Harry Halpin (former chair of the GRDDL Working Group) contacted me
today. He has been speaking with Tim Berners-Lee and other colleges at
the W3C.
Harry suggests that the W3C would be happy to get involved with the
DataPortability workgroup in some fashion (via their Incubator
initiative http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/about.html). I imagine
either joining the Workgroup, consulting to the Workgroup, setting up
a Workgroup inside the W3C or absorbing DataPortability into the W3C
all together.
This is a pretty important question while we are still finding leaders
in the group to step up and the management structure is still being
worked out...
So my questions are:
1. What sort of involvement would you like to see from the W3C?
AND
2. Would such involvement:
a) Unnecessarily slow down the process we have started here?
OR
b) Add weight to DataPortability and improve our decision making going
forward?
I think this is at best a pointless move and at worst a really bad idea.
One of the criticisms of many observers about the DP.org group was that "it was just like the W3C and would get nothing done". Well, we will get stuff done, but if the group joined the W3C then... well, it would be just like the W3C and much of the other shit that goes with it - increased red-tape, etc.
But I also think it could be a bad move because membership of W3C groups is limited to W3C members (which is how it pays for itself). Harry made some point about Chris not having to be a member, but it's not clear whether the group would be open to just anyone to join formally. I'd be concerned that whilst Google and maybe Facebook are members of the W3C, other companies and startups are not. We'd miss those folks.
I just don't see what joining the W3C brings us. And if Tim BL thinks that we're doing some valuable work then I would love to extend to him an invitation to join *this* group.
On Jan 15, 2008 8:21 PM, Chris Saad <chris.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Harry Halpin (former chair of the GRDDL Working Group) contacted me > today. He has been speaking with Tim Berners-Lee and other colleges at > the W3C.
> Harry suggests that the W3C would be happy to get involved with the > DataPortability workgroup in some fashion (via their Incubator > initiative http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/about.html). I imagine > either joining the Workgroup, consulting to the Workgroup, setting up > a Workgroup inside the W3C or absorbing DataPortability into the W3C > all together.
> This is a pretty important question while we are still finding leaders > in the group to step up and the management structure is still being > worked out...
> So my questions are:
> 1. What sort of involvement would you like to see from the W3C?
> AND
> 2. Would such involvement:
> a) Unnecessarily slow down the process we have started here?
> OR
> b) Add weight to DataPortability and improve our decision making going > forward?
Backing from the W3C would certain add more credibility, ideas,
resources, and weight behind the movement. However, all benefits
aside, it does raise some potential concerns.
DP.org, arguably, is still in its infancy and working hard to define
itself and its goals. Deep involvement from any bureaucratic
organization may stifle our momentum and growth. "Absorbing
DataPortability into the W3C all together" at this point in time would
no doubt repress the remarkable progress made thus far.
The DP stack is getting the attention it deserves. While it would be great to have the credibility of W3C on our sides I think DP should remain independent until at least a solid 1.0 style release of the stack has been done.
As suggested, Tim should be joining this workgroup as a representative from WC3.
Ben Metcalfe wrote: > I think this is at best a pointless move and at worst a really bad idea.
> One of the criticisms of many observers about the DP.org group was > that "it was just like the W3C and would get nothing done". Well, we > will get stuff done, but if the group joined the W3C then... well, it > would be just like the W3C and much of the other shit that goes with > it - increased red-tape, etc.
> But I also think it could be a bad move because membership of W3C > groups is limited to W3C members (which is how it pays for itself). > Harry made some point about Chris not having to be a member, but it's > not clear whether the group would be open to just anyone to join > formally. I'd be concerned that whilst Google and maybe Facebook are > members of the W3C, other companies and startups are not. We'd miss > those folks.
> I just don't see what joining the W3C brings us. And if Tim BL > thinks that we're doing some valuable work then I would love to > extend to him an invitation to join *this* group.
> On Jan 15, 2008 8:21 PM, Chris Saad <chris.s...@gmail.com > <mailto:chris.s...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Harry Halpin (former chair of the GRDDL Working Group) contacted me > today. He has been speaking with Tim Berners-Lee and other colleges at > the W3C.
> Harry suggests that the W3C would be happy to get involved with the > DataPortability workgroup in some fashion (via their Incubator > initiative http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/about.html). I imagine > either joining the Workgroup, consulting to the Workgroup, setting up > a Workgroup inside the W3C or absorbing DataPortability into the W3C > all together.
> This is a pretty important question while we are still finding leaders > in the group to step up and the management structure is still being > worked out...
> So my questions are:
> 1. What sort of involvement would you like to see from the W3C?
> AND
> 2. Would such involvement:
> a) Unnecessarily slow down the process we have started here?
> OR
> b) Add weight to DataPortability and improve our decision making going > forward?
I'll give my opinion in a separate post, but to answer Ben's points:
Re. Membership - it isn't necessary for someone to be working for a W3C member company to be on a Working Group, there's the Invited Expert mechanism. This has been used for the HTML group - [[ # 499 group participants, # 499 in good standing, # 72 participants from 28 organizations # 427 Invited Experts ]] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/
I'd also note that DP already has two tiers, the DP list and the public lists.
Re. Getting Things Done - I don't know where the idea that the W3C doesn't get things done comes from, half the specs we use on a daily basis have come through the W3C.
