- From: Jonathan Bingham <binghamj@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 20:06:29 -0700
- To: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Cc: "public-webmachinelearning-wg@w3.org" <public-webmachinelearning-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAEK6eFz0D1QAW2Y3wspvu_ya+DMKCsLhB=F_xoJArAvvw+m0vw@mail.gmail.com>
Several of us at Google have reviewed the Web NN proposal, from Chrome, TensorFlow, Chrome OS, and Android. We recommend that the Working Group move forward with this proposal and publish the First Public Working Draft, with a few caveats that we have already expressed in the Community Group. The first caveat is that the field of machine learning is rapidly evolving, and there is not yet a stable and widely accepted operation set definition that a neural network API can be based on. The most popular operation sets -- including those from Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft -- have grown and changed rapidly, even in the past year, and they are likely to continue to evolve rapidly. It will require a large effort for web standards and browser implementations to keep up with the field, even after the initial launch of a web API. Furthermore, there is a real risk that a different approach will ultimately be more successful. The community group has been taking a sensible approach to operation definition, decomposing operations into the smallest instructions that can be reused. Backwards compatibility is being considered, and there's reason to be optimistic that changes can be additive, rather than breaking. A second caveat is about developer demand. Before adopting Web NN as a standard and shipping in browsers, it will be important to validate that existing web standards are inadequate to deliver the performance that web developers and end users require. As evidence of that demand, we would all want to see that a critical mass of web developers had tried running ML models using existing web standards, like WASM, Web GL, and Web GPU, and found them too slow. In the community group, we all believe the theoretical case is strong that better performance is possible and will make a difference. The community group has been conducting extensive performance benchmarking. It is not yet representative of the wider developer community. The First Public Working Draft will help to broaden the conversation, and we hope to see evidence of developer demand. In parallel to Web NN, we recommend that the group stay abreast of advances in ML, and explore multiple options in parallel, including alternative ML APIs and enhancements to WASM. It remains to be seen whether Web NN will be the best approach, and there is a real risk that it will launch and quickly be superseded by alternate approaches. All of that said, Web NN is well worth exploring, gathering developer feedback, and moving forward in the standards process. There's strong potential for meaningful performance gains that can make web experiences more compelling. We recommend moving forward with the proposal and publishing a First Public Working Draft. Cheers, Jonathan On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 9:26 AM Kostiainen, Anssi < anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote: > Hi Web Machine Learning Working Group, > > This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to adopt the Web Neural Network API > (WebNN API) [1] from the Web Machine Learning Community Group (CG) into > this Working Group and publish it as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) as > per the WG Charter [2]. > > This specification has been incubated in the Community Group and has > received initial security, privacy and architecture reviews. The CG has > also developed and maintains a polyfill and a native implementation that > evolve together with the specification. Considering these signals, we > believe the WebNN API meets the expectations of a First Public Working > Draft and is ready to start its journey on the W3C Recommendation Track. > > It should be noted, a specification published as a FPWD is expected to > change as the work progresses and the group receives further feedback from > implementers, ML frameworks, web developers, through horizontal reviews and > other groups working in this space. > > As this is the first Call for Consensus we're running in this group, some > background on what a call for consensus is: the W3C Process requires chairs > to assess the level of consensus before taking some of the group's formal > decisions. To enable as broad input from Working Group participants as > possible, including those that may not be in a position to join synchronous > discussions during teleconferences, we will in general assess this > consensus by sending these Call for Consensus messages (sometimes > abbreviated as CfC) to the Working Group's mailing list, and collect > feedback for a defined duration (usually between 7 and 10 days). > > Please indicate any objections or concerns on this list before EOB 17 June > 2021. Silence is considered consent. > > Thanks, > > -Anssi (WebML WG Chair) > > [1] https://webmachinelearning.github.io/webnn/ > [2] https://www.w3.org/2021/04/web-machine-learning-charter.html >
Received on Friday, 18 June 2021 03:17:33 UTC