Editor: Johan Hjelm, Ericsson, Visiting Engineer to the W3C
Johan Hjelm, June 22, 1999
See also:
Proposed working group charter for issues concerning IPR, working group structure and meetings, etc.
Schedule for deliverables for issues concerning delivery dates, project planning, etc.
Process document questions, and answers
Today, the content delivered to a Web client may be influenced by the technical capabilities of this client (e.g. which version of HTML it supports), and by the preferences of the Web client´s user (e.g. which language the user prefers). However, standards-based technology to define a comprehensive set of both technical capabilities and user preferences at a particular client is lacking, leading to ad-hoc solutions such as the so-called "user agent sniffing".
The advent of new devices on the Web such as wireless phones, TV set top boxes, and other devices with distinct and restricted capabilities, will increase the number of different Web clients significantly. It is unlikely that today´s ad-hoc solutions are scalable enough to deal with this increase in the number of clients. A standards-based solution for describing the technical capabilities and user´s preferences at a particular Web client is needed, so that the appropriate content can be sent to this client.
The W3C Mobile Access Interest Group has developed a technology, described in two W3C Notes, for an RDF-based solution to for describing user agent capabilities and user preferences.
This Briefing Package proposes to establish a Working Group to develop these Notes into W3C Recommendations.
The working group will specify a structure in RDF and a schema for the context information. It will also present a base vocabulary, and a model describing how trust can be shared in this framework. The working group will also develop guidelines for how to implement the mechanisms, and for how to extend the schema and vocabulary; and create new vocabularies.
This Briefing Package extends the original Briefing Package for the Mobile Access Activity in scope by adding a new working group, and in duration until November 2000.
Work in this area has been conducted in several organisations, as well as the W3C:
We propose the creation of a working group within the mobile activity of the W3C, to develop specifications and guidelines for the components needed to create a structure for context negotiation.
The working group will work with other groups in the W3C and outside, to achieve an industry-wide standard. It will work within the framework of those standards developed by the W3C.
There is an expressed and immediate need in several W3C groups, e.g. the Mobile Access Interest Group, the TV & Web Interest Group, the HTML working group, the CSS working group, and the SYMM working group, to use a standardized framework to describe devices and capabilities.
Outside the W3C, the WAP Forum has expressed interest in using the system in the context of mobile devices. The broadcast TV community faces a similar problem as does the WAP Forum; and has expressed interest in using this framework. CC/PP has also been used in some experimental agent systems.
The intent is for the working group to work with the IETF Content Negotiation Working Group, including its vocabulary and algebra as one of the vocabularies and schemas which can be included in the structure. The intent is for the two systems to coexist, although the IETF system can be used within the CC/PP-SS (Client Capabilities/Preferences Profile Structure and Schema).
Overall, the goal is for the Working Group to be fairly small, and for the members to commit to a substantial amount of work. See further the proposed charter, section 4.
Since the specifications developed by the CC/PP working group is intended for use in several other groups in the W3C, it is important to establish additional mechanisms for the exchange and flow of information.
For each working group in the W3C that requires information from the CC/PP working group, a member of the working group will be appointed as liaison. The role of the liaison will be to feed back the development work from the CC/PP working group to his liaison responsibility, and to capture and feed back requirements from that group to the CC/PP working group.
The working group will produce a set of specifications, which will be its main deliverables. Specifications will be published in draft format on the W3C web site as working drafts at least every three months (see the proposed schedule), and made available for external review by interested parties.
Specifically, the working group will have the following deliverables:
During the work, the group will continously establish connections in the industry to create dissemination mechanisms for the distribution of results and information, and encourage implementation in different communities.
The specifications produced by this working group will be published as W3C Recommendations or Notes, as applicable. However, as other groups outside the W3C traditionally require formal standards to implement a specification (e.g. the mobile community), the working group will work towards standardizing its specifications in a formal standardization body such as through the ETSI, or the ISO and the IETF. This may require an external liaison process, including early review of the specifications.
The intent is to take the specification to a formal standards body for standardization. Already, ETSI has expressed interest in including it in version 2 of MExE Classmark 1, the standard specifying an executable environment for mobile devices. To achieve this, more work concerning trust models and security than in normal W3C Recommendation work is necessary.
The Working Group will have the following members:
| Function | % of full time allocated | Main responsibilities |
| Editor (s) | 25 | Editorial work, specifications coordination |
| Staff contact | 25 | External and internal liaison |
| Member(s) | 25 | Liaison with W3C working groups (see 3.2.1), specification work |
The Chair must be willing to allocate up to 40 % of one man-year to the project.
