ERCIM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ERCIM/EXEC/P · Web viewAs part of the delegate pack issued on arrival to the delegates was a questionnaire (see Annex D) . After the last talk, delegates

W3CLA/M2.2Issue 1

W3C-LA: Report on First Technical WorkShop

Stuart Robinson, Bob Hopgood, ‘Tony Conway, CLRC

This document has not been approved for general publication.Information contained herein should not be used or quoted

without permission from the W3C-LA Project Manager.Use Word 6.0c or later to

view Macintosh picture.

Name Signature Date

Author Stuart Robinson,Bob Hopgood,‘Tony Conway

Approved for Issue (W3C-LA) Quality Manager

Janet Bertot (INRIA)

Stuart Robinson (RAL)

Release Approved by (W3C-LA) Project Manager

J-F Abramatic

i

AMENDMENT RECORD

ISSUE

DATE DESCRIPTION

1 17.09.98 A new document, internally reviewed, applicable to W3C-LA

ii

1. BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................................

Disseminators (Symposia and Workshops):......................................................................................................

2. INVITATION....................................................................................................................................................

3. THE EVENT.....................................................................................................................................................

Context:..........................................................................................................................................................CSS:................................................................................................................................................................XML: Extending the potential of the Web........................................................................................................HTTP 1.1.........................................................................................................................................................RDF................................................................................................................................................................Introduction to SMIL :.....................................................................................................................................PNG and Schematic Graphics..........................................................................................................................CGM :.............................................................................................................................................................

4. THE EVENT ITSELF.......................................................................................................................................

5. THE QUESTIONNAIRE..................................................................................................................................

6. THE RESULTS.................................................................................................................................................

7. HIGHLIGHTS FROM AN INITIAL ANALYSIS..........................................................................................

7.1 HOW DID YOU HEAR OF THIS EVENT?..............................................................................................................7.2 WHERE ARE YOU FROM?.................................................................................................................................7.3 IS THIS THE FIRST W3C EVENT YOU HAVE ATTENDED?....................................................................................7.4 WAS THIS THE FIRST INTRODUCTION TO W3C WORK?.....................................................................................7.5 DID YOU FIND THE DAY INFORMATIVE AND USEFUL?.......................................................................................7.6 WERE ALL THE TALKS USEFUL?......................................................................................................................7.7 ANY AREAS NOT COVERED?............................................................................................................................7.8 MOST USEFUL ASPECT OF THE DAY?................................................................................................................7.9 DID YOU LIKE THE VENUE?.............................................................................................................................7.10 ANY OTHER COMMENTS?..............................................................................................................................

8. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................................

ANNEX A1 THE FLYER INVITATION.............................................................................................................

THE WEB OF THE FUTURE.............................................................................................................................

PROGRAMME.....................................................................................................................................................

MEAL ARRANGEMENTS........................................................................................................................................TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS - CAR OR TRAIN...........................................................................................................

REGISTRATION..................................................................................................................................................

PROGRAMME DETAILS...................................................................................................................................

CONTEXT:............................................................................................................................................................CSS:....................................................................................................................................................................XML: EXTENDING THE POTENTIAL OF THE WEB...................................................................................................HTTP 1.1............................................................................................................................................................RDF....................................................................................................................................................................INTRODUCTION TO SMIL :...................................................................................................................................PNG AND SCHEMATIC GRAPHICS.........................................................................................................................CGM :.................................................................................................................................................................

ANNEX A2............................................................................................................................................................

THE REMINDER LETTER.................................................................................................................................

ANNEX B..............................................................................................................................................................

iii

LIST OF ATTENDEES........................................................................................................................................

ANNEX D..............................................................................................................................................................

THE QUESTIONNAIRE......................................................................................................................................

W3C-LA TECHNICAL WORK-SHOP SERIES:................................................................................................

THE WEB OF THE FUTURE.............................................................................................................................

17 JULY 1998, RUTHERFORD APPLETON LABORATORY..............................................................................

ANNEX E..............................................................................................................................................................