As a recent concrete example, the GRDDL WG (of which Harry was chair) took just over a year to tackle a fairly tricky generic problem (the automatic conversion of microformats-style HTML and *any* XML to RDF). While this may seem a long time, the deliverables include two Recommendations (the main spec and test cases) together with two Notes (primer and use cases). Concurrent with this, 4 independent implementations were developed in the community, acting as test systems. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg
The GRDDL group was a regular Working Group, but Harry's proposal is for an Incubator Group, and they're expressly designed to get things done quickly: [[ The W3C Incubator Activity fosters rapid development, on a time scale of a year or less, of new Web-related concepts. Target concepts include innovative ideas for specifications, guidelines, and applications that are not (or not yet) clear candidates as Web standards developed through the more thorough process afforded by the W3C Recommendation Track. Advantages of the Incubator Activity include:
* Rapid start of work in an Incubator Group (XG) * Lightweight process, initiated by W3C Members * Rapid finish to produce an XG Report in under one year * Smooth transition to the W3C Recommendation Track, if desired and approved * Use of W3C infrastructure (mailing lists, communications tools, Web site) and consensus-building within W3C culture. ]] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/#About
On 16/01/2008, Chris Saad <chris.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. What sort of involvement would you like to see from the W3C?
I like the Incubator Group idea, I believe it could help this group a lot. It offers a coherent framework in which the development of guidelines and resources needed for DataPortability can take place, without messing up what we've got already.
Ad hoc development is good, but lasting solutions need some formal basis as well. We do need to maintain compatibility with existing specifications wherever possible, we need to be sure there aren't obscure legal issues waiting to trip everything up. The DP group may have the technical expertise to get work done, but it simply doesn't have the resources of a standards org.
This can happen without disrupting what we've got already.
The WHAT WG is doing fine since it's 'merger' with the W3C HTML group, and that's quite an extreme case - browser vendors are big stakeholders in that community, and their aims don't necessarily coincide with what's best for (users of) the Web.
Although they went with the IETF rather than the W3C, the Atom working group is a good example of how a community project can benefit from what a standards org has to offer. It was able to get significant input from a broad range of sources, keep focus on what was needed and reach consensus, without losing its community roots.
> AND
> 2. Would such involvement:
> a) Unnecessarily slow down the process we have started here?
I believe it will speed things up, by helping us to be clearer about aims and having a process for ensuring decisions are made that are consistent with these.
> b) Add weight to DataPortability and improve our decision making going > forward?
Yes. While this group has significant support from key players around social networks, to anyone directly not involved, this group can be perceived as a "ragbag" (see http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howlett/?p=277). Association with the W3C will show the group's proposals as credible to the enterprise and other potential users of the technology.
I should add that while I'm more than happy to go with consensus as far as this group is concerned, I do also support Harry's proposal for a W3C Incubator Group, even if it would have to operate completely indepedently of this group (well, I doubt it would be completely independent, there would be bound to be some crossover no matter what).
Of course ideally everyone will be working together on what are seriously important issues. But because of the importance of the issues, I do think it necessary for the W3C to consider them, irrespective of any community initiatives like ours, as part of it's stated goal of "leading the Web to its full potential".
One thing that the W3C road offers, that DataPortability.org lacks is
a clear member agreement that eliminates any questions about who owns
the IP in the specs. All participants in a W3C working group must
sign the member agreement that gives ownership of contributed IP to
the W3C. This reduces the risk of a company or individual asserting
IP rights after a spec has been released. The W3C can release specs
with a royalty-free, irrevocable right and license to implement.
DataPortability (and APML) have an informal IP policy that leaves it
open to future IP issues. Imagine if some DataPortability working
group member managed to get some of their intellectual property
included as part of the specification and after DP was released tried
to collect royalties. (This actually happened to the W3C VoiceXML
spec: http://www.news.com/2100-1032-5162070.html )
I don't have a strong opinion one way or another about the whether we
should join the W3C, but I do think we need a more formal approach to
intellectual property would reduce risk that the spec would be
encumbered.
On Jan 16, 2008 3:11 AM, Paul Lamere <paul.lam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing that the W3C road offers, that DataPortability.org lacks is > a clear member agreement that eliminates any questions about who owns > the IP in the specs. All participants in a W3C working group must > sign the member agreement that gives ownership of contributed IP to > the W3C. This reduces the risk of a company or individual asserting > IP rights after a spec has been released. The W3C can release specs > with a royalty-free, irrevocable right and license to implement.
Bear in mind, agreements like these can be nightmares to get approved in large organizations, since typically employees cannot sign a legal document without the legal team's approval.
I think they are definitely good in the long run, but I'd hate to see in the short term having people's participation stalled based upon it.
Perhaps it might make sense to keep the overall DP Working Group as a more ad-hoc institution, but as more concrete deliverables emerge, moving some of the technical standards finalization into more formal W3C groups over time.
W3C participation is also more significant for certain parts of what the group wants to accomplish (e.g. technical standards) and less so for things like best practices documents.
(In addition, part of the strength of the group now is the speed with which we can try new things out and iterate on them, prior to making them "standards.")
"Bear in mind, agreements like these can be nightmares to get approved
in large organizations, since typically employees cannot sign a legal
document without the legal team's approval. " - Agreed, but also it
works the other way too. Companies may be reluctant to participate if
there isn't a clear IP story. This is certainly the case with Sun.
> "Bear in mind, agreements like these can be nightmares to get approved
> in large organizations, since typically employees cannot sign a legal
> document without the legal team's approval. " - Agreed, but also it
> works the other way too. Companies may be reluctant to participate if
> there isn't a clear IP story. This is certainly the case with Sun.
> On Jan 17, 9:34 am, Paul Lamere <paul.lam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "Bear in mind, agreements like these can be nightmares to get approved > > in large organizations, since typically employees cannot sign a legal > > document without the legal team's approval. " - Agreed, but also it > > works the other way too. Companies may be reluctant to participate if > > there isn't a clear IP story. This is certainly the case with Sun.