The Editor and the Members of the working group must be willing to allocate 25 % of one man-year per participant.
Work in member companies, like implementation work, is expected to take place outside the resources allocated to the working group.
Members who wish to participate need to allocate ample resources for teleconferences travel to face-to-face meetings.
The W3C resource time commitments consist of the following:
| Person | % of person-year | Principal activity |
|---|---|---|
| Johan Hjelm | 40 |
Chair |
| Hidetaka Ohto | 30 |
Specification and document editing |
| W3C Communications staff | 5 |
Communication of deliverables |
| W3C Architectural Domain management | 5 |
General management issues |
| W3C systems staff | 5 |
Systems maintenance |
| Total | 85 |
More material related to the discussion in this briefing package is summarized on the CC/PP Further Reading Page.
Johan Hjelm, W3C/Ericsson, <hjelm@w3.org>
An Activity summary. What is the nature of the Activity (e.g., to track developments, create a specification, develop code, organize pilot experiments, education, etc.)? Who or what group wants this (providers, users, etc.)?
This activity is mainly requested by providers of mobile information equipment, but interest also exists in the area of broadcast television. See also section 1 and section 3.1.
Context information. Why is this Activity being proposed now? What is the market within the area of the proposal? Who or what currently exists in the market? Is the market mature/growing/developing a niche? What competing technologies exist? What competing organizations exist?
This Activity is proposed now, because work is going on in several organisations (WAP Forum, IETF) that can be unified. The market is considerable, if this can get implemented in broadcast TV sets and mobile telephones; but it can of course also be used as a plug-in in any browser which allows for this. The market is developing at this moment. Competing technologies are so far only the IETF proposals, but there is no direct competition since the IETF work can be encompassed by this work. There is also a considerable need to coordinate the work with the P3P work in the W3C. No organisation that has the ability to unify these markets in the same way as the W3C exists.
A description of the Activity's scope. How might a potential Recommendation interact and overlap with existing international standards and Recommendations? What organizations are likely to be affected by potential overlap? What must be changed if the process is put into place?
See the proposed charter, section 1; and concerning standards, section 3.3.3 Standardization in this document.
The proposed Recommendation will interact with the IETF standards, and partly overlap them. It will affect the WAP Forum, IETF, and organisations in the broadcast TV area; this is the reason for the external information process described in section 3.2.1 Additional mechanisms for information exchange. This can be handled within the current W3C Process; the only thing needed is extra resources from the members.
The work of the CC/PP Working Group is at once broader and more simple than the work undertaken in the IETF Content Negotiation working group. It is broader, since its scope is broader, the IETF standard only taking device capabilities into account, and not user preferences. Neither does the IETF work concern itself with multiple vocabularies. It is simpler, since it will use RDF, not a specific algebra such as that developed by the IETF Content Negotiation Working group. This means that there need not be a special parser, but that the CC/PP system can use existing RDF parsers (to use IETF framework, you would possibly have to develop a specific parser for each vocabulary). Mixing vocabularies and schemas in the same framework is also not possible. The IETF framework also has no concept of overrides, using its algebra for the same purpose.
A description of the Activity's initial deployment, including who will be the Activity lead and what groups will be created initially to pursue the Activity. Provisional charters for these groups must be included in the briefing package. The date of the first face-to-face meeting of a proposed group must be included in the briefing package. The date of the first face-to-face meeting of a proposed group may be no sooner than eight weeks after the date of the Activity proposal to the Advisory Committee.
Only one group will be created in addition to the existing groups; see the proposed Working Group Charter. Concerning dates for meetings etc., see the proposed schedule of activities.
A summary of resources (Member, Team, administrative, etc.) that will be dedicated to the Activity. The briefing package may specify the threshold level of effort that Members must pledge in order for the Activity to be accepted.
See sections 4.1 Member resources, and 4.2 W3C Resources.
Intellectual property information. What intellectual property (for example, an implementation) must be available for licensing and is this intellectual property available for a reasonable fee and in a non-discriminatory manner? The briefing package should remind AC representatives to disclose IPR claims according to W3C's IPR policy.
No intellectual property that covers this work has been brought to light until the present date. For disclosure and other IPR management aspects, see the proposed charter, section 6, IPR.
Timeline and schedule. The timeline must include the following: The deadline for review. The expected duration of the Activity. Other critical dates or events.
A list of supporters, references, etc. What community will benefit from this Activity? Are members of this community part of W3C now? Will they join the effort?
See the Proposed Reading page and section 2, Current status. Considering who will benefit, see section 3.1 Market for the work. The WAP Forum has already pledged to join this effort; other groups have not been approached, since this Activity has not been officially proposed.