Re: First pass at use cases for "new standards" task force

> Experience shows that no one really care about how you label specs. The
> IETF experience show that most people don't even know about the different
> RFC tracks. The thing most care about is if it is done.

I agree that people don't care about you label specs (I see this in W3C
with problems users/implementers have telling different between Recs and
Interest Group Notes, with the latter having *no* review really).

However, they *do* care about its level of maturity and whether or not its
royalty-free.

Looking over the chart, here's more comments:

[sunset] - One problem is that as soon as a listserv is dead, whether or
not a Working Group exists or not, the spec is dead. If the listserv is
alive, then maybe we should not close the group per se. Specs and
technologies may not just "freeze" but may be always continually
incrementally updated. So maybe charters (thinking WebApps as an example)
should be more open-ended.

[ontology] - note I'd s/ontology/vocabulary. Ontology is too heavyweight and
SemWebby. I'd say that the main problem here is the lack of tooling, i.e.
no decent Web-based vocabulary tools.

[Bypass] - in some version of the w3c process, instead of hoping the W3C
develops the new standard from scratch, it may be a better idea to go
through extensive incubation and have several proposals with strong
developer communities. Again, my thinking was you should just be to bypass
a strong Rec straight to Working Draft or even Last Call.












>
> EHL
>
>
>
> On Jun 23, 2010, at 8:00, Arnaud Le Hors
> <lehors@us.ibm.com<mailto:lehors@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
>
> My first reaction to the bypass idea is similar to Dominique's because, as
> he points out, there is a risk of diluting the W3C Recommendation label.
> At the same time this would be an effective way of getting more work to
> W3C, albeit of the rubber stamping kind rather than development, and
> assuming publication is vetted by the members it could attract new
> members.
>
> Using a new name, a la Fast W3C Recommendation, could mitigate the risk of
> dilution to a certain extent but may also be less attractive. Maybe an
> appropriate disclaimer explaining the spec was published as "good enough"
> would do.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Program Director, Global Open Standards, IBM Open Source
> & Standards Policy
>
>
>
>
> From:        Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org<mailto:ij@w3.org>>
> To:        Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org<mailto:dom@w3.org>>
> Cc:
> public-vision-newstd@w3.org<mailto:public-vision-newstd@w3.org>
> Date:        06/23/2010 07:24 AM
> Subject:        Re: First pass at use cases for "new standards" task
> force
> Sent by:
> public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org<mailto:public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> On 23 Jun 2010, at 3:43 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
>
> Hi Dom,
>
> Thanks for commenting. My notes below are not pushback on your sense
> of priorities; just trying to be more explicit about some intentions
> and other thoughts.
>
>
>> Le lundi 21 juin 2010 à 12:57 -0500, Ian Jacobs a écrit :
>>> I've written down seven use cases [1]:
>>>
>>>                  • [Core] Develop a new Web standard
>>
>> Do we really need to spend any effort on that one? It looks like we
>> already have a process for dealing with this; also, the overlap with
>> the
>> “Core” task force would be important.
>
> I don't expect to spend much time on it, no.
>
>>
>>> • [Sunset] Revise a W3C Recommendation without a Working Group
>>
>> That also seems to be more of a “Core” Task force, than “*new*
>> standards”.
>
> I think I mentioned previously that these are other use cases that
> have come up in the context of these discussions. I'm putting  it here
> for the sake of "completion" although it may not be the primary focus
> of this task force. But if we can solve it with a lightweight process,
> so much the better.
>
>>
>>>                  • [Ontology] Develop an industry-specific ontology
>>>                  • [Competition] Develop a competing specification
>>>                  • [Experiment] Experiment (new format or extension)
>>>                  • [Profile] Create a profile of one or more
>>> specifications
>>
>> That’s the four use cases I would focus on in priority; we have clear
>> examples of where they would have been useful, and I can see benefits
>> both for W3C and the community at large to have W3C be a place where
>> that kind of work could happen.
>>
>>>                  • [ByPass] Reset expectations between W3C
>>> Recommendation and de
>>> facto standard
>>
>> I'm not thrilled by that one, but it might be a useful thing to
>> include
>> in our discussions; that said, I wouldn't assume that this would be
>> done
>> necessarily under the “W3C Recommendation” name (which would dilute
>> its
>> — relative — standing).
>
> I think there might be two sub-cases here, in fact:
>
>  * Get something to Rec without a WG
>  * Get something to a final state that is not a REC (but that
> represents some community review process), without a WG.
>
> I was thinking that the first sub-case looks just like "revise a w3c
> rec" except that there's no WG here.
>
> The second sub-case suggests "some other track without a WG" and a
> number of the use cases might want that approach (Experiment, Profile).
>
> Ian
>
>>
>> Dom
>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/w3c-vision-public/wiki/Use_Cases
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org<mailto:ij@w3.org>)
> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 18:21:50 UTC