RE: What is a failure?

> For what reason are the technologies listed there called "failures"? 

https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities/w3c_work_success is a wiki, feel free to edit it.  The initial contents were off the top of my head, and were somewhat deliberately controversial in order to get some discussion started.   As I recall my thinking, both WS* and the Semantic Web have been successful in terms of generating W3C standards, but neither lived up to the hype with which they were launched some years ago.  

I do like the distinction between:
> (1) failure to reach the formal objectives specified for the work.

> (2) failure to achieve the expected real-world effects

I personally think this task force should prioritize (1), because if an effort can't even get enough support to advance through W3C, it's not likely to be destined for real world success.   Or something might have so much real-world success as a de facto standard that there isn't much interest in formalizing W3C Recommendation.  In either case, it's probably not a good use of W3C's resources to keep investing in that area.

That's not to say we should ignore (2), just be fairly humble about the prospects of predicting real world success/failure given all the extraneous factors that go into it, e.g. the whims of what the technorati consider in fashion this season, and random shocks such as the Snowden revelations that drove a lot of rethinking about security/privacy. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Olle Olsson [mailto:olleo@sics.se] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:08 AM
To: public-success-fail@w3.org
Subject: What is a failure?

Steve P asked: "definition of success?"

In the same way one can ask: "definition of failure?"

(and of course: "is there a grey zone between success and failure?")

For failure, at least separate between:

(1) failure to reach the formal objectives specified for the work. 
Possibly evaluated at end of chartered period.

(1.a) nothing that was planned to be completed was really finalized. Too tough challenge? To many ideas and no compromises agreed upon?
(1.b) some deliverables were completed, but without having the whole package of planned deliverables completed, nothing can really be useful.

and

(2) failure to achieve the expected real-world effects. Deliverables completed as planned. Probably evaluated some time after completed work.

(2.a) the targeted usage area seems to have become irrelevant (technology and business moves to other areas)
(2.b) the targeted usage area is still relevant, but for some reasons the W3C specifications produced have not been adopted in practice, and no other technology solves this problem.
(2.c) the targeted usage area is still relevant, but at some point in time other technology approaches became more popular, and the W3C technology was marginalized.


Identifying failures is more easy when done well into the future (which in internet times could be one year after completed work).

Identifying possible failures early (before work starts, or during work) is difficult. What to look at? Comparing technology approach to use cases? Comparing technology to competing technology (existing or in works)? Is W3C the best place to do the work? Are the critical stakeholders involved? Is there critical mass? Etc. So one can evaluate the technology being worked on, and one can evaluate the work being put into developing technology.

On the page
    https://www.w3.org/wiki/AB/2014-2015_Priorities/w3c_work_success

I was intrigued by the list of "Initial list of failures to learn from".

For what reason are the technologies listed there called "failures"? For example, one can these days see quite a lot of enthusiasm about applications of RDF, but nevertheless it is on the failures list.

/olle


--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Olle Olsson   olleo@sics.se   Tel: +46 8 633 15 19  Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
         [Svenska W3C-kontoret: olleo@w3.org] SICS [Swedish Institute of Computer Science] Box 1263 SE - 164 29 Kista Sweden
------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2014 19:38:44 UTC