The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: firstname.lastname@example.org
This questionnaire was open from 2014-04-18 to 2014-05-18.
31 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
Please, name the Community Group or Business Group for which you are submitting answers.
|Responder||Name of your Community Group or Business Group|
|Paul Boyes||Automotive Business Group|
|Paola Di Maio||SEMANTIC WEB INTERFACES (SWI) SIG|
|Max Froumentin||Web History Community Group|
|Roger Cutler||Oil, Gas and Chemicals Business Group|
|Andrew Cooke||Livestock Data Interchange Standards|
|David Singer||Text Tracks|
|Florian Daniel||Interactive APIs|
|Bart van Leeuwen||Emergency Information|
|Stephan Dreyer||Age Labels Data Model Community Group|
|Jean-Paul Calbimonte||RDF Stream Processing Community Group|
|Andrea Perego||Locations and Addresses Community Group|
|Uche Ogbuji||MicroXML Community Group|
|Brian Kardell||extensible web community group|
|Paolo Ciccarese||Open Annotation CG|
|Manu Sporny||Web Payments Community Group|
|Richard Wallis||Schema Bib Extend|
|Christophe Gueret||Development Linked Data (DLD)|
|Sangwhan Moon||Web Signage Business Group|
|David Wood||Permanent Identifier Community Group|
|Tom Breton||Argument Representation|
|Simon St.Laurent||CSS Selectors as Fragment Identifiers|
|Martín Álvarez||Open Data Spain|
|Andreas Kuckartz||Federated Social Web Community Group|
|Jonathan Corson-Rikert||VIVO Open Research Networking|
|Russell Potter||Cloud Computing Community Group|
Is your Community Group or Business Group:
|Active and ongoing and nearing completion||7|
|Inactive because it has completed its work||4|
|Active and ongoing and far from completion||14|
|Inactive because the original scope is no longer relevant or because the CG never got momentum||6|
|Responder||State of your Community Group or Business Group|
|Paul Boyes||Active and ongoing and nearing completion|
|Paola Di Maio||Active and ongoing and far from completion|
|Max Froumentin||Inactive because the original scope is no longer relevant or because the CG never got momentum|
|Roger Cutler||Inactive because the original scope is no longer relevant or because the CG never got momentum|
|Markus Lanthaler||Active and ongoing and nearing completion|
|John Cowan||Inactive because it has completed its work|
|Andrew Cooke||Inactive because the original scope is no longer relevant or because the CG never got momentum|
|Renato Iannella||Active and ongoing and nearing completion|
|David Singer||Active and ongoing and nearing completion|
|John Willson||Active and ongoing and far from completion|
|Ian Hickson||Active and ongoing and nearing completion|
|Florian Daniel||Active and ongoing and far from completion|
|Florent Georges||Active and ongoing and far from completion|
|Bart van Leeuwen||Active and ongoing and far from completion|
|Stephan Dreyer||Active and ongoing and nearing completion|
|Jean-Paul Calbimonte||Active and ongoing and far from completion|
|Andrea Perego||Active and ongoing and far from completion|
|Uche Ogbuji||Inactive because it has completed its work|
|Brian Kardell||Active and ongoing and far from completion|
|Paolo Ciccarese||Active and ongoing and far from completion|
|Manu Sporny||Active and ongoing and far from completion|
|Richard Wallis||Active and ongoing and nearing completion|
|Christophe Gueret||Inactive because the original scope is no longer relevant or because the CG never got momentum|
|Sangwhan Moon||Inactive because the original scope is no longer relevant or because the CG never got momentum|
|David Wood||Active and ongoing and far from completion|
|Tom Breton||Inactive because the original scope is no longer relevant or because the CG never got momentum|
|Simon St.Laurent||Inactive because it has completed its work|
|Martín Álvarez||Active and ongoing and far from completion|
|Andreas Kuckartz||Active and ongoing and far from completion|
|Jonathan Corson-Rikert||Active and ongoing and far from completion|
|Russell Potter||Inactive because it has completed its work|
Is the goal of your Community Group or Business Group:
|To provide a specification||18|
|To be a discussion forum for specifications done elsewhere||6|
|Other (please specify)||7|
|Responder||Goal of your Community Group or Business Group||You checked "other", please specify|
|Paul Boyes||To provide a specification|
|Paola Di Maio||To provide a specification||a high level specificationn|
|Max Froumentin||To be a discussion forum for specifications done elsewhere|
|Roger Cutler||Other (please specify)||Study and possibly demonstrate applications of Semantic Web technology to business issues in those industries. An example of the topics the Group could focus on is information describing the equipment used in major capital projects, with an eye to integration of that information with other major parts of the value chain such as production, maintenance and facilities engineering information systems. Another possibility is open publishing of catalog or metadata records according to published ontologies so that the published records can be queried, aggregated and analyzed in order to improve the efficiency and intelligence of searching for relevant resources.|
