06 Jan 2011


See also: IRC log


Jeff Waters and Don McGarry
Jeff Waters


<scribe> Scribe: Jeff Waters

<scribe> ScribeNick:jeffw

Status and Deliverables

jeffw: Points for summary and discussion include (a) w3c process for incubators and working groups; (b) interest and participation; (c) web foundational v. verticals; (d) future vision
... A point of reference for our discussion is http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/REC-track.html, which describes that the incubator concept includes an option that has the potential to efficiently transition to a recommendation track working group.
... Eva and Piotr, hello
... I apologize that there appears to be a W3C telecon number problem

<eblomqvi> hi, I am trying to call in but I just get the message that the code is not valid

<eblomqvi> ah, yes...

jeffw: We don't have a phone line for today

<eblomqvi> ok

jeffw: I can actually give you another number, but it would be long distance for you, is that a problem?

<eblomqvi> I think that's ok for me, I'm calling via Skype anyway and it is usually not so expensive

<Piotr> Hi! I'm also using Skype

jeffw: Ok, let me grab it, and we can at least have some initial discussion, if it's a problem, hang one moment ...

ok, I just sent an email with the phone number and passcode

<eblomqvi> that's a Us number right? so I dial 1 first?

jeffw: yes
... Thanks Piotr and Eva
... (Jeff summarizes the W3C process)
... The link for describing how incubators can become standards-track working groups is http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/REC-track.html
... (summarized issues: verticals v. foundational, )

erin: Depends on the definition of foundational, rdf etc. enable that, anything done with that is perhaps defined as vertical, since we express decision-making concepts using lower-level foundation tools
... but everyone is using these things, so I think it does apply to decision-making

eblomqvi: I'm not sure how the W3C views this, but I can see where our decision work is foundational, it's not specific to any application or organization


jeffw: (summarized final report, tools, draft format deliverables)

eblomqvi: I like the practical use cases and modeling, but the final report should also include an overview of the state-of-the-art, and we've had people summarize some of that, this would be a nice addition
... also a review of what people have been saying in the research and this would give more weight and credibility to the report.

jeffw: Do you have a thought for how best to proceed?

eblomqvi: Not a huge amount of work, one of us could put the things that you know about and papers you've read, and we start with the invited people, we list all of those and what things we know about and everybody else can fill in things
... I can't take on much over next two or three weeks, but I could do some literature search and everyone could fill in.

jeffw: I appreciate your contributions and willingness to help lead this.

Erin: Yes, at our company, we could contribute some thoughts on the security aspects. There is also need-to-know, etc. and maybe incorporating all of those aspects would be useful.

Piotr: I have made some notes and I will contribute them as well when ready. I sent you an email with some notes on a draft question pattern that we can discuss at our future meetings.

eblomqvi: It is very nice that you are making these patterns and you can certainly contribute to the final report, but we could devote a future meeting to putting these patterns together.

Piotr: This is a good idea. We should summarize.

Jill: Hi, Jeff, I wanted to say that I've been on the call for a short while.

jeffw: Thanks Jill. We learned a lot from your overview of your research work at the last meeting and we're excited to include as much of those insights as possible in our final report and related work, if that makes sense?

Jill: Yes.

jeffw: Thanks everyone for participating and we will probably have a meeting next week to get on the W3C telecon schedule, which I believe reset at the beginning of the calendar year.
... I will summarize below some of the points made during the meeting which I had trouble capturing at the moment:
... (1) Our incubator activity is roughly 9 months into the one year scheduled for incubator groups. Incubators are designed to allow W3C members to explore requirements, use cases, and to discuss/brainstorm other aspects of a topic that may or may not lead to a standards-track working group.
... Our incubator activity work was defined in a charter, see http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/decision/charter, and our deliverables include a final report, a potential standard ontology, examples, and potentially prototype tools using the ontology.

(2) Our final report outline is on our main wiki page, but we might also want to draft the report in the form of a follow-on paper to our position paper. The final report should potentially include introduction, background and need, scope, use cases, requirements, issues & challenges, ontological patterns & solutions, sample decision ontology, representation formats, examples, candidate tools for instrumentation, examples, recommendations, and conclusion.

(3) Eva recommended amid general consensus that including a section in the final report on state-of-the-art would be an important addition.

(4) Perhaps our three main tasks are to (a) draft the final report; (b) bring our patterns together for a draft decision format; and (c) finish the design (and any potential implementation) of tools that help demonstrate the usefulness and significance of the format.

(5) We have roughly 3 months left in our incubator, which, if we meet every other week is approximately 6 meetings. The suggestion for scheduling is to use the next two meetings to review any remaining patterns and bringing them together and finish any tool design,

The next two meetings will be used to finish the draft final report and to determine the future plans, including any potential interest in working group activity. The final two meetings will be to finish up and approve the deliverables.

(5) We've benefited greatly from and much appreciate the participation of our invited experts. We look forward to including their insights on matters such as security, formats, and levels of decision-making.

(6) We should consider the future for this work. After we conclude the incubator, we could work independently or together outside the W3C, we could join a related working group if one exists to share our interests in that forum, or we could consider forming a working group on the standards (recommendation) track.

The W3C process is well documented on their website, see for example the information at http://www.w3.org/Guide. There is a brief summary of the process for moving from an incubator activity to a working group at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/REC-track.html.

(7) A key issue for us is how our work fits into the overall W3C mission and scope. As stated at http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html, the W3C mission is to lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing protocols and guidelines that ensure the long-term growth of the Web. The core principles are (a) available to all regardless of geography, culture, or physical ability; (b) web accessible on any device;

(c) web supporting rich communication and interaction; (d) web as a giant repository of linked data and/or linked services; and (e) web support for trust, including privacy and security.

(8) The W3C standards are foundational, so they are not domain specific. They apply generally supporting improved interaction for all participants across the web.

(9) The W3C is interested in supporting "verticals", which represent the stacked levels of standards needed to support given domains; however, the foundational components are the focus.

(10) The question is whether the decision work is more vertically oriented or foundational. The argument for foundational is that a domain-independent decision standard format would support all users across domains, that decision are core to web activities, that decision-making is simply a slightly higher level of foundation, that a decision standard would utilize and show the significance of linked open data and semantic standards in a way that is underst

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2011/01/06 17:14:51 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: Jeff Waters
Found ScribeNick: jeffw

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Jill Piotr ScribeNick eblomqvi erin jeffw
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/decision/wiki/Decision_Mtg_19_Agenda
Got date from IRC log name: 06 Jan 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/01/06-decision-xg-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]