Re: [projectvrm] Development project table for the wiki

[Jonathan Peterson < >]

I just checked "standard" for any project that had standard in the description, assuming that they were developing a standard of some type.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Mary Hodder < "> > wrote:

Hi Doc,  and list,

So I just looked at the link you sent on Dev projects:
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/projectvrm/Main_Page#VRM_Development_Work?

and seeing how Jonathan Peterson filled out what companies are doing.

I'm curious.. under "standards" (you listed that below as a column)
he's checked off that box for a few of them.

Given that a "Standard" becomes one if at least one other entity starts to use something made by someone (a standards group, a company, a person who just puts something out there)
and given that there are more than 100 standards being created around personal data (whether or not anyone besides the creator uses them)...

What does it mean to get the check?

Does that mean the entity in development on that list is *making* a standard or standards? Does it mean they are using someone else's
standard?

Could we please add to that Development work list, a code that could refer to a list of standards so we know who is using what standards?

And some kind of mark for those who is developing one or another standard, as well?

I think that would be very helpful.. though I'm sorry I don't have much to add to that column now but i will start on this.  However if other folks, or Jonathan
specifically, has some knowledge about what people are doing either to make standards or use other's, that would be helpful to put in the chart.

Thanks,

Mary

On Nov 4, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Doc Searls wrote:

> It's great that this list has grown long:
>
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/projectvrm/Main_Page#VRM_Development_Work>
>
> But it's also unwieldy, and doesn't say much.
>
> I see that Drummond added some explanatory text next to listings. I also marked the corporate ones (as opposed to pure code dev projects) with a "†". There's probably some other symbol that would work better. (And less like a grave marker.) I'd use an asterisk, but it has a special meaning in Mediawiki composition, so I chose this other one instead.
>
> In any case, I think we need a table. Same list on the left (for rows), and characteristics across the top (columns). Any thoughts about that? I've not done tables in Mediawiki before, but I'm sure it's not too hard. And what would the columns be? My own first pass (just so we start somewhere; I'm attached to none of these):
>
>       - Company
>       - Dev project
>       - Free/Open Source
>       - PDS
>       - Standard(s)
>       - Lanuguage
>       - Communications
>       - Service
>       - Open API
>
> There would be a "•" in cells where the characteristic columns and named rows intersect.
>
> Volunteers welcome. :-)
>
> Doc

-- 
Jonathan Peterson
v - 404.966.9493
f - 866.845.7824
e - jonathan.peterson@gmail
w - http://jonathan-peterson.com/