|Markus Lanthaler||To provide a specification|
|John Cowan||To provide a specification|
|Andrew Cooke||To provide a specification|
|Renato Iannella||To provide a specification|
|David Singer||To provide a specification|
|John Willson||To be a discussion forum for specifications done elsewhere|
|Ian Hickson||To provide a specification|
|Florian Daniel||To provide a specification|
|Florent Georges||To provide a specification||Actually a set of specs (some of them have already been completed, others are under development).|
|Bart van Leeuwen||Other (please specify)||Create a entry point for practisioners to find specifications|
|Stephan Dreyer||To provide a specification|
|Jean-Paul Calbimonte||To provide a specification|
|Andrea Perego||To provide a specification|
|Uche Ogbuji||To provide a specification|
|Brian Kardell||To be a discussion forum for specifications done elsewhere|
|Paolo Ciccarese||To provide a specification|
|Manu Sporny||Other (please specify)||In general, this Community Group provides an inclusive venue where web payment solutions, regardless of their origin, can be incubated, evaluated, refined, and tested. The focus of the group is to promote payment innovations based primarily on their technical merit. This approach invites competing technical designs to be submitted and incubated in the same group. The hope is that this strategy will lead to either the merging of the best aspects of each technical design, or a clear differentiation emerging between alternative designs. If specifications emerge out of this process, they're expected to be promoted to be adopted by W3C Working Groups as work items.|
|Richard Wallis||Other (please specify)||To make proposals to the Web Schemas group and then provide guidelines and discussion.|
Most proposals made, now transitioning towards a guidelines role
|Christophe Gueret||To be a discussion forum for specifications done elsewhere|
|Sangwhan Moon||To provide a specification|
|David Wood||Other (please specify)||The Permanent Identifier Community Group maintains a secure, permanent UL re-direction service for the Web located at w3id.org. Web applications that deal with Linked Data often need to specify and use URLs that are very stable.|
|Tom Breton||Other (please specify)||Per our mission statement, our goal is to "recommend" a specification,|
but we "do not necessarily commit to creating a novel" one. So either
A or B could apply.
|Simon St.Laurent||To provide a specification|
|Martín Álvarez||To be a discussion forum for specifications done elsewhere|
|Andreas Kuckartz||Other (please specify)||It mostly is a meeting place for people interested in decentralized or distributed social media.|
It likely will be replaced by a W3C Social Interest Group in the future.
|Jonathan Corson-Rikert||To be a discussion forum for specifications done elsewhere|
|Russell Potter||To provide a specification|
What are your specification transition plans?
|We have already handed off all or part of a specification to a Working Group.||1|
|We plan to request that a specification transition to a Working Group within six months.||1|
|We have a specification that is a candidate for transition to a Working Group but have no schedule yet for doing so.||9|
|We do not plan to transition a specification to a Working Group (provide details in the next question).||10|
(10 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)
|Responder||Status of the spec of your Community Group or Business Group|
|Paul Boyes||We have a specification that is a candidate for transition to a Working Group but have no schedule yet for doing so.|
|Paola Di Maio||We do not plan to transition a specification to a Working Group (provide details in the next question).|
|Markus Lanthaler||We have a specification that is a candidate for transition to a Working Group but have no schedule yet for doing so.|
|Andrew Cooke||We do not plan to transition a specification to a Working Group (provide details in the next question).|
|David Singer||We have already handed off all or part of a specification to a Working Group.|
|Bart van Leeuwen|
|Jean-Paul Calbimonte||We plan to request that a specification transition to a Working Group within six months.|
We do not expect to transition to a Working Group for the following reasons (check all that apply):
|Too early, insufficient number of implementations yet.||5|
|Too narrow, not a key part of the Open Web Platform.||1|
|A Community Group or Business Group is good enough, Working Groups have too much bureaucracy.||3|
|We suspect that key players will not want to make Working Group patent commitments.||1|
|Too many key players are not Members of W3C and would not want to follow the work into a Working Group.||2|
|Other (please specify).||4|
(15 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)
Skip to view by choice.
