- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:43:20 +0000
- To: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>
- CC: <public-social-web-talk@w3.org>
Christine, > Should "finding out which aspects are worth being standardised" be done > prior to forming the XG? Or during the XG? Looking at [1] gives a pretty good idea what is possible. I'm not W3C team or management, but AFAIK the XGs where introduced to address the problem that WG would sometimes talk, put politely, a bit too long to deliver results (maybe a W3C pro wants to chime in here and clarify this ;) So, just as I tell my PhD Students to look around for a year or so to *find* a topic they'd want to go for, an XG in my understanding is ultimately for identifying potential issues worth being standardised and gathering about current state of the art (cf. also [2]) What you want, typically, after one year working in the XG is to go for a WG [3] - or conclude that it is not worth it, also fair. For a recent example outcome of an XG see [4]. > Just out of curiosity, are there, in the history of W3C, XGs which function > well and yet are not focused on standardization? We are operating on a standardisation bodies' turf. Now, if not standardisation is the goal (which can in the long-term be measured by 'did you produce a REC, and how long did it take you? How many implementers have you got? Are there other. 'de-facto' standards around that compete with you, etc.) of an XG - how would you measure 'functioning well'? Cheers, Michael [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/#About [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/10/GuideBook.html [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/REC-track.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-rdb2rdf/2009Feb/0001.html -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan, Galway, Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://sw-app.org/about.html > From: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com> > Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:40:02 +0100 > To: <public-social-web-talk@w3.org> > Subject: RE: New, Unified XG Proposal > Resent-From: <public-social-web-talk@w3.org> > Resent-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:41:08 +0000 > > > Hi Michael, > > I think maybe we have hit on a very important distinction between what has > been commonplace in W3C and the goals with which I, for one, have entering > the process. > > Michael spoke when describing successful past XGs of "finding out which > aspects are worth being standardised" > > So far I haven't seen any mention of standards in this Unified (or the two > more focused) XG charter. > > Should "finding out which aspects are worth being standardised" be done > prior to forming the XG? Or during the XG? > > The objectives of the current charter(s) are more to map and identify > gaps/propose strategies/build (as in the FOAF+ project Henry proposed). > > Most of the deliverables are reports, a few use cases, the work of the group > might be to prepare reports based on research it performs in the field. > > Just out of curiosity, are there, in the history of W3C, XGs which function > well and yet are not focused on standardization? > > Christine > > Christine Perey > PEREY Research & Consulting > > cperey@perey.com > mobile (Swiss): +41 79 436 68 69 > mobile in Barcelona +34 65218026 (February 15-19 2009) > from US: +1 617 848 8159 > from anywhere (Skype): Christine_perey > > >
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 09:44:03 UTC