THE QUESTIONAIRE RESULTS.......................................................................................................................

QUESTION 1: HOW DID YOU HEAR OF THIS EVENT?...............................................................................

QUESTION II: WHERE ARE YOU FROM?......................................................................................................

QUESTIONS III:IS THIS THE FIRST W3C EVENT YOU HAVE ATTENDED?...........................................

QUESTION IV: WAS THIS YOUR FIRST INTRODUCTION TO W3C WORK?..........................................

QUESTION V: DID YOU FIND THE DAY INFORMATIVE AND USEFUL?.................................................

QUESTION VI: WERE ALL THE TALKS USEFUL?.......................................................................................

QUESTIONS VII: ANY AREAS OR SUBJECTS YOU WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SE COVERED?...........

QUESTION VIII: WHAT WAS THE MOST USEFUL ASPECT OF THE DAY?............................................

QUESTION IX: DID YOU LIKE THE VENUE?................................................................................................

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.....................................................................................................................................

iv

1. Background

The W3C-LA project is a leveraging action funded by the European Commission (Esprit Project No 26229) . Its rôle is to leverage the products of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The project will, by running its own awareness/dissemination events and by participating other related, workshops and conferences, leverage the recommendations of W3C and thereby

· encourage European membership of W3C and· increase participation by European Industry in the World Wide Web market-place.Disseminators (Symposia and Workshops): W3C-LA planned to organise events throughout Europe to promote W3C demonstrator results and to get face-to-face feedback from the European community.

The first events were planned as “Open Symposia” describing the recent Web advances and giving early warning that Demonstrators are being developed. Such early symposia had, by July 1998, already taken place in London (December 1997), at SICS, GMD and CWI (March/April 1998).

The middle period had planned “Demonstrator Advice Workshops” aimed at potential industrial champions (users of W3C recommendations and W3C-LA demonstrators). The purpose was to inform, in more technical detail, the technologies behind the demonstrators, thereby encouraging the take-up by the potential users of these technologies as well as hightening the existing awareness of specific demonstrators. This deliverable reports on the first of these workshops held at RAL on the 17th July 1998.

The final phase of the project will be events disseminating experience of W3C technology and W3C-LA Demonstrators.

2. InvitationThe initial Open Symposium had been targeted, but not exclusively, at senior (non-technical) industrial management. The attendees of this, plus initial company mail lists, had created (through a process of selection based on an active expression of interest) the W3C Office at RAL List. This list is used to send the monthly, W3C Office at RAL Newsletter. A flyer was produced (Annex A1) that was sent, with the May Newsletter. This flyer was also handed out during the W3C-LA presence at the TLTSN Conference at Bradford (16th June 1998) and during the CLRC’s Open Days (where the W3C-LA stand was used). Then, accompanying the June Newsletter, there was a reminder letter (Annex A2). Finally a Web Page was added to the CLRC Web, advertising the event with a built in “registration of interest” form.As a result, 86 delegates registered (see Annex B for delegate detail):

Name Affiliation1. Adams, Barry Magus Research2. Al-Moumen, Sanaa Lancaster University3. Audley, Chris Navaho Internet4. Bartlett, Andy Imperial Software Technology5. Bevil, Craige JET Joint Undertaking6. Blackler, Ken JET Joint Undertaking7. Blakemore, Matthew BBC Education8. Bradshaw , David BBC Research & Development9. Brady, Andy The Met Office10. Branscombe, Jeremy ICS Ltd11. Bryans, Toby Cygnet Computer Solutions12. Budd, Sinclair Imperial College13. Burden, Peter University of Wolverhampton14. Carrick, Alan Acolyte Science15. Clark, Adrian University of Essex16. Cole, Dawn Loughborough University17. Cole, Marlon University of Nottingham18. Constant, John Weylite