|Responder||No transition to a Working Group||You checked "other", please specify|
|Paola Di Maio||
||exploratory work, community is still loosely engaged so far|
maybe if one or two ears if things mature
||The W3C WG process is harmful.|
||We haven't really thought about this, but I guess the current status is good enough (I guess).|
|Bart van Leeuwen|
||We hand up ideas and proposed prollyfilled implementations to WGs and have members who participate in various roles as champions to working groups and vendors.|
||Group consists almost entirely of non-technical members, making technical discussions very difficult. Without the technical discussions completed there is no way to either generate a specification nor bring a change request to working groups and expect it to be done, the latter especially because of the fact that it's a extremely domain specific use case which most working group members care very little about.|
||We want to interact with a number of other related ontology and identifier efforts such as the HCLSIG/LLD/DatasetDescription effort, ORCID, SciENcv|
|Too early, insufficient number of implementations yet.||
|Too narrow, not a key part of the Open Web Platform.||
|A Community Group or Business Group is good enough, Working Groups have too much bureaucracy.||
|We suspect that key players will not want to make Working Group patent commitments.||
|Other (please specify).||
Please, let us us know of anything you feel is relevant to complete your answers.
|Paola Di Maio|
|Roger Cutler||Despite the good faith efforts of several people from Chevron and Statoil, the group never got enough commitment from industry subject matter experts. I have left a "Lessons Learned" document at http://www.w3.org/community/oilgaschem/wiki/OGCWG_-_Lessons_Learned|
|Markus Lanthaler||It would be great if there would be some process for community groups that want to move their specifications to Rec Track. For example, not all are lucky enough to have participation from W3C member companies.|
|John Cowan||We have a couple of implementations now but have seriously lost momentum. Creating a WG might be able to restore that.|
|Andrew Cooke||Many of our participants were not W3C members and did not want to get involved in something that could transition to a working group. For some in larger organisations, getting their legal department to review the W3C agreement was too time consuming and onerous. We carried out the discussions in LinkedIn groups instead, with around 100 participants.|
|Renato Iannella||We are still unclear on how to propose the transition|
|Ian Hickson||The correct answer to Question 3 for this group is just "Active and ongoing". Completion is a state that a good specification never reaches before it's irrelevant.|
|Florian Daniel||We are working on an implementation leveraging on the annotation format to be developed. This is ongoing work carried out in parallel with the development of the actual specification maintained in the group's wiki.|
|Bart van Leeuwen|
|Jean-Paul Calbimonte||The community group is a good option to build an interest group, have discussions, meetings, etc. But for preparing a specification, the commitment of members is a bit low. The transition to a Working group might be needed to get things going quicker. (at least in the community group I am reporting on).|
|Uche Ogbuji||There has been discussion of bringing this work to the W3C XML Core WG but I don't think we've pressed seriously on doing so yet. We probably should.|
|Manu Sporny||I have two areas of concern wrt. Community Groups:|
1. The technical community's confusion around exactly what a CG is and does at W3C (and the 3rd party misrepresentation as a result).
2. The distance W3C places between itself and CGs that are doing work vital for the long-term viability of W3C.
Confusion around CGs
One area of concern wrt. Community Groups is the confusion that most people outside of the W3C have about them. When you say W3C XYZ Community Group, people that know nothing of the difference between a CG, IG, BG, XG, or WG just drop that terminology and say "W3C XYZ Group".
For example, I've seen journalists do this multiple times even though I have told them very directly to "make sure you put the 'Community Group' language in there". Just last week one of them introduced me (I wasn't present) as the "Chairman of the W3C". This sort of glaring oversight has typically ended up w/ someone from W3C contacting me and telling me directly that I'm misrepresenting W3C, even though I did no such thing. I try very hard to make it clear that a CG is engaged in "not officially sanctioned" work (which is frustrating in it's own right because it's one of the hardest things to do at W3C - start something new). W3C's response is also demoralizing to the community: "Oh, anyone can start a Community Group." (said in a condescending tone, as W3C distances itself from any group that's even remotely controversial).
This sort of behavior by W3C staff has happened multiple times during the Web Payment CG's existence, and it's very frustrating. It's led to W3C member companies using misstatements in the press to put pressure on our group via W3C staffers. I do admit that not everything we've said in public was perfect. There have been errors on my (our) side. When an error has occured, however, Ian Jacobs and I worked together (successfully) to correct the issues. I thought things were resolved.
