- From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 02:39:39 -0800
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- CC: Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
Recommendation and Last Call are not defined in the Patent policy. Instead they links to chapter 7 of the Process :) So, leave the wording and links in the Patent Policy unchanged, we could have those links go to something like: Terminology the W3C Patent Policy. W3C Specification is the stage described by the term Recommendation in the W3C Patent Policy(2004). W3C Candidate Specification is the stage referred to as Last Call in the W3C Patent Policy (2004). First Public Working Draft uses the same term in both documents. And we could get rid of Recommendation and Last Call Candidate Recommendation in one paragraph. On 11/11/2013 11:07 PM, David Singer wrote: > peace, standard is probably fine. and it aligns with the IETF (not that many RFCs ever get there :-() > > On Nov 12, 2013, at 15:00 , Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: > >> Hi, David– >> >> I agree with you that "Recommendation" is a poor word. >> >> I'd suggest that we do more than produce specifications; we also make comprehensive test suites, marshal together implementers, build consensus from key stakeholders, support a community of contributors and consumers, promote technologies, and many more things that nourish the ecosystem around a specification. >> >> Anyone can write a specification, from a design document to an organization-internal set of guidelines; as such, it's not as meaningful a term as "standard", and doesn't match what we do as well. >> >> Again, Wikipedia provides some useful distinction here [1]: >> >> [[ >> A technical standard is an established norm or requirement in regard to technical systems. It is usually a formal document that establishes uniform engineering or technical criteria, methods, processes and practices. In contrast, a custom, convention, company product, corporate standard, etc. that becomes generally accepted and dominant is often called a de facto standard. >> >> A technical standard can also be a controlled artifact or similar formal means used for calibration. Reference Standards and certified reference materials have an assigned value by direct comparison with a reference base. A primary standard is usually under the jurisdiction of a national standards body. Secondary, tertiary, check standards and standard materials may be used for reference in a metrology system. A key requirement in this case is (metrological) traceability, an unbroken paper trail of calibrations back to the primary standard. >> >> A technical standard may be developed privately or unilaterally, for example by a corporation, regulatory body, military, etc. Standards can also be developed by groups such as trade unions, and trade associations. Standards organizations often have more diverse input and usually develop voluntary standards: these might become mandatory if adopted by a government, business contract, etc. >> ]] >> >> By those criteria, W3C clearly produces voluntary standards, though not "primary standards" or mandatory standards. >> >> I understand your concern about the implications that we are claiming to produce mandatory standards, which I agree is undesirable; but I think we can manage that in other messaging. >> >> If you think it would cause friction with specific "real" (formal, mandatory, or government-endorsed) standards organizations, we should handle that with kid gloves, and make our intentions clear. >> >> So, I would like to see us use the word "standard" in our formal communications, especially since people already use that for W3C Recommendations in the vernacular. >> >> >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_standard >> >> Regards- >> -Doug >> >> On 11/12/13 2:40 PM, David Singer wrote: >>> Hi Doug >>> >>> I think the word 'standard' has overtones of something that is >>> endorsed or mandated, e.g. ITU standards for telecoms, and is >>> produced by a formal standards body. I am not sure we want the >>> overtones. >>> >>> I think we produce specifications, and that's a good word. >>> >>> As I say, 'recommendation' is a poor word; when we say something is >>> 'recommended' *within* a spec., it's a 'should' statement. Even in >>> normal english terms, what exactly are we 'recommending' and to whom >>> in our specs? >>> >>> People who do formal standards might be concerned, though the IETF >>> uses the term and it's accepted there. I don't think it would raise >>> too much opposition. >>> >>> But, people say, casually, "go read the CSS specification", "it's in >>> the HTML spec", and we may as well embrace that and use the name. >>> >>> >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 14:33 , Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, David– >>>> >>>> On 11/12/13 10:29 AM, David Singer wrote: >>>>> Ouch. >>>>> >>>>> Traditionally, 'standard' means something from a standards body, >>>>> and we are a trade association. But I agree, 'recommendation' is >>>>> a poor word (who is recommending what?) >>>> That's an interesting point. I'm not sure I agree with it, based on >>>> the definition of a trade association on Wikipedia [1] (emphasis >>>> mine). >>>> >>>> [[ A trade association, also known as an industry trade group, >>>> business association or sector association, is an organization >>>> founded and funded by businesses that operate in a specific >>>> industry. An industry trade association participates in public >>>> relations activities such as advertising, education, political >>>> donations, lobbying and publishing, ***but its main focus is >>>> collaboration between companies, or standardization***. >>>> Associations may offer other services, such as producing >>>> conferences, networking or charitable events or offering classes or >>>> educational materials. Many associations are non-profit >>>> organizations governed by bylaws and directed by officers who are >>>> also members. ]] >>>> >>>> However, I sense that there's some underlying reason you are shying >>>> away from the word "standard", and I think it would be valuable to >>>> explore any potential risks or confusion there. >>>> >>>> Personally, as someone who does a lot of developer relations and >>>> outreach, it's burdensome to clarify to that audience what a >>>> "Recommendation" is, and I end up saying "it's what W3C calls a >>>> 'standard'", which is a known and common nomenclature (even >>>> informal groups like WHATWG use it for their deliverables). So, >>>> this would clarify and simplify our communications to several >>>> audiences. >>>> >>>> Are there audiences we aren't thinking of that would react badly to >>>> our using the word "standard"? >>>> >>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_association >>>> >>>> Regards- -Doug >>>> >>> David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. >>> >>> >> > David Singer > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 12 November 2013 10:40:09 UTC