I'm Harry Halpin from the Uni. of Edinburgh, and I've been chatting
with various people at the W3C about this whole social data
portability issue for a while. I got interested in it via my work on
using XFN microformats and GRDDL.
I missed the last Steering Group Committee, but I'm happy to fill
folks in on where some people in the W3C staff are at on Data
Portability. In a nutshell, folks are excited about Data Portability,
with a few minor worries about making sure any future standard is
royalty-free. In fact, as Ivan Herman has noted, the W3C staff thinks
this topic is very important, but are short on staff time for an
official liason. So I've stepped in to be an unofficial liason :)
After a talk with Steve Bratt, we thought the best way for the W3C
to be involved would be to form an Incubator Group and keep the W3C's
Semantic Web Co-ordination Group updated. An Incubator Group is not a
Working Group, and so would basically to be within a year to report to
the W3C if the field of social data portability has come up with a
consensus tech standard, i.e. if someone like DataPortability.org
comes out with a good technical standard. Then, the Incubator Group
can then short-circuit the normal Working Group formation process by
just transitioning into a Working Group and then help fast-track
whatever community-driven technical standard is produced through W3C
process. If a technical standard is produced by DataPortability.org
within a year, the Incubator Group could inspect it in fine detail and
propose to the W3C a working group go over it in detail. Then, over
the next year it could get fine-tuning by the W3C Working Group and
then the up for approval by the Membership.
I think this is the best way standards groups work. Very rarely can
any sort of committee put together an actual standard from scratch,
and this includes the W3C. It is far better to take whatever is
already informally standardized by the community and go through all
the corner and edge cases as well as patent issues, in a Working
Group. Then the W3C can approve the standard. That's what's happening
with HTML 5, and I suspect that's the best route for Social Data
Portability as well. Thus, we get the best of both worlds - in
DataPortability.org a vibrant community open to all that can sort
through proposals put together by small groups of bright people, and
if needed eventually a details-oriented committee with a firm
committment in a fairly formal organization to check alignment of a
proposal of various Web standards, double-check legalities, and push
its member organizations to adopt the standard. This could be a litmus
test for various large corporations as well to test their commitment
to Data Portability and royalty-free licensing.
W3C structure has a number of advantages and disadvantages. The main
advantage is a clear consensus-based structure, resources, a royalty-
free patent policy, and structure for co-ordinating feedback with
other parts of Web standards. However, the main disadvantage is there
semi-closed nature (that's how the resources happen, by asking
companies to pay a fee to join). This semi-closed nature is opening up
(See the HTML 5 Working Group) and an Incubator Group can have as many
"Invited Experts" as deemed necessary. If we get an XG going then the
W3C will start getting its infrastructure in gear and have a clear and
open channel for communication with DataPortability.org. I drew up
(with Dan Brickley and Phil Archer contributing) a draft XG charter,
avaiable here:
Harry - happy to hear that you will be on the next Steering Group telecon.
On the last telecon, Chris Saad was asking me who the W3C liaison would be, so glad to know that you will be acting as that link.
As DERI's (new) W3C Advisory Committee representative, I also hope to participate in the Social Web XG, but it would be good if others from the DP initiative could take part in the Social Web XG as well (if there are any active volunteers in DP who are in W3C member organisations besides danbri, Harry, myself?).
> I'm Harry Halpin from the Uni. of Edinburgh, and I've been chatting > with various people at the W3C about this whole social data > portability issue for a while. I got interested in it via my work on > using XFN microformats and GRDDL.
> I missed the last Steering Group Committee, but I'm happy to fill > folks in on where some people in the W3C staff are at on Data > Portability. In a nutshell, folks are excited about Data Portability, > with a few minor worries about making sure any future standard is > royalty-free. In fact, as Ivan Herman has noted, the W3C staff thinks > this topic is very important, but are short on staff time for an > official liason. So I've stepped in to be an unofficial liason :)
> After a talk with Steve Bratt, we thought the best way for the W3C > to be involved would be to form an Incubator Group and keep the W3C's > Semantic Web Co-ordination Group updated. An Incubator Group is not a > Working Group, and so would basically to be within a year to report to > the W3C if the field of social data portability has come up with a > consensus tech standard, i.e. if someone like DataPortability.org > comes out with a good technical standard. Then, the Incubator Group > can then short-circuit the normal Working Group formation process by > just transitioning into a Working Group and then help fast-track > whatever community-driven technical standard is produced through W3C > process. If a technical standard is produced by DataPortability.org > within a year, the Incubator Group could inspect it in fine detail and > propose to the W3C a working group go over it in detail. Then, over > the next year it could get fine-tuning by the W3C Working Group and > then the up for approval by the Membership.
> I think this is the best way standards groups work. Very rarely can > any sort of committee put together an actual standard from scratch, > and this includes the W3C. It is far better to take whatever is > already informally standardized by the community and go through all > the corner and edge cases as well as patent issues, in a Working > Group. Then the W3C can approve the standard. That's what's happening > with HTML 5, and I suspect that's the best route for Social Data > Portability as well. Thus, we get the best of both worlds - in > DataPortability.org a vibrant community open to all that can sort > through proposals put together by small groups of bright people, and > if needed eventually a details-oriented committee with a firm > committment in a fairly formal organization to check alignment of a > proposal of various Web standards, double-check legalities, and push > its member organizations to adopt the standard. This could be a litmus > test for various large corporations as well to test their commitment > to Data Portability and royalty-free licensing.
> W3C structure has a number of advantages and disadvantages. The main > advantage is a clear consensus-based structure, resources, a royalty- > free patent policy, and structure for co-ordinating feedback with > other parts of Web standards. However, the main disadvantage is there > semi-closed nature (that's how the resources happen, by asking > companies to pay a fee to join). This semi-closed nature is opening up > (See the HTML 5 Working Group) and an Incubator Group can have as many > "Invited Experts" as deemed necessary. If we get an XG going then the > W3C will start getting its infrastructure in gear and have a clear and > open channel for communication with DataPortability.org. I drew up > (with Dan Brickley and Phil Archer contributing) a draft XG charter, > avaiable here:
On 28/03/2008, John Breslin <john.bres...@deri.org> wrote:
> Harry - happy to hear that you will be on the next Steering Group telecon.
> On the last telecon, Chris Saad was asking me who the W3C liaison would > be, so glad to know that you will be acting as that link.
> As DERI's (new) W3C Advisory Committee representative, I also hope to > participate in the Social Web XG, but it would be good if others from > the DP initiative could take part in the Social Web XG as well (if there > are any active volunteers in DP who are in W3C member organisations > besides danbri, Harry, myself?).
"active volunteer" would be stretching things somewhat right now, but I'm up for it (Talis is a member org). Having a formal angle might actually allow me to push DP stuff up my priorities a bit.
