See also W3C's PAS Submission FAQ for more information about W3C's ISO/IEC JTC 1 Submitter status.
And see also our first renewall application after 2 years (the other will be 5 years)
Scope of the application: Any stable core Web technologies produced by W3C that are also in scope of JTC 1. The list includes globally accepted standards such as HTML, CSS, XML, Web Services, Web Accessibility, Semantic Web, Mobile Web, Graphics, etc.
First PAS: W3C is in the process of identifying which of our specifications will form our initial submission(s). We expect to identify these before the end of 2010 if our status is approved. We also expect to send several of our specifications as packages, to be reviewed together as forming an interrelated and integrated sub-stack (e.g. for Web Services, SOAP + WS Addressing + WS Policy).
There should be evidence of a cooperative attitude toward open dialog, and a stated objective of pursuing standardization in the JTC 1 arena. The JTC 1 community will reciprocate in similar ways, and in addition, will recognize the organization's contribution to international standards. It is JTC 1's intention to avoid any divergence between the JTC 1 revision of a transposed PAS and a version published by the originator. Therefore, JTC 1 invites the submitter to work closely with JTC 1 in revising or amending a transposed PAS. There should be acceptable proposals covering the following categories and topics.
W3C is an international consortium designed to lead the Web to its full potential. In order to fulfill its mission, W3C has focused on developing interoperable technologies (standards, guidelines, software, and tools) for the World Wide Web, with participation from its Members, staff, and the public at large. XML, HTML, http, URL, Web Services, WAI, Semantic Web, etc, and all technologies produced by W3C are used by all, positioning the Consortium as a major player in the standardization field.
W3C has based its work on the principles of universality, openness, transparency, technology excellence, and consistent architecture.
Over the years, W3C has served the world by identifying critical issues and technologies, and working with the community to come up with standards to ensure the long term growth of the Web. Since 1996 W3C has published more than 140 Web standards, called Recommendations, that are widely used by million of authors and developers over the world. At this time W3C only intends to submit specifications that are W3C Recommendations. W3C has some discussions underway that may lead to other classes of specifications that have comparable levels of review and stability and may update its submission status in the future to include other classes of specifications.
See http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-date-stds for our current of W3C standards sorted by date.
W3C and JTC 1 already have several active liaisons in various technical areas, and W3C is an JTC 1 ARO since 2007, meaning that JTC 1 specifications can normatively reference ours.
In order to provide adequate lines of communication between the W3C group(s) and people working on our specifications and the JTC1 committees interested in the area, during and after PAS transposition, we expect to solidify these existing liaisons and rely on the presence of a W3C/JTC1 specific liaison (i.e. create it if it doesn't exist yet) for any W3C specifications going through PAS.
a) What working
agreements have been provided, how comprehensive are they?
b) How manageable are the proposed working
agreements (e.g. understandable, simple, direct, devoid of legalistic language
except where necessary)?
c) What is the attitude toward creating and using working
agreements?
W3C has shown evidence of its desire to work with other organizations by forming both informal working relationships as well as formal liaisons with dozens of other SDOs since it was created in 1994. We currently have C liaison relationship with a number of JTC 1 subcommittees: SC 2, SC 24, SC 29, SC 34, as well as with the SWG on Accessibility and ISO TC 68.
W3C always welcomes the creation of new liaisons with ISO/IEC TC and JTC 1 SC interested in using our technologies and will make sure there is an appropriate liaison in place before and during the transposition process.
Please see the online resource at http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison
a) What is the
willingness and resource availability to conduct ongoing maintenance,
interpretation, and 5 year revision cycles
following JTC 1 approval (see also 5.2.5)?
b) What level of willingness and resources are available to facilitate
specification progression during the transposition process (e.g., technical
clarification and normal document
editing)?
W3C intends to continue the maintenance of its completed and approved specifications even after submission for approval under the JTC 1 process. While some of our Working Groups responsible for our specs have completed their work and have been closed, most remain active for some period of time after approval of their work as W3C Recommendation, either to continue revision or to encourage implementation, produce test suites, etc.
We will submit our work with the understanding that we will continue maintenance of the specification ourselves; for implementation purposes, it is essential that the specifications approved by JTC 1 remain strictly aligned to the W3C text as it evolves. In the unusual situation where W3C agrees to stop maintenance of one of its specification going through PAS transposition, it will be explicitly mentioned in the PAS submission.
