data-act/

The detailed provisions include a quite complex schemes, empowering the Commission to adopt interoperability standards. Comparing the draft to the previously leaked version, the references to open standards have been removed. I’m curious whether anyone here has any insights why that is the case? As far as I understand the provisions, the proposal positions the Commission as the single body empowered to establish interoperability standards in Europe.

All the best,
Alek



> On 23 Feb 2022, at 16:38, Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Something more from the EU on interop:
> 
> https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/83521 <https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/83521>
> 
> (19) ‘interoperability’ means the ability of two or more data spaces or communication networks, systems, products, applications or components to exchange and use data in order to perform their functions;
> 
> 
> czw., 16 gru 2021 o 16:17 Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> napisał(a):
> 
> 
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 08:30, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net <mailto:mnot@mnot.net>> wrote:
> The charter calls out two different kinds of activities that this group might pursue (each likely leading to a Report):
> 
> 1) Where we proactively want to recommend* specifications or technologies as a remedy in a defined situation (e.g., social networking, chat, etc.), highlighting any gaps
> 2) Where we want to react to a such a proposal made elsewhere (e.g., when a competition regulator or other national body selects something)
> 
> To kick off some discussion, here are my initial thoughts --
> 
> The charter contains a few suggestions of initial areas we might explore for #1. I don't have any strong sense of where we should start, but it should probably be something smaller and more straightforward, so that we can get into a working cadence. E.g., taking on social networking to start with might be too much.
> 
> When we make recommendations, I've been thinking we'd define things in terms of how they serve as a remedy to competition issues in specific, well-defined markets -- too often, people paint 'big tech' with very broad brushstrokes. However, that will require us to do some work, and also to predict (to a degree) how those markets might be characterised. So I'd be interested to hear what people think about how much we should relate our work to e.g., the various reports that have been produced recently.
> 
> #2 requires us to wait -- I'm not aware of any current, concrete proposals for interoperability remedies from regulators. Have I missed any?
> 
> For a potential #3, it might also be helpful for us to work on a document that highlights what 'good' Web specifications are horizontally -- i.e., a crash course in Web architecture for regulators, and also a guide for our more focused work. Ideally much of it would be summaries of and references to documentation elsewhere, but in some places we may have to write new text. What do folks think - would this be worthwhile?
> 
> Crash course on web architecture (say, under 2 pages) sounds pretty valuable
> 
> Does something like this already exist?
>  
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> * Note the small 'r' -- this is not a W3C Recommendation
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/ <https://www.mnot.net/>
> 
>