webizen use-cases (was: Re: Meeting update and next meeting)

On 5 Sep 2014, at 12:41 am, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:

> 
> On 9/4/2014 6:28 AM, Tim Holborn wrote:
>> I’ve been quite busy and apologise for not getting further into this process sooner.
>> 
>> I participate in several CG’s already.  What is the difference between a world of free participation within the CG (of which the CV / Lists.w3 process is already for filled) vs. paying $100.
> 
> There is no proposal to associate a fee for CGs.  They continue to be without cost.  The Webizen proposal is to allow more of an affiliation and support for W3C as an organization.
> 
>> 
>> Is the intention to privatise participation, subject to this new financing arrangement?
> 
> No.
> 
>>  Is this a promotional program - for merchandising?
> 
> No.
> 
>>   I’m rather sure the program is unnecessary for merchandising - and perhaps commercially, other options are available to undertake the merchandising opportunity in more progressive, and likely more commercially capable terms - than selling ‘non-memberships’.
>> 
>> It has been my intention to put the survey questions into a google form or similar.
>> 
>> The question “from the floor” was “individual membership”?  If so,
>> 
>> How does a non-membership program differ from CG participation and/or enhance accessibility for willing, capable and interested participants, who are willing to provide their time without association to an incorporated legal entity (who may well be otherwise paying an employee or other agent for facilitating engagement with W3C) for what many might assume, would be an underlying purpose of seeking to contribute towards the “we we want", insofar as that technical standards do, in-turn, influence opportunities surrounding citizenship, et.al.
> 
> We are trying to determine (through these meetings and the survey) whether this program has appeal; or what characteristics would give the program appeal.  We don't have answers to your question yet.

I hope i can make a meaningful contribution ;)

I have been putting some thought to it.  I think, from a bottom-up perspective; a few opportunities

1. Students & Faculty (k12 + tertiary) 

It’s been discussed with me, by a teacher, that in her view - english may become far more multimedia focused (i.e. web) and traditional english, become more specialised - perhaps as ‘english literature’ as the ways of the world continue to move towards ICT literacy.   Perhaps therein, basic HTML is a constituant of the teachings that may form as a ‘nice to have / teach’ within the k12 sector. 

2. Tertiary

(PERSONAL LESSONS / STORY)
I’m not very good at scripting personally.  HTML, CSS and media - yeah. So, i started a course seeking to improve my coding skills in effect - to help make code-contributions, surrounding RWW work - building a foaf-form, for example, that could make it easier to show people rww.io, and related apps, thinking, etc.   I’m more often building the conceptual architecture of systems, so syntax isn’t important in an exacting sense - as i’m building workflows, looking at architectural structures, governance lines surrounding design, etc.  Good example, is picking at differing factors between web-credentials (and related requirements for KYC / AML) vs. WebID communities, how to ensure the provision of pseudo-anonymity in the function of a credentialing system whilst also offering ways to encourage ‘knowledge economy’ drivers - such as individual’s being entitled to identity, as citizens, and that such concepts form the basis to economic participation - which in my world, means what i do on or in association to - the web, etc.

In the course structure, semantics were demonstrated as how HTML5 page tags (footer, header, body, section, article, etc.) segments.   I’d been looking at whether i could get some help to deploy some local RWW related stuff - and support the field of Linked-Data works.  Unfortunately, only Relational DB’s were covered in the course-structure.

In-turn; what this may mean, is that the innovation cycle has a very loosely coupled relationship with the technology innovation cycle & traditional education institutions.  This may mean, that without some sort or form of relationship structure between students, teachers / lecturers, the area of ‘open source’ and ‘standards’ may be less supported than that of commercial works, by member organisations such as Microsoft (who provide software & support into scholarly institutions) which overall, may be less than ideal for each and all member organisations, who benefit from new-talent being able to quickly and easily - get upto speed, working with technology as would happen if the time a student puts into their education - were done outside of an institution, simply following their area of interest…

EDUCATION SUMMARY
Whilst educational institutions can certainly be members of W3C in its current form; perhaps the webizen program could translate to opportunities for students to get further involved as individuals.   Perhaps also, methods of forming consensus around education - which is of course, essential to development, could use an array of supporters - both to write the material, as well as translating it into different languages..? 

LINKED-DATA CONSIDERATIONS
I note that the area of Linked-Data and related ontological work; brings about new areas of discourse and standards development.  FOAF[1], DOAP[2] a few early examples - of course, many others exist.  (Depending on the serialisation, etc. ??) definitions are made using remote service locations, i.e.: @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>. [3]?   If these locations become unavailable - things break?  Nowtherefore; My thoughts were that W3 infrastructure may provide an ideal place to house some of these ontologies, when developed perhaps via CG’s and/or used in a widespread fashion.  Equally, accessibility in terms of defining some of these ontological functions - should be both moderated, and made available to those who wish to spend their time doing it, for whatever reason.  I do question how much of it is in english, vs. other languages; as a formative part of Web3 infrastructure, seeking - in turn - form of ubiquity surrounding accessibility metrics. 

