Why is SyncML not included?

[huang]

I am sure you know what SyncML is. My question is why SyncML is not
included in the paradigm of DataPortability.

Can you explain?

Cheers

Zijian

[Brett McDowell]

AFAIK, it is.  

I think it just hasn't been raised as the basis for a "data portability recommended practice" yet, and that might be because folks are waiting for a process to be defined for going from idea-to-publication (which is now on the verge of happening because we will soon have a democratically elected Steering Committee with that authority).  I know I for one have several DP ideas/recommendations to work on but I have been "waiting" for the clear path to pursue them (therefore I worked on the governance first so we had such a clear path).

Long answer, sorry, but in short I agree with you that it is relevant, in-scope, and worth our attention (as one of several practices for DP).

-- Brett

P.S.
In full disclosure I once served as the interim Executive Director of SyncML Initiative before it merged with OMA and I still keep in touch with many of the SyncML folks who continue to progress that technology... actually just last week I was told of a cool new project based on that technology's "device management" working group (now in OMA).

[Elias Bizannes]

Huang,

My personal reasons: it was not on my radar. Thank you for suggesting it.

But as Brett raises, we are at a big turning point for the DataPortability Project - expect to see a change in momentum in the next few months.

--
Elias Bizannes
http://liako.biz

[Phil Wolff]

Zijan, at a higher level of abstraction, we know synchronization is a big part of data portability and the social network stack.

If you're interested, add a page to http://wiki.dataportability.org explaining how SyncML and related standards/protocols support synchronization. You don't need a "blessing" to explain things.

Phil Wolff
managing editor, Skype Journal
http://SkypeJournal.com
pwo...@skypejournal.com
skype:evanwolf
+1-510-444-8234 San Francisco
+1-646-461-6123 New York
+44 020 8816 8780 London
+852 8175 8107 Hong Kong
http://www.linkedin.com/in/philwolff
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=724232370

[Aaron Cheung]

Dear All,

 

Democratic or not, big turning point or not, if I may add that, a decision process

based solely on voting won't get "standards" too far... eg., see how many times the

word "vote" appears in the ietf decision process -- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418

 

Here at DP, we on one hand talking about getting consensus, and on the other, always

pushing for quick decisions (as in the governance matters), and people grievancing that

they've been waiting and waiting..

 

Let me be to the point here, that, in my very humble opinion, people intending to vote

should at the very least read up these 2 very short but [perhaps] helpful pages to refresh:

 

http://www.earlham.edu/~consense/rrocomp.shtml

 

http://www.actupny.org/documents/CDdocuments/Consensus.html

 

And my point is, if sth. good takes time, let's take the time, no rush.. (why the rush?)

 

Regards,

/ac.

 

PS. Re SyncML: reason: it's old and not too interesting, people don't talk about it

anymore; what's interesting? MeshML (which I'm sure you haven't heard of...) :-p