- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:31:35 +0200
- To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
- Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, public-vision-core@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
On 19 Jul 2010, at 23:45, ashok malhotra wrote: > Thomas: > I feel strongly that the W3C should spend its scare resources on really fundamental technology, > so I am suspicious of the eGovernment work. What new vistas will this open up? > All the best, Ashok Ashok, I share you concern about the importance of clearly demonstrating the relationship of our eGovernment work to our core activities (and so the question that comes up here is a good one). We'll have to do that as we put a follow-up proposal to the current activity to the AC this fall. What we hope to get out of this for the semantic web work is, in simple terms, getting government deployers of linked data at the table. It seems clear that there's some very significant deployment work going on at this stage, and more is in the works. It seems also clear that governments are a set of stakeholders that's not currently represented in our work. An important piece of this discussion is outlined in Sandro's notes about a Government Linked Data Working Group. We're also looking into other avenues that might permit us to turn the eGovernment work into an activity that can sustain itself. Please understand that I don't want to go into details in public quite yet. Regards, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> (@roessler) > > Thomas Roessler wrote: >> Thanks, Philippe, >> >> two quick observations from where I sit: >> >> - Provenance is discussed completely separate from Semantic Web. While it's an incubator, it's actually working on what we believe to be a key piece of future work for the semantic web activity. >> >> - Likewise, eGovernment is a broad field. There are pieces of it that are indeed likely to be non-core (as one might say of any vertical -- that's a broader discussion that we should have); but there are also pieces that, again, will feed directly into core activities (semantic web deployment, namely). >> >> Abstracting away from the concrete cases at hand, two ways to think about this are, perhaps: >> >> - How do we think of incubators and other experimental activities that explore future work for core activities? How do we classify them in whatever core/non-core scheme we come up with? >> >> - How do we classify activities that have the goal of helping deployment (and helping to bring back use cases and deployment experiences) for activities that are core, but target a particular application area? >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> (@roessler) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12 Jul 2010, at 16:20, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: >> >> >>> I aggregated the results of the survey at: >>> http://www.w3.org/2010/07/core-survey.html >>> >>> The score column is based on giving different weights (4,3,2,1) >>> depending on the classification. >>> >>> We all agree on one activity that is definitively part of the Core >>> mission of W3C: HTML. >>> >>> For everything else, we have different opinions. >>> >>> There are 11 activities that more than half of us agree is part of Core: >>> >>> HTML, Rich Web Client, Graphics, Style, I18n, Security, Video in the >>> Web, Fonts, Semantic Web, XML, WAI Technical. >>> >>> I would claim that Ubiquitous Web and Privacy aren't far behind. >>> >>> There is skepticism about whether the following activities are part of >>> our Core mission: >>> >>> eGovernement, Multimodal interaction, Model-based User >>> Interfaces, Semantic Sensor network, MashSSL, Web Services. >>> >>> The reasons vary: >>> >>> vertical activity (eGovernement, Semantic Sensor network), unclear on >>> the technology (MashSSL), is done and should be stopped (Web Services), >>> too far in the future (Model-based User Interfaces), or lacking >>> integration with HTML (Multimodal interaction). >>> >>> Our Core mission seems to enable technologies that: >>> >>> 1- Enable fair and secured Web usage across users (accessibility), >>> languages and cultures, while respecting privacy >>> 2- Providing conformance criteria relevant to browser implementations >>> 3- Integrated with mainstream W3C Languages (read: HTML, CSS, Web APIs) >>> 4- Intended for the public Web >>> 5- Relevant to data integration and search on a Web scale >>> For the set of 11 activities that seem to be part of our Core mission, >>> how far should we support them? Let me pick a subset of those activities >>> and a potential list of additional work we could do for them: >>> >>> * HTML: certification? testing? technical writers? education? outreach? >>> >>> * Security: certification? testing? technical writers? education? >>> outreach? >>> >> >> Another observation: Security (likewise, privacy, and to some extent WAI) is an activity that is in the interesting position of having a limited amount of "specific" specifications to develop. There might be the occasional work on specific mechanisms (P3P, in particular, has traditionally been in that category), but an ideal version of these activities provides services like review and community-building among those who have the specific expertise. >> >> It's perhaps worthwhile considering if there are common themes across these horizontal or quasi-horizontal activities that we want to work out. >> >> >>> * XML: certification? testing? technical writers? education? outreach? >>> >>> * Semantic Web: certification? testing? technical writers? education? >>> outreach? >>> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Monday, 19 July 2010 22:31:39 UTC