We understand that there is a JTC 1 process to handle defect reports which may be submitted via National Bodies, and we welcome the production of any corrigenda to be incorporated in the next revision. The responsible SC in liaison with the W3C group in charge of the PAS will analyse the exact nature of the suggested changes and coordinate with the W3C for integration.
W3C will be willing to participate in the five-year review as appropriate and would like to understand exactly what format/constraint it will have to produce/follow to convert its specifications in the final IS layout, in particular with respect to accessibility, internationalization, and hypertext capabilities, if these versions are to be accessible freely online, as expected.
a) What are the
expectations of the proposer toward technical and editorial changes to
the specification during the transposition
process?
b) How flexible is the proposing organization toward using only portions
of the proposed specification or adding supplemental material to
it?
At this point, W3C will only submit work completed and approved under the W3C technical process for approval by JTC 1 with the understanding that these W3C Recommendations will either be approved as-is by JTC 1 or rejected. This is for purpose of keeping the W3C-approved and JTC 1-approved specifications identical.
Comments and suggestions raised during the transposition review process will be fed back to the W3C process for future action, in a spirit of cooperation similar to what is described in 7.3.1.2 above. In particular, if a PAS reviewer identifies a technical error posing a problem to existing implementation, we expect that the SC in liaison will communicate issues to the responsible W3C group. Some editorial changes may be acceptable on a case by case basis, depending on the W3C existing activity in the area of this PAS.
With respect to b), W3C wants to avoid the fragmentation of its standards, whether by removing functionalities, adding features, or reassembling pieces into new work. This is considered derivative work and is protected by our Document copyright, and as such, should be addressed on a specific base for each case. W3C being an ARO (Approved Reference specification Originator), JTC1 specifications can already make normative references to our specifications.
In the case of a package of W3C specifications being sent as one PAS, e.g. for Web Services, SOAP + WS Policy + WS Addressing, or HTML + CSS + DOM, removing any part of the package will have to be negotiated during the transposition, with W3C retaining the right to remove the PAS altogether or accepted the partial removal (additional constraints may be specified in each PAS Explanatory Report).
a) What are the
intentions of the proposing organization toward future additions, extensions, deletions or modifications to the
specification? Under what conditions? When? Rationale?
b) What willingness exists to work with JTC 1 on future versions in order to
avoid divergence? Note that the answer to this question is particularly
relevant in cases where doubts may exist about the openness of the submitter
organization.
c) What is the scope of the organization activities relative to
specifications similar to butbeyond that being
proposed?
As above (see 7.3.1.3) W3C expects that its PAS submissions be approved as-is, or rejected altogether, and that any comments or requests for change be submitted to the W3C using our normal channels of feedback, including the SC liaisons in place. The rationale for this policy is to prevent divergence, i.e., to prevent the possibility of there being two versions of the same specification, one from W3C and one from JTC 1, in circulation.
The intent of W3C is, after approval of a W3C specification by JTC 1, to submit further versions of the same work to JTC 1 for approval, or to notify JTC 1 of our intent to stop maintaining a given specification (this will be announced in the PAS Explanatory Report). Appropriate liaisons established between the W3C group(s) in charge of the specifications and the applicable JTC 1 SCs will work together to schedule the future transposition agenda of their PAS.
Regarding c), the scope of our PAS submitter application is potentially all our standardization work, so there is nothing "beyond" that in principle. In addition to W3C Recommendations (standards), W3C produces other technical reports that are not full Web standards. These include white papers, statements, tools, tutorials, outreach materials, etc. It is not W3C's intention to submit other than Recommendations to JTC 1 at this time.
The PAS should have originated in a stable body that uses reasonable processes forachieving broad consensus among many parties. The PAS owner should demonstrate theopenness and non-discrimination of the process which is used to establish consensus, andit should declare any ongoing commercial interest in the specification either as anorganization in its own right or by supporting organizations such as revenue from salesor royalties.
a) What processes
and procedures are used to achieve consensus, by small groups and by the
organization in its entirety?
b) How easy or difficult is it for interested
parties, e.g., business entities, individuals, or government representatives to
participate?
c) What criteria are used to determine "voting" rights in the process of
achieving consensus?
Most W3C work revolves around the standardization of Web technologies. To accomplish this work, W3C follows processes that promote the development of high-quality standards based on public community consensus. Although the W3C process includes two elections (for populating its Technical and Advisory boards), the standard development track itself is not based on vote but purely on consensus.
