- From: Donald Buddenbaum <buddenba@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:02:15 -0500
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Cc: Alberto Manuel <bpm.tst@gmail.com>, "public-socbizcg@w3.org" <public-socbizcg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF8AD29E35.09E398F8-ON85257AB8.00524283-85257AB8.00529931@us.ibm.com>
For clarification, my link was to the discussion about the SBCG milestones
at http://www.w3.org/community/socbizcg/wiki/Talk:Main_Page
the current Draft for participation is in the wiki in section "7 Social
Business Workshop Call For Participation" at
http://www.w3.org/community/socbizcg/wiki/Main_Page
Regards,
Don Buddenbaum, STSM, FLMI, Chair W3C SBCG
Emerging Social Business Software Standards
IBM Software Group, Strategy
919.543.0346 t/l 441.0346 buddenba@us.ibm.com
SBCG: http://www.w3.org/community/socbizcg/
http://www.w3.org/community/socbizcg/wiki/Talk:Main_Page
From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
To: Alberto Manuel <bpm.tst@gmail.com>,
Cc: Donald Buddenbaum/Durham/IBM@IBMUS, "public-socbizcg@w3.org"
<public-socbizcg@w3.org>
Date: 11/16/2012 09:44 AM
Subject: Re: Moving the discussion forward
On 11/16/2012 5:26 AM, Alberto Manuel wrote:
Hi Lads:
I darft a proposal for the workshop using the link Don provided.
Can you clarify, which link? I tried following Don's link and I got a Not
Found. Thanks.
Still, I think is very important the W3C position on this for
guidance, that I think is missing and the group can be heading to
wrong direction of what is tiring to achieve.
This also applies for the milestones the group want to accomplish.
Best
Alberto.
2012/11/15 Donald Buddenbaum <buddenba@us.ibm.com>
Everyone, my clumsy choice of wording in response to Alberto's
question about the edited versions of the CTO whitepaper and Mark's
subsequent comment about the workshop, which included the phrase "
draft some 2013 CG milestones, including support for the proposed
workshop " kicked off a very long and interesting discussion about
the scope and approach for the SBCG in 2013. Thanks to all who
contributed! I guess if I had been more eloquent, I would have
phrased it more along the lines of drafting milestones that would
include a go/no go decision for the workshop, since that decision
is one of the things we have to come to consensus on as a 2013 SBCG
activity. Having said that, I agree that this is valuable input
and has resulted in some actionable sub-threads that will benefit
our efforts. As a result, I attempted to transfer this email into
a discussion document that we can iterate to group satisfaction at
- http://www.w3.org/community/socbizcg/wiki/Talk:Main_Page . I
took the liberty of using the categories that Mark described as a
starting point. My apologies in advance if I missed any of the
email entries, I had to combine multiple versions of the email to
get what I posted.
Thanks again for taking the time to contribute to this effort!
Regards,
Don Buddenbaum, STSM, FLMI, Chair W3C SBCG
Emerging Social Business Software Standards
IBM Software Group, Strategy
919.543.0346 t/l 441.0346 buddenba@us.ibm.com
SBCG: http://www.w3.org/community/socbizcg/
Inactive hide details for "Crawford, Mark"
---11/15/2012 08:49:22 AM---Ann Wrote: * Who
is JM
in this sequence."Crawford, Mark" ---11/15/2012 08:49:22 AM---Ann
Wrote: * Who is JM in this sequence.
From: "Crawford, Mark" <mark.crawford@sap.com>
To: "public-socbizcg@w3.org" <public-socbizcg@w3.org>,
Date: 11/15/2012 08:49 AM
Subject: Moving the discussion forward
Ann Wrote:
· Who is JM in this sequence.
JM = John Mertic, new member.
As always I highly value your opinion so will anxiously look
forward to your input.
For all, the thread is becoming somewhat unmanageable. I suggest
we create separate discussion threads – e.g. role of the group,
group activities going forward, purpose/audience of the workshop,
group activity relationship to social web/social activities, group
relationship to W3C/Non W3C standards (not necessarily all
inclusive, but I hate using .etc as it is the sign of a lazy
writer).
I do want to address one topic that was raised, and that was with
respect to standards development. I did not mean to, nor would I
support, any standards development in this group. Rather I see our
role with respect to standards as one where we can flesh out the
block diagram via the workshop and make solid recommendations to
W3C/Other standards bodies for the standards we believe need to be
developed to make social business inter- and intra-enterprise
ready.
Kind Regards,
Mark
From: Bassetti, Ann [mailto:ann.bassetti@boeing.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 5:21 PM
To: Crawford, Mark; public-socbizcg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Social Biz CG milestones (was: RE: for review - An
Intro to Social Business Guide [via W3C Social Business Community
Group])
Thanks, Mark for all your comments.
In particular I appreciate your distinction about "social BUSINESS"
as opposed to social activities in the public. I guess I kind of
lost sight of that aspect (doh! slaps her forehead!). Regardless,
I'm still hesitant about what we could realistically gain.
I am buried at the moment in some urgent Boeing work, so can't go
more into this right now. Just wanted to acknowledge your mail,
and say I will respond later (next few days).
