<shepazu> scribenick: shepazu
plh: once we've established something as core, how do we differentiate between that and other activities?
to standardize a universal open platform for data, documents and applications on the Web that is suitable for human to machine and machine to machine interaction.
plh: and what are we not doing now that we should be?
... what does it mean to "bring the web to its full potential"?
... how do people like this wording?
jfa: ultimately, it's for human-to-human communication
... you said in your email that things on the public web were the priority, what about the private web?
plh: things on the private web may not be core, but we can still meet specific use cases
<plh> shepazu: the more people eye into the platform and use it outside its private context, the better network effect it will have
shepazu: so, there is a blurry line between public and private
<plh> jfa: any data can have a destiny over time, so private and public are important. it's important we can go from private to public over time,
jfa: it's important that we can change between public to private
plh: so, now we know what we are trying to achieve, we can focus on what we are going to do to to accomplish this.... we will discuss this next week
Ashok_Malhotra: should we add "human to human" there?
plh: we can add it, though it's more the purview of another task force
<plh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vision-core/2010Jul/0009.html
plh: given a core activity, say HTML, what should we do differently?
... we could put more team resources into the group
... or expand the scope of the work
... is the spec enough, or should we do more?
... for example, education
jfa: after developing the spec, how do we deploy it?
... look at standards like IPv6, which isn't widely deployed yet
... we need to monitor the deployment of HTML5
... and look at how we can fix any deployment problems... advertising, education, etc.
Ashok_Malhotra: the question is, is that up to us, or should we let the wide world do that?
... it may happen without us
jfa: we've seen no shortage there
doug: w3cschools is well ranked. quality of information varies. people rely on this site for simple basic of HTML
... it's not subject to peer review or oversight.
... it's easy to use
... there is a huge gap and they're leveraging it
... people expect W3C to fulfill the education
... very few major universities put emphasis on teaching web standards. they expect you to pick it on your own
... they may teach a little bit
... people aren't learning to use HTML properly and securily
... they teach you to use an underlying tool
... so yes we can rely on others to do it but we don't get the same quality
... we should address that it's not taught at universities and no definitive peer reviewed high quality resources
... we have the opportunity to leverage the web standard project and OWEA, there is an opportunity to integrate with W3C
... they may decide they need to move without us
plh: we provided tools like the validator, but was that enough?
... without testing, there have been too many differences between browsers (and authoring tools)
... is this something we need to do beyond CR?
jfa: yes, it's essential that those tests exist, but we may be able to rely on others to do it... if not, we need to step up
... but we can't do it all
... let's make sure we use our skills and expertise the right way
... for the validator, everyone uses ours, right?
<Zakim> dsr, you wanted to note that a W3C umbrella for education and tools would be a big benefit to community participants
plh: no, for HTML5, they use validator.nu
dsr: it's a scaling issue... if we scale, we need more resources, so we need to improve our value propoosition
shepazu: I think adding education and validation tools are what improve our value proposition
plh: sam ruby suggested that we should link more to external resources, more of a social network/portal
... right now, our translation links are being abused... we'd need to monitor such a set of links
dsr: more of a wikipedia model
... which we can learn from
plh: and what would our value proposition be?
dsr: education and tools
plh: why would they pay W3C for that, when they can get it for free?
<plh> http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema
Ashok_Malhotra: we have links to tools, etc, but it's out of date
shepazu: it's time consuming to maintain those, would be nice to automate and crowdsource that aspect
plh: should we look into certification?
... specifically, browser certification
Ashok_Malhotra: ISOC does this
<dsr> Here is a brief summary of the points I made before: W3C can scale up to provide a broader range of services by providing an umbrella for participants that offers a value proposition to them, e.g. visibility, and to the broader public e.g. high quality documentation, test suites, training materials, validation tools etc., and to paying members via boosting uptake in W3C standards. This could be modelled on wikipedia where reviewers and authors are all volunteers.
plh: there is a liability involved... The Open Group has a lot of experience with this, should we parnter with them
shepazu: the browsers change too rapidly, certification has a limited market, better to certify training
dsr: there may be other techs that have a larger market
plh: can we think of one?
Ashok_Malhotra: SQL has lots of implementations
plh: right now, we're leaning toward certification no being useful
jfa: not being useful, or not being done by us?
<Ashok_Malhotra> Yes, earlier I was talking about XQuery which has a lot of implementations ... many academic
plh: both, for now
shepazu: better to have more tests and implementation reports
plh: another question is, how often do we need to redefine our core mission? we'll address that in 2 weeks