PERSONAL NOTES ON CONTRIBUTIONS
Starting in the ICT sector in ~1996 (being 36 now) i’ve struggled for many years around coming up with ideas, and validating how those ideas contribute towards stuff.  The ability to post something on lists.w3 provides safety for me, in that at least - i can point to a link, that i have no capacity to change (even if i wanted to) which provides a demarkation point, around something i did, at what stage, etc.

In-turn, this can be very important where people wish to develop something that may be a field of research, study or contribution that COULD have some form of patent associated; should the contributor be otherwise motivated (or indeed, the audience).

the licensing patterns surrounding W3 Contributions provide a basic underlying capability - to warrant that someone, did something, with a date-stamp.  Whilst i’m not suggesting that perhaps - lists.w3 is the best place to do such a thing, and perhaps that concept could be better explored overtime (especially given potential opportunities for structured data, and related business models) yet seemingly, 

in considering this lens from a ‘bottom up’ perspective; is the lack of entitling a membership association truly positive? In yacht-clubs, some memberships are called ‘full membership’s’, others ‘crew-members’ or ‘social members’, some have insurances attached to them - so people don’t get left, when lost out at sea - others, entitle a person to be on-premises, at a yacht-club.   perhaps also, participate in meetings, etc.

Due to the needs of Web-Payments (and related participants), a new group is being (or has been) established entitled ‘credentials’, therein educational organisations are looking at ways to provide a credential / badge, that denotes whether or not someone has actually done a qualification (apparently, that’s a problem…).   I imagine, in this group - a similar set of queries exist, and perhaps a bridge might be born to improve the discussion around this area, given the experts of this type of stuff live in the W3, and the rest of the market can hopefully trust in the leadership shown, by the organisation - functionally - itself. (as funds allow, of course…).

TIMELINES - FORGING A “TEST ENTITY”?  
Perhaps, given the level of interest is still rather unknown - something could be created that supports engagement, testing the concepts prior to laying down a charter that states in a more ridged fashion, how the program will work.

With respect to membership; i think the term creates a form of association, which may be important.  If people are meaningfully contributing as a webizen - i imagine a % will be providing meaningful contributions, at least to them, on the basis that they feel it is worth spending that time, in their lives, paying for the opportunity - to contribute towards something that is bigger than them. something that is important to them, and hopefully of course - others. 

the call to action is perhaps less exacting than a set of browsers battling over language; those times, are now well managed by W3C.  Yet, the decisions moreover happening today - result in the concept of "Web We Want” being SCREAMED at the highest echelons of governance and discussion about HUMANITY.  

To suggest people are not stakeholders, potential members to the voices that create solutions, as a result of such considerations…  well.  Perhaps there is a good reason for it? yet, i’m not sure.  

Google has some enormously useful infrastructure i.e. http://www.freebase.com/  & http://schema.org/ - the ability to lower the resolution of GPS results being webized from mobile chat interfaces - might become easier with these sorts of platforms.  W3C doesn’t produce or sell products - other than mugs, T-SHIRTS, ideally a key-ring ;) 

yet when thinking about - validator as an example.  At uni, they’d tell us to pass - we need to validate our pages.  then, to learn more http://www.w3schools.com/ is a great site.  Of course; not all that is in http://www.w3schools.com/ validates.  And still, only a fraction of humanity have access to the web.  So what will be the role of W3 in evolving the current state of play; and with respect to the level of innovation, the curve of adoption, the changes needing to be implemented, etc…

How will the role, influence, engagement and support of individuals positively influence these changes overtime.  

Hope that Helps

Tim Holborn.
http://www.webcivics.net/
https://twitter.com/webcivics

[1] http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/
[2] http://usefulinc.com/doap/
[3] http://bblfish.net/people/henry/card#me

> 
>> 
>> Also: with regard to the ‘dial-in’, is there a VOIP (SIP) number?  i’m in oz.
>> 
>> Kind Regards,
>> 
>> Tim H.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 4 Sep 2014, at 8:11 pm, Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:48:38 +0200, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Based on the (meager) response in the poll and some changes in my schedule, we will meet on Friday, 5 September at 10AM.
>>> Jeff,
>>> 
>>> Since then school resumed and a meeting I need to attend there was announced just yesterday.
>>> I will be able to listen in the first 30 minutes of the Webizen teleconference, most of it away from keyboard.
>>> 
>>>> Maria will send out the details.
>>> (I forwarded Maria your message this morning so she can schedule the call for tomorrow.)
>>> 
>>> Coralie
>>> 
>>>> Jeff
>>>> 
>>>> On 8/21/2014 2:15 PM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> The agenda for the next meeting is quite straightforward.  We would like to finalize the market survey [4] so it can be sent out immediately after the next meeting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Most of the wiki and survey have been stable now for several weeks. The primary topics are to finish hashing out is how we want to discuss representation in the wiki [2], and how we want to ask about it in the survey (Q8 and Q9 of [4]).  Folks are encouraged to start a dialog about that now on the email thread so we don't defer the entire discussion until the meeting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen
>>>>> [2] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen#Representation
>>>>> [3] http://doodle.com/6cucpzizxaiq3eea
>>>>> [4] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen#Workspace_for_Twitter_questionnaire
>>> -- 
>>> Coralie Mercier  -  W3C Communications Team  -  http://www.w3.org
>>> mailto:coralie@w3.org +336 4322 0001 http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/
>>> 
>