RE: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 24

Hi Art,
That's a very good point about IP commitments. I think it's likely to speed
up the process of getting something standardized if companies don't have to
make the broad IP commitments to all of a WG's activities that would be
required if the work was entirely done within an existing WG. 
As far as existing Working Groups go, I think that the Voice Browser WG
would be a better choice than the MMIWG, because the HTML-Speech work is
focused on the details of a speech-specific API, which is the expertise of
the Voice Browser WG. However,  I think a new group would be better because
the group could concentrate entirely on the HTML-Speech work and not have to
prioritize it with other specs. Also, both VB and MMI are
member-confidential, and it would be easier to work with a joint WebApps
task force in a new, public, WG. 
Regards,
Debbie


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:39 PM
> To: ext Charles McCathieNevile; Glen Shires; Deborah Dahl; Scott
McGlashan;
> Kazuyuki Ashimura
> Cc: public-webapps; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> Subject: Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 24
> 
> On 1/23/12 12:17 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:37:35 +0100, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 2. WebApps provides a balanced web-centric view for new JavaScript
> APIs.
> >>  The XG group consisted of a large number of speech experts, but only
> >> a few with broad web API expertise. We believe the formation of a new
> WG
> >> would have a similar imbalance,
> >
> > I'm not sure this is necessarily the case, and the reverse
> > possibility, that the Web Apps group would not have enough speech
> > experts should also be considered a potential risk.
> >
> >> whereas the WebApps WG can provide valuable, balanced guidance and
> >> feedback.
> >
> > (FWIW I don't have a strong opinion on whether this is likely to be a
> > real problem as opposed to a risk, and I think this conversation helps
> > us work that out).
> 
> Another way to help us get the broadest set of stakeholders possible is
> for the Speech work to be done in a new WG or an existing WG like with
> some speech experts (Voice Browser WG or MMI WG?) and then to create
> some type of joint task force with WebApps.
> 
> This would have the advantage that WebApps members would only have to
> make an IP commitment for the specs created by the task force (and none
> of the other WG's specs) and the other WG would not have to make an IP
> commitment for any of WebApps' other specs. (Note we are already doing
> this for the Web Intents spec and the Dev-API WG).
> 
> Is the VBWG or MMIWG interested in taking the lead on the speech spec?
> 
> -AB
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 19:30:22 UTC