Re: Proceeding with [Core] via email discussion (Was Re: Postponed beginning for [Education], agenda for [Core])

[adding Dom]

On 1/5/2015 10:51 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> On 12/23/14 9:41 AM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>> Today, I've also put a more elaborated discussion of these questions 
>> in our wiki [1] if people would like to comment there.
>
>
> OK and thanks!
>
> A few comments:
>
> * One thing I find a bit confusing is the 12 (various) uses of 
> "framework". In some cases that term seems to be about the 
> methodology/process the effort will use and in other cases, it wasn't 
> clear to me. Perhaps it would be helpful to define that term for its 
> most common usage for the context of this document and/or replace it 
> with "what is `really` meant for the specific context".

Thanks.  I've defined framework at the beginning of the section. Indeed, 
there were close to half-a-dozen times when I used the word to mean 
something else.  I eliminated those.

>
> * Re "Prioritization provides an independent, community-wide means to 
> ensure that Web developers are addressing key problems" - I don't 
> understand "Web developers" in this context.

In other words, Application Foundations is trying to look at the web 
standards problem by seeing what are the most pressing needs of "Web 
developers", aka, people who are writing Web Apps.  Does that clarify?  
If so, how can I make the wording clearer?

> (It seems like this effort is more about making sure the consortium is 
> addressing key problems Web developers have.)
>
> * Section 3. Mapping to native platforms - since Dom and the Web 
> Mobile IG have done quite a bit of work in this area (f.ex. gap 
> analysis <https://github.com/w3c-webmob/web-api-gap>), this document 
> should clarify what this effort is going to do vis-à-vis related work 
> in the IG.

In fact, Dom told me he plans to utilize the Application Foundations 
taxonomy for the Mobile Web roadmap.  Dom, what is the best way to 
reflect that, or should we wait until the next time you publish a roadmap?

>
> * I'm trying to understand this effort's `end game` i.e. specific 
> output(s) envisioned. F.ex. "the group will consider this effort a 
> success if it ...". The closest thing I could find is a survey for AC 
> reps and a survey for the Public (I added this later item). But that 
> now begs Qs about the surveys envisioned. For instance, is this group 
> of ten going to propose specific high priority work items and (via the 
> surveys) ask the AC and Public to `verify` this group's agreement; or 
> is the idea more about using data/info gathered to create a survey 
> that asks the AC and Public about priorities; or something else?

You are asking a good question and I don't yet have a good answer.

In the fall we proposed Application Foundations as a useful framework 
(!) to communicate what's next for the Open Web Platform.

After the AB approved the "most important" task force, the task force 
decided that this framework was a good starting point for the task force 
to develop priorities.  The idea was to develop the framework further 
and use that to understand our priorities going forward and then present 
it to the AC (which is kinda what you suggested above).

Personally, I would feel better about that if we had more participation 
in the effort.  I've tried to get more participation in a number of 
ways, but it is still not at the level that I am looking for.

>
> * The relationship between this effort and Michael's 
> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities/w3c_work_success> 
> should at least be mentioned/referenced and even better would be to 
> state what (if any) relationship there is between the two efforts.

Done.  Thanks.

>
> -Thanks, AB
>
>> [1] 
>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities/w3c_most_important#Core_task_force
>
>

Received on Monday, 5 January 2015 19:18:19 UTC