All stakeholders can have a voice in the development of W3C standards, including Members large and small, private or public sector organizations, who can join with no discrimination, as well as the public, through mandatory quarterly public dissemination of work in progress by all working groups, or as invited experts. Each Member organization pays a membership fee proportional to its size and its world bank region (e.g. an organization in Mali would pay 15% of the European fee), but they all have the same rights once inside.
The W3C Process Document, Member Agreement, Patent Policy, and a few other documents establish the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in the making of W3C standards.
Some key components/definitions of the organization are:
And here is a general overview of how W3C standardizes a Web technology. In many cases, the deliverable of this work is a W3C Recommendation, the W3C nomenclature for a Web Standard.
W3C usually runs open workshops (events with a open call for papers) to identify new areas of work.
An Activity Proposal describes the scope, duration, and other characteristics of the intended work, and includes the charters of one or more groups (with requirements, deliverables, liaisons, etc) to carry out the work.
There are three types of Working Group participants: Member representatives, Invited Experts, and Team representatives. Team representatives both contribute to the technical work and help ensure the group's proper integration with the rest of W3C.
The W3C process for producing specification includes significant review by the Members and public (every 3 months all drafts have to be made public on our Web site w3.org), and requirements that the Working Group be able to show implementation and interoperability experience.
The Process Document promotes the goals of quality and fairness in technical decisions by encouraging consensus, requiring reviews (by both Members and public) as part of the standard development process, obliging the WG to respond to all comments.
Participation in the day-to-day activities of the working groups developing specifications is either completely public (e.g. HTML5) or reserved to member (open to all organizations for a fee) and invited experts from the public. Each group/committee may decide which mode it used, but all groups observe requirements for public accountability (e.g., there are public review requirements and there are requirements for regular publications).
See http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
a) What is the
extent of and support from (technical commitment) active members of the
organization?
b) How well is the
organization recognized by the interested/affected industry?
c) How long has the organization been functional
(beyond the initial establishment period) and what are the future expectations
for continued existence?
d) What sort of legal business entity is the
organization operating under?
W3C is an international organization, with Members (from all sectors), staff, and regional representatives on all continents. W3C Recommendations, as implemented by the market, are used by all Web users (e.g. HTML, XML, CSS, WAI, Web Services).
Around 1500 participants are involved in standardization and related activities in areas such as Web Design and Applications, Semantic Web, Accessibility, eGovernment, Mobile Web, and more. W3C has become an important forum for agreement between many stakeholders, and its activities rely on a carefully crafted equilibrium between organizations (companies, not-for-profit and hosting institutions) and people (staff, individual contributors and the public at large).
W3C does not have a typical organizational structure, nor is it incorporated as a separate legal entity.
In Administrative terms: W3C was established in 1994-96 and is administered via a joint agreement private contract among three "Host Institutions": MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (MIT CSAIL) in the USA, the European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics (ERCIM) headquartered in France, and Keio University in Japan.
The W3C staff (many of whom are employed and work physically at one of these institutions) is about 50 people, led by a Director (Tim Berners-Lee) and a CEO (Jeffrey Jaffe). A small management team is responsible for resource allocation and strategic planning on behalf of the staff, and it is being advised by a W3C member elected body, the W3C Advisory Board. Regional offices (close to twenty) play an important role in W3C being an international organization and provide valuable staffing in various places to do W3C outreach.
The organization is requested to make known their position on the items listed below. In particular, there shall be a written statement of willingness of the organization and its members, if applicable, to comply with the ISO/IEC patent policy in reference to the PAS under consideration. Note: Each JTC 1 National Body should investigate and report the legal implications of this section.
a) How willing
are the organization and its members to meet the ISO/IEC policy on these
matters?
b) What patent rights, covering
any item of the proposal, is the PAS owner aware of?
In February 2004, W3C adopted a Patent Policy (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/) to enable continued innovation and widespread adoption of Web standards developed by the World Wide Web Consortium.
The W3C Patent Policy is designed to promote the widespread implementation of those Recommendations on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis and address issues related to patents that arise during and after the development of a Recommendation. The W3C PP makes an exception for disclosure obligations if an RF commitment is given. In this case, no further disclosure is required.
There does not appear to be any conflict between the W3C Patent Policy and its practices and the ISO/IEC/ITU policy, since the W3C RF principles are stronger than the RAND requirements imposed by ISO in terms of lowering barrier for trade and innovation.
