- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:54:53 -0500
- To: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
- Cc: <public-vision-newstd@w3.org>
On 21 Jun 2010, at 4:47 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > I'm interested in the list of use cases, but they are only examples. > Please > remember Open Source Definition #6, No Discrimination Against Fields > of > Endeavor: > > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program > in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict > the program from being used in a business, or from being used for > genetic research. > > You may want this New Standards Task Force to define use cases, but > don't > limit your imagination in any way. All use cases are allowed if we > follow an > open source model. There is simply no knowing in advance where a > technology > will take us. > > Incubation is for the early stages of a standard, when we know even > less > about the future than we do in official W3C standards activities. We > want to > encourage technology to evolve in a coordinated, cooperative and > competitive > way, without limits on how it is used. Clarification: By "use cases" here I mean: * What services does W3C need to provide to its customers? Thus: * What processes? * What IPR policies? * What infrastructure? And of course: * Which of these services are revenue-bearing directly? * What's the role of the staff? And so on. The use cases aren't about the product of any particular group, nor about any licensing restrictions. Having said that, I can imagine that a "lightweight process" would have: * a more open document license * a lightweight patent commitment (e.g., OWF non-assert scale) So: what other legal/licensing questions should we be considering [for a lightweight process]? _ Ian > > /Larry > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org [mailto:public-vision-newstd- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Champion >> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 11:59 AM >> To: Harry Halpin; public-vision-newstd@w3.org >> Subject: RE: First pass at use cases for "new standards" task force >> >> +1 to [FastTrack] ... >> >> I'm not sure if [Competition] is a use case or just a possible >> attribute of any of the use cases. >> >> Likewise, isn't [Ontology] just one of the types of outputs that >> could >> come out of any of the use cases? People might want to develop a web >> standard ontology, develop one that competes with a W3C standard, >> brainstorm about a possible new ontology, create a profile of an >> existing ontology, rubberstamp or fast track a de facto standard one >> ... >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org [mailto:public-vision-newstd- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Harry Halpin >> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 11:49 AM >> To: public-vision-newstd@w3.org >> Subject: Re: First pass at use cases for "new standards" task force >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I've written down seven use cases [1]: >>> >>> * [Core] Develop a new Web standard >>> * [Ontology] Develop an industry-specific ontology >>> * [Competition] Develop a competing specification >>> * [Brainstorm] Experiment (new format or extension) >>> * [Profile] Create a profile of one or more specifications >>> * [Sunset] Revise a W3C Recommendation without a Working Group >>> * [Rubberstamp] Reset expectations between W3C Recommendation and >> de >>> facto standard >>> >>> I welcome your comments on the list. What's missing? Are there any >> you >>> think should be "out of scope" for this task force? >> >> Overall, great starting work Ian! >> >> I think one of the one's that we need to add is: >> >> [FastTrack] Fast-track an already existing de-facto standard to >> being a >> W3C Recommendation >> >> Some group of people or organization have produced a specification >> (possibly with or without a degree of legal protection) that has >> become >> widely deployed within the industry. However, they would like their >> standard to become a W3C Recommendation, possibly because but not >> necessarily because they would like to be even more well-known and >> have >> stronger IPR, would like to see integration with other communities >> and >> standards. They strongly feel they do not want to start with scratch. >> One requirement may be working with a large group of people not >> normally affiliated with the W3C or familiar with W3C Process, and >> having more than one organization managing the standards. >> >> Example: Some of the work in the Social Web space could follow this >> trajectory, as does HTML5. >> >> >> >>> >>> Feel free to go in and edit the wiki (and if you can't get write >>> access, please let me know). >>> >>> _ Ian >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Use_Cases >>> -- >>> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ >>> Tel: +1 718 260 9447 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 21:54:55 UTC