Re: Strategy (present and future) (was: Re: Google payment plans)

On 04/11/2014 01:31 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> Well documented use-cases should certainly help forge solutions more
>  broadly.  Ideally, the contributor pool will grow considerably and 
> given the lack of practical awareness of rdf utility, I'm thinking 
> there will be ongoing questions in this area.

Yes, but in that case, all we can do is point people to things like this:

What is Linked Data?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x_xzT5eF5Q

and this:

What is JSON-LD?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vioCbTo3C-4

and hope they do their homework. I suggest we stay away from mentioning
"Semantic Web" and RDF as only implementers will need to know that
stuff... that and those words have terrible histories at driving
developers away.

> Some existing work exists with special consideration for pos systems
>  / digital receipts.  How can we seek to engage these groups?

Pick up the phone and call them. Or email them. That may sound overly
simplistic, but that's because the solution to that is pretty simple. :)

If anyone on the mailing list thinks there is a group that should know
of our existence, take it upon yourself to reach out to that group and
get them involved. The only way this whole effort is going to scale is
if people feel empowered to act on their own and bring others into this
group.

> W3c license makes the most sense?

W3C license makes a lot of sense for documents meant to be put on the
W3C standardization track. It doesn't make much sense for source code
that is meant to integrate w/ other open source projects. It doesn't
make much sense for community documentation or videos that the community
may produce.

>> Thoughts? What are the other big problems that we're missing?
> 
> Enterprise engagement models. Existing standards and patent pools 
> likely exist.  Whilst the specifics allude me ATM, an engagement 
> strategy is likely needed at some stage.  From foreigners to 
> supporters, but how..

I don't know what you're saying here.

> The idea that there may be an ipr mine-field along the path 
> somewhere, seems reasonable to me.  Even a proposed method for how 
> this might be dealt with if the spec / group, obtains w3c working 
> group status - might be well considered at this juncture.

There is an IPR policy in place for this community. An official W3C
Interest Group or Working Group will have an IPR policy in place over
there as well. That's one of the benefits of sending this work through
W3C, we don't have to navigate the patent gauntlet by ourselves and W3C
members have an excellent history of navigating this particular
minefield. For those that are concerned about patents, but not familiar
with W3C's IPR policy, you should probably familiarize themselves with
this document:

http://www.w3.org/2004/02/05-patentsummary.html

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Worlds First Web Payments Workshop
http://www.w3.org/2013/10/payments/

Received on Friday, 11 April 2014 14:38:08 UTC