Nevertheless, W3C will identify to JTC 1, as part of each individual PAS submission, any IPR disclosures which have brought to its attention in relation to the submission and according to our Patent Policy.
a) What
copyrights have been granted relevant to the subject
specification(s)?
b) What copyrights, including those on
implementable code in the specification, is the PAS originator willing to
grant?
c) What conditions, if any, apply (e.g., copyright
statements, electronic labels, logos)?
W3C has established a framework of policies, terms and conditions that govern its production. See http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal
The Document License governs documents such as W3C Recommendations submitted to PAS and it already gives permission to copy, and distribute the contents of this document, or the W3C document from which this statement is linked, in any medium for any purpose and without fee or royalty, provided that a link to the original W3C document with mention of its own copyright notice is included.
This licence as presented and in use gives no right to create modifications or derivatives of W3C documents without explicit authorization on a case-by-case basis (including translations) but it allows for PAS transposition providing no change are made to the document and the references above are included, which is the general spirit of our cooperation (see 7.3.1.4).
We expect that each individual PAS submission will include explicit wording allowing the necessary ISO/IEC JTC 1 copyright wrappers around the W3C technical content and explaining that W3C takes responsibility for maintenance and reserves its right to revise or not to revise the PAS specification.
W3C understands JTC 1's desire to be able to maintain PAS specifications in the event that a PAS source organization ceases to exist or to work in the area. W3C is willing to convey a license in that spirit of cooperation. W3C expects that for such time as we (or our designated successor organization) is in existence, copyright matters controlling the change control of each technical specification will be managed by us, unless otherwise mentioned in the PAS submission, and that JTC 1 will have the right to publish the W3C specs in all normal JTC 1 channels of distribution, including with the National ISO members.
a) What
distribution rights exist and what are the terms of use?
b) What degree of flexibility exists relative to
modifying distribution rights; before the transposition process is complete,
after transposition completion?
c) Is dual/multiple publication and/or distribution
envisaged, and if so, by whom?
W3C distributes all its specifications (whether final, Recommendation, or draft) through its Web site, including translations, for free on www.w3.org and we ask that W3C Recommendations going successfully through PAS be also available on the ISO Web site at no cost as well, which is the normal JTC1 process for JTC1 freely available standards (e.g. OASIS ODF).
Authorized Translations of W3C specifications are managed by a specific W3C process involving a Lead Translator Organization role that could easily be assigned the ISO National member. See http://www.w3.org/2005/02/TranslationPolicy.html.
The rights to distribute the W3C specifications, going through PAS or not, for free or not, and to translate them, are equally granted to ISO/IEC JTC 1 and to the ISO members, provided that the normative English version is available for free online and that any other versions link to it.
Finally, we ask to be allocated a block of consecutive ISO/IEC standard numbers (e.g. 40000 to 40500), enough for at least 300 PAS (given that we're producing them at a rate of 10 per year and already have close to 150 Recommendation published) for the purpose of readily identifying W3C standards resulting from PAS (similar to what OMG got as PAS submitter)
a) What
trademarks apply to the subject specification?
b) What are the conditions for use and are they to be transferred to ISO/IEC in
part or in their entirety?
The W3C hosts (MIT, ERCIM, Keio) already grant the right to use the W3C Trademarks (and logo) provided that they are clearly identified as the "W3C (MIT, ERCIM, Keio)" and under conditions such as :
Given that those constraints will be respected in a transposition, we do not foresee any issue here. We will add W3C in front of our Recommendation short names, e.g. submission of "W3C SOAP 1.2.", to easily keep track of our Recommendation going through PAS.
W3C also makes available a number of logos for technologies it produces that can be re-used for co-branding if desired or necessary.
a) What
original contributions (outside the above IPR categories) (e.g., documents,
plans, research papers, tests, proposals) need consideration in terms of
ownership and recognition?
b) What financial considerations are
there?
c) What legal considerations are there?
W3C Recommendations often come with test suites, validators, primers, and other support material. These are freely available on our site, and are not normative in nature, so they do not need to be submitted, and we do not intend to submit them to JTC 1, on the assumption that it will be easy to find them on our site.
It is worth nothing that all our Recommendations contain a Normative References section which details the dependencies on other standards, which should ease the review for this important criteria.
W3C is unaware of any financial or legal considerations related to the transposition of our Recommendation going through PAS.
Here are all the pages linked to w3.org in the above document (explicitly labeled as URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/tr-date-stds, http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison, http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/, http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/, http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal).