[minutes] July 27 Core Vision Task Force

Available at
 http://www.w3.org/2010/07/27-core-vision.html

Text version:

                        Core Vision Task Force

27 July 2010

Attendees

   Present
          Plh, Doug_Schepers, Ashok_Malhotra, Jeff, Dsr

   Regrets
          Daniel, Mike

   Chair
          plh

   Scribe
          shepazu

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]overall mission
         2. [4]drilling down
     * [5]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   <shepazu> scribenick: shepazu

overall mission

   plh: once we've established something as core, how do we
   differentiate between that and other activities?

     to standardize a universal open platform for data, documents and
     applications on the Web that is suitable for human to machine and
     machine to machine interaction.

   plh: and what are we not doing now that we should be?
   ... what does it mean to "bring the web to its full potential"?
   ... how do people like this wording?

   jfa: ultimately, it's for human-to-human communication
   ... you said in your email that things on the public web were the
   priority, what about the private web?

   plh: things on the private web may not be core, but we can still
   meet specific use cases

   <plh> shepazu: the more people eye into the platform and use it
   outside its private context, the better network effect it will have

   shepazu: so, there is a blurry line between public and private

   <plh> jfa: any data can have a destiny over time, so private and
   public are important. it's important we can go from private to
   public over time,

   jfa: it's important that we can change between public to private

   plh: so, now we know what we are trying to achieve, we can focus on
   what we are going to do to to accomplish this.... we will discuss
   this next week

   Ashok_Malhotra: should we add "human to human" there?

   plh: we can add it, though it's more the purview of another task
   force

drilling down

   <plh>
   [6]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vision-core/2010Jul/00
   09.html

      [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vision-core/2010Jul/0009.html

   plh: given a core activity, say HTML, what should we do differently?
   ... we could put more team resources into the group
   ... or expand the scope of the work
   ... is the spec enough, or should we do more?
   ... for example, education

   jfa: after developing the spec, how do we deploy it?
   ... look at standards like IPv6, which isn't widely deployed yet
   ... we need to monitor the deployment of HTML5
   ... and look at how we can fix any deployment problems...
   advertising, education, etc.

   Ashok_Malhotra: the question is, is that up to us, or should we let
   the wide world do that?
   ... it may happen without us

   jfa: we've seen no shortage there

   doug: w3cschools is well ranked. quality of information varies.
   people rely on this site for simple basic of HTML
   ... it's not subject to peer review or oversight.
   ... it's easy to use
   ... there is a huge gap and they're leveraging it
   ... people expect W3C to fulfill the education
   ... very few major universities put emphasis on teaching web
   standards. they expect you to pick it on your own
   ... they may teach a little bit
   ... people aren't learning to use HTML properly and securily
   ... they teach you to use an underlying tool
   ... so yes we can rely on others to do it but we don't get the same
   quality
   ... we should address that it's not taught at universities and no
   definitive peer reviewed high quality resources
   ... we have the opportunity to leverage the web standard project and
   OWEA, there is an opportunity to integrate with W3C
   ... they may decide they need to move without us

   plh: we provided tools like the validator, but was that enough?
   ... without testing, there have been too many differences between
   browsers (and authoring tools)
   ... is this something we need to do beyond CR?

   jfa: yes, it's essential that those tests exist, but we may be able
   to rely on others to do it... if not, we need to step up
   ... but we can't do it all
   ... let's make sure we use our skills and expertise the right way
   ... for the validator, everyone uses ours, right?

   <Zakim> dsr, you wanted to note that a W3C umbrella for education
   and tools would be a big benefit to community participants

   plh: no, for HTML5, they use validator.nu

   dsr: it's a scaling issue... if we scale, we need more resources, so
   we need to improve our value propoosition

   shepazu: I think adding education and validation tools are what
   improve our value proposition

   plh: sam ruby suggested that we should link more to external
   resources, more of a social network/portal
   ... right now, our translation links are being abused... we'd need
   to monitor such a set of links

   dsr: more of a wikipedia model
   ... which we can learn from

   plh: and what would our value proposition be?

   dsr: education and tools

   plh: why would they pay W3C for that, when they can get it for free?

   <plh> [7]http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema

      [7] http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema

   Ashok_Malhotra: we have links to tools, etc, but it's out of date

   shepazu: it's time consuming to maintain those, would be nice to
   automate and crowdsource that aspect

   plh: should we look into certification?
   ... specifically, browser certification

   Ashok_Malhotra: ISOC does this

   <dsr> Here is a brief summary of the points I made before: W3C can
   scale up to provide a broader range of services by providing an
   umbrella for participants that offers a value proposition to them,
   e.g. visibility, and to the broader public e.g. high quality
   documentation, test suites, training materials, validation tools
   etc., and to paying members via boosting uptake in W3C standards.
   This could be modelled on wikipedia where reviewers and authors are
   all volunteers.

   plh: there is a liability involved... The Open Group has a lot of
   experience with this, should we parnter with them

   shepazu: the browsers change too rapidly, certification has a
   limited market, better to certify training

   dsr: there may be other techs that have a larger market

   plh: can we think of one?

   Ashok_Malhotra: SQL has lots of implementations

   plh: right now, we're leaning toward certification no being useful

   jfa: not being useful, or not being done by us?

   <Ashok_Malhotra> Yes, earlier I was talking about XQuery which has a
   lot of implementations ... many academic

   plh: both, for now

   shepazu: better to have more tests and implementation reports

   plh: another question is, how often do we need to redefine our core
   mission? we'll address that in 2 weeks

Received on Monday, 2 August 2010 20:57:22 UTC