However, a W3C staff member cornered me at the Web Payments Workshop and let me know that W3M continues to believe that I continue to misrepresent W3C. We had a very heated and condescending exchange about it. I kept reassuring the W3C staffer that I was doing everything in my power to try and represent the complexities of the interrelationships between the W3C member companies, W3C staff, WGs, and the Web Payments CG. The staffer kept reiterating that I wasn't doing that. When I asked the staffer why no one else in W3C was raising the issue with me, he said that W3M wasn't saying anything about their disagreement with the way things were operating because "they're nicer than I am".
W3C Ambivalence Toward CGs
So, now I'm concerned that W3C is saying things to other groups about the Web Payments work that is going to ultimately harm what we're attempting to achieve (which is a set of payment standards for the Web). I know of one instance where we were invited to speak at the IETF about Web Payments and all of a sudden were not invited to speak at the IETF. My concern (which we'll never be able to verify) is that someone at W3C convinced someone at IETF to drop me from the speaker list and invite someone else instead.
This sort of doubt is toxic to standards and consensus building. I knew there were problems, but I thought they were taken care of. The W3C staffer has told me that they're not taken care of. So, now I don't know what to think other than I can't really count on W3C to tell me when something is wrong. Either I'm thankful to the W3C staffer for telling me the truth, or I'm concerned that that particular staff member is in W3C, poisoning the well.
I understand why the W3C Community Groups are a great deal for W3C. You incubate technologies and are able to attract new members (and advance the Web, in the best case) while being able to politically distance yourself from bad actors by stating that the groups "aren't official". The unfortunate downside of that strategy is that you inevitably end up treating the leaders of those groups like pariahs, which trickles into what the group feels about W3C.
There are a number of Web Payments CG members now that are annoyed at the ambivalence shown towards the group by W3C, even though I've been pretty consistently defending some of the decisions W3C has made over the past several years to those doubting the organization. Some are convinced that W3C isn't clued in at all wrt. the payments and identity stuff (except for Dave Raggett, Wendy Seltzer, and Stephane Boyera). It's worse than "No W3C Support". In some cases it has felt like, at best, W3C staff was ambivalent, and worse, they were actively working against us (as in the IETF un-invite case).
There are a few things I can think of that may improve the situation:
1. Be proactive and honest with the CGs about what the W3C/member orgs think about them and resolve issues quickly. Don't let a CG learn about an issue through a W3C staffer back-channel.
2. Make sure to internalize the fact that W3C's future depends, in part, on these CGs. Treat the work that they're doing accordingly because the return (huge) on investment (miniscule) that W3C is getting is substantial.
3. Provide a guide for how CGs should use particular language. e.g. "Do not say that you work on specifications". PayPal, via W3C, forced us to remove any mention that we're working on specifications on our community page even though W3C continues to use that language when discussing W3C CGs (you even do it in this poll).
4. Apply the guides evenly across all CGs. For example, some CGs can say they're working on "specifications". The Web Payments CG is prohibited from doing so because of one particular W3C member organization.
I understand that this is new to all of us and it'll take time to work out the kinks. Hopefully the bits above will help move us in that direction.
|Christophe Gueret||We had some difficulties gaining momentum and I myself take part of several other groups where I hardly contribute anything. I wonder how successful groups that are active manage(d) to get things up and running, could be a good idea to do a best practices or tips&tricks guide for community/business groups.|
|Sangwhan Moon||The goal of a business group is extremely unclear, and the lack of proper technical discussions happening within the group (certain group members explicitly asked to not go to deep into technical discussions) makes the meetings/discussion have no particular goal to aim for.|
I believe the direction of business groups should be properly chartered to be able to produce useful technical outcome, rather than sit around a table and discuss abstract ideas to justify a meeting for the sake of a meeting.
|Simon St.Laurent||We have been basically on pause - not very much has changed in the last year, but the spec itself is largely complete. It didn't seem like there was a good home for this work. It uses CSS, but is more about hypertext, in a context that isn't necessarily the HTML group's focus.|
With the recent workshop on annotation, I'm hoping that there may be something emerging in the W3C that could give this a home as a small part of its work.
|Martín Álvarez||Although this group is not very active, up to date, this group is useful as a mechanism for Spanish organizations to adopt standards.|
|Andreas Kuckartz||We are waiting for the creation of the new Social Interest Group and the Working Groups!|
|Jonathan Corson-Rikert||The process of becoming a group member -- the questions asked about representing one's employer -- is still seen as intimidating by many prospective members. I understand the reasons for this when groups are intended for specification development but I believe this hurdle continues to inhibit participation|