W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-most-important-priorities@w3.org > February 2015

Re: Proposed W3C priorities for education

From: DANET PIERRE <PDANET@hachette-livre.fr>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:33:22 +0100
To: Sarah Horton <shorton@paciellogroup.com>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "crispin.weston@saltis.org" <crispin.weston@saltis.org>, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <michael.champion@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-most-important-priorities@w3.org" <public-most-important-priorities@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D10A8B52.6E167%pdanet@hachette-livre.fr>
I do agree but we need to be educated on the use of this wiki..


Le 18/02/2015 15:33, « Sarah Horton » <shorton@paciellogroup.com> a écrit :

>My impression is that there are opportunities to expand the current
>platform that would benefit all areas and opportunities to address the
>education vertical specifically.
>On the subject of brainstorming, I seem to remember some mention of a
>wiki page for this brainstorming activity? That would be helpful for
>sharing, building on, and keeping track of ideas.
>Sarah Horton
>UX Strategy Lead
>The Paciello Group
>603 252-6052 mobile
>> On Feb 18, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>> I probably find myself in agreement with Pierre, Crispin, and Marcos;
>>even if they seem to disagree with each other.
>> There is no question that the heart of W3C is the core Open Web
>>Platform.  And if the Education vertical informs us that we need to
>>change that platform, that is of primary importance.
>> For standards that are limited to a vertical, W3C has also been
>>involved in many areas in the past.  We've worked on Open Government
>>Data (for government), HLCS vocabularies (for healthcare), streaming
>>media requirements (for both general Web as well as specific needs of
>>entertainment companies), etc.  There are also other verticals which
>>have required Web standards and have found better communities elsewhere
>>such as XBRL (accounting), XML impacts on HL7 (health care).
>> In this task force we are exploring standardization needs for the
>>education vertical.  If we end up with concrete ideas that fit well with
>>W3C's technology and community we might start some new work in W3C.  If
>>we come up with other ideas which seem far from W3C, we might recommend
>>that it go elsewhere.  Or if it is in between these two extremes,
>>starting in a CG and transitioning later to a WG could make sense.
>> For now, let's continue the work to brainstorm and narrow down the
>>specific recommendations we want to make about educational standards.
>>Once we get final recommendations, we can better assess whether it fits
>>with W3C (technology and community) and belongs in a WG, or is too far
>>afield and better fits elsewhere or in a CG.
>> Jeff
>> On 2/18/2015 5:04 AM, DANET PIERRE wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>> Thank you for your feedbacks.
>>> My opinion on that. I will be a little « pushy".
>>> Open web Platform can, as we say in French, « dormir sur ses lauriers
>>>» (To rest on its laurels). Job done, everything is available, let¹s
>>> In this case, i can tell you, Education will be in proprietary and
>>>closed formats in x years.
>>> I understood that as W3C members , we also had in mind other visions
>>>around citizenship (Concept of webizen), privacy, accessibility and
>>> And this is the subject. Crispin¹s descriptions of previous failures
>>>are very interesting.
>>> Community Group is surely a good approach but it gives the impression
>>>that you gather experts from a domain in a room, you close the doors,
>>>and then you let them discussing a long time. Sometimes, you open the
>>>doors and you take one new need for basic technos and again job done.
>>>This is just for smiling, i i do respect all community Groups. And may
>>>be i¹m wrong in my vision on that.
>>> So our idea was more to show to the world that Education is in the
>>>vision of a WWW open, accessible,Šetc..
>>> To discuss, 
>>> Warmly
>>> Pierre
>>> De : Crispin Weston <crispin.weston@saltis.org>
>>> Répondre à : "crispin.weston@saltis.org" <crispin.weston@saltis.org>
>>> Date : mercredi 18 février 2015 10:19
>>> À : Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
>>> Cc : "public-most-important-priorities@w3.org"
>>><public-most-important-priorities@w3.org>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN
>>>TECH)" <michael.champion@microsoft.com>
>>> Objet : RE: Proposed W3C priorities for education
>>> Renvoyer - De : <public-most-important-priorities@w3.org>
>>> Renvoyer - Date : mercredi 18 février 2015 10:20
>>> Thank you Marcos.
>>> I understand what you are both saying about the Core Group, in which I
>>>am not myself participating. However, I am now somewhat confused about
>>>what the Education Group is meant to be doing.
>>> My paper was intended for the Education Group, which appears to share
>>>a mailing list with the Core Group. I assumed that the existence of
>>>this group presupposes that W3C is interested in getting involved in
>>>the education vertical. I understood that the scope of the group was to
>>>look at what education needs from the web. If I was wrong in that and
>>>the scope of the Education Group is just to bring recommendations for
>>>modifications to the underlying Web Platform, then, as you suggest, it
>>>seems unlikely to me that it has anything of substance to contribute.
>>>Or maybe we just have a case of crossed wires?
>>> On 18 February 2015, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Crispin, 
>>>> To be clear, I'm not trying to discourage you, or anyone in the Edu.
>>>>community, from participating. The CG model really does work. For
>>>>inspiration, please see how the responsive images community group
>>>>leveraged the W3C's CG standardization model to add some great new
>>>>features to HTML5 (of which every sector of society will greatly
>>>>benefit, particularly the education sector - which makes extensive use
>>>>of visual media):
>>>> Please see this document that the CG put together outlining how HTML5
>>>>was failing the developer community - and how standardized solutions
>>>>were insufficient:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/respimg-usecases/
>>>> As a community, we proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was
>>>>a huge problem and something needed to be done in the Web Platform. As
>>>>a result, we were able to convince browser vendors and the W3C to make
>>>>changes to the web platform to address our use cases.
>>>> I again want to encourage you to take the same approach. Come back
>>>>showing clearly limitations of what "you CANNOT do" (and not what you
>>>>would like to do - which is what you currently have).
>>>> Hope that helps!
>>>> On February 18, 2015 at 4:47:22 PM, Marcos Caceres
>>>>(marcos@marcosc.com) wrote:
>>>> Hi Crispin,
>>>> I'd like to echo what Michael said. There doesn't appear to be
>>>> any need for new foundational work to be done as part of what you
>>>> described below: that is, nothing that can't be done with
>>>> APIs, RDFa, XML, etc. already. The challenges you outline below
>>>> are very (education) domain-specific, which is fine, but not
>>>> anything the web platform can really help with (apart from providing
>>>> the formats and protocols onto which you can standardize something
>>>> that helps solve the problems you outline).
>>>> As such, I would also strongly urge you to form a community group
>>>> (CG) and begin the work you propose there (for the IPR reasons
>>>> Michael mentioned) and so you can find limitations in practice.
>>>> If, as part of that work, the CG discovers they can't do something
>>>> with HTML5/CSS/Web APIs, RDFa, XML, etc., then we can look at
>>>> addressing that as part of a larger standardization process.
>>>> My concern with doing this work as part of the W3C "priorities"
>>>> banner is that it might distract us from finding more immediate
>>>> limitations in the Web Platform. So far, nothing has been presented
>>>> that would require amendments to HTML5/CSS/Web APIs, RDFa,
>>>> XML, etc. within the context of education. Hence, it would be
>>>> best for you to begin standardization of the things you describe
>>>> below within the W3C's Community Groups framework, together
>>>> with members of the education community, and see how far you get
>>>> before you all hit limitations (if any!). If you don't hit any,
>>>> then we are golden :) Otherwise, please do bring them back to the
>>>> priorities list for evaluation so we have a better idea what we
>>>> need to add/fix.
>>>> Kind regards,
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2015 17:33:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:30:59 UTC