More later ... Ann
From: Crawford, Mark [mailto:mark.crawford@sap.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:02 PM
To: public-socbizcg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Social Biz CG milestones (was: RE: for review - An
Intro to Social Business Guide [via W3C Social Business Community
Group])
Inline
>The W3C already sponsored 1 workshop and multiple Incubator /
Community groups. A white paper was written, as well as other less
formal documents.
MC: To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a
workshop focused on Social Business. If you are referring to
the W3C workshop on the future of social networking, then I
would submit the focus was entirely different. As for the
incubator group, I would once again submit that the focus was
different. The Jam is the only exercise that I am aware of
that focused exclusively on the concept of social business,
and although it was a great start, I believe the proposed
workshop will serve to take the effort of this group in a
direction that is needed if we are to fully understand what
the needs and thoughts are of the broader community
JM: Dunno on the history, but I agree we should identify who
the target audience clearly is and what the expected call to action
for them should be.
MC: Agreed. It would be helpful if you could
identify the specific changes you would recommend for the Goals and
Scope section.
>I perceive the primary public social tool vendors (e.g.,
Facebook, Twitter) have little interest to standardize the
underlying social technologies (e.g., how to exchange profile info)
– because the value of their companies is based on keeping that
information locked up.
MC: I would not see this as a reason to not standardize.
Rather I would submit that as we see more and more companies
delivering tools to enable social business, we will see the
need for standardization grow independent of Facebook and
Twitter. Those organizations are already in some respects
becoming in some respects long in the tooth and loosing favor
with the younger generations for their personal social needs,
and their services are ripe for the picking of software
companies who wish to deliver tools that enable a more
business focused approach to social.
JM: I think also we are talking consumer space vs enterprise
space. Right now, the enterprise space is actively interested
in a solution here as what out there ( think Yammer, SF
Chatter ) are either lacking adoption and/or not solving the
problem space effectively. Part of this is probably the
messaging and use-cases, which it sounds like this group can
be a catalyst in defining.
MC: Agree again. My response to
Anne was to highlight that many think of social as only applicable
to consumer. Our group is ostensibly looking at enterprise.
Facebook and Twitter have some value – especially in terms of
analytics such as what we are doing with HANA, but from a social
business standpoint, I am less concerned with their initial
participation (disclaimer – SAP and Facebook have had a
longstanding relationship) and more concerned with businesses
trying to harness social in the enterprise for enterprise
cost/efficiency/revenue benefits. My thinking is that If the
messaging is correct, and if Facebook/Twitter see a trend that they
can leverage, then they will also participate.
> A separate set of independent geeks – mostly in Silicon
Valley and Portland, Oregon areas – are working on creating
independent tools. Those folks apparently want to hack away
more-or-less independently.
MC: I would submit that from an enterprise perspective,
the last thing we want are independent geeks left the
control this space. Creating a Social Business
requires tools that are reliable, supported, and
interoperable.
JM: The independent tools may gain limited adoption in the
consumer or low end of the SMB market, but interoperability
is the name of the game for anyone of reasonable size. I
think telling a story around OpenSocial ( once that story
firms up ) sounds like a reasonable leverage point there.
MC: Concur. Many are
working to move OpenSocial to a more mature standards organization
footing with a greater focus on enterprise requirements. The
standard itself is gaining traction, and it is clear to me that W3C
needs to identify what the relationship between the Social Web and
Social Business using OpenSocial should be.
> Work on security mechanisms, privacy, identity, etc is
already underway in other working groups.
MC: True. But how does that negate the need for the
workshop?
> I hear several voices on this team enthusiastically
promoting a workshop. Sorry to be a wet blanket and a
naysayer, but I am not all clear what the focus nor value
would be in holding another workshop. I do not agree "
support for the proposed workshop " is a foregone conclusion.
MC: Hmm. It would be helpful if you identified the
specific objectives of the workshop you disagree with.
> Although IBM and perhaps others are apparently willing to
provide some financial support (Yay for those companies!) –
my concern is what the W3C would invest (via time and
people), what would the W3C get out, and what happens to W3C
reputation for going around in circles on this topic.
MC: Once again, I would submit that Social Business as
a specific topic is still rather virgin for the W3C –
with the exception of the Jam.
>"Social" is a huge topic these days. I, too, am intensely
interested in the subject. Yet I do not support moving
forward with a workshop at this point, for concerns given
above. To change my mind I would need to see A) clear
objectives; B) convincing evidence that key players would
participate.
MC: It would be helpful if you identified the specific
objectives in the draft you disagree with.
JM: What I'm hearing here is a concern for having the target
audience and call to action defined better before we move
towards a workshop. I guess my question is where do we stand
in regards to that at this point?
MC: Once again, I
would point to the draft workshop call for participation. We
identify at a general level who we want to participate, but if you
have thoughts on specific organizations or types of organizations
we should include, then please suggest them. In terms of the call
for action, I would welcome your thoughts on what might be missing
or off topic in the Topics for position papers list in the call for
participation.
Kind Regards,
Mark
--
Alberto Manuel
http://ultrabpm.wordpress.com/
http://pt.linkedin.com/in/albertomanuel
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
Received on Friday, 16 November 2012 15:06:33 UTC