1

19. Cugley, Damian Oxford Computer Consultants Ltd20. Davies, John IT Director, Osborne Clarke21. Dodd, John FEI22. Dodd, John Cyberexports Ltd23. Drage, Anna OUP24. Drake, Matt North Lincolnshire College25. Dresner, Colin MNX MediaWeb26. Duncan, Paul City University27. Earnshaw, Nigel BBC Research & Development28. Farthing, Jonathan JET Joint Undertaking29. Garratt, Andrea University of Wolverhampton30. Glubb, Matt New Media31. Grewal, Ratvinder University of Wolverhampton32. Hacket, Lisa GlaxoWellcome R&D33. Hall, Graham CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory34. Hammond, Tony Academic Press35. Harvey, Anthony Soft Options36. Haswell, Janet CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory37. Hazell, Charles D.I.T38. Hemming, Oliver JET Joint Undertaking39. Hinchley, Andrew Communications Planning40. Hindle, Rob Web Technic Ltd41. Hirsch, Jon Fahrenheit 45142. Houghton, Michael Entranet Limited43. Hume, Simon Netskills44. Humphreys, Tony Post Office Research Group45. Jackson, Mike University of Wolverhampton46. Jefferies, Peter Jefferies Automotive Systems47. Jenkins, Charlotte University of Wolverhampton48. Jeyes, Steve North Lincolnshire College49. Kioufi, Niazy iCat Corporation50. Larkin, Kay Development Publishing Manager,

International Thomson Publishing Europe51. Lauder, Marcus Magic Moments Design Ltd52. Law, Tony SmithKline Beecham53. Mackessy, Richard Magus Research54. Marshall, Dr Adam University of Liverpool55. Matthews, Robert56. May, Roger GlaxoWellcome R&D57. McLaughlin, Mark Tamar Media58. Mills, Christopher P Cranfield University, Royal Military College of

Science59. Mistry, Dharmesh60. Morales, Gicela Prince plc61. Murrell, James The Met Office (SEG)62. Newell, Roy JAPONITE63. North, Robin North Lincolnshire College64. Palton, Mr C BBC65. Parkinson, Bob Nottingham University Library66. Parkinson, Emma Academic Press67. Partridge, Kara Digitext68. Pearce, Mr Rob IESD69. Pibworth, Alan Cranfield University70. Pratt, Ellis Digitext71. Radden, Phil University of Cambridge72. Rayner, David TVIS Ltd73. Seal, Allan Victoria and Albert Museum74. Sibley, Andy JET Joint Undertaking75. Simpson, Dave OFTEL76. Smyth, Christian ICS Ltd77. Stacey, Mike Product Team Leader, Ringwood Software78. Stamp, Howard Vertex Data Science Ltd79. Tagg, Daniel BBC Education80. Thompson, Andrew I-way Ltd81. Varty, Rod Oxford Computer Consultants Ltd82. Walker, Marc BBC Broadcast83. Wallis, Jon University of Wolverhampton84. Weil, Dr T Imperial College85. Winters, James Cranfield University86. Zielstra, Julie London Borough of Brent

2

3. The EventThe technical content of the day was presented as a series of talks, each by a local RAL expert, and introduced by a general context setting talk. The planned talks were:Context: This talk sets the scene for the rest of the day. We first explain who W3C is and what W3C-LA is. Then, by briefly examining the current Web, we identify the forces that have lead to the changes about to occur to the fundamental infrastructure of the Web which are the topics of the rest of the day.(Stuart Robinson )CSS: The fundamental essence behind the SGML approach to documents is to separate structure from presentation. Although this separation has become blurred with HTML, there are strong reasons to reinstate this clear separation on the WWW. Work on style sheets to contain the style component, originally in the form of Cascading Style Sheets(CSS), more recently with eXtensible Style Language (XSL), addresses these issues.(Bob Hopgood)XML: Extending the potential of the Web This talk introduces the Extensible Markup Language (XML), the new language of the Web. The motivations for XML are described, and some of the details of the language are introduced. Finally we discuss how XML is being used to enhance the functionality of the WWW. Some knowledge of HTML is assumed for this talk. (Brian Matthews)HTTP 1.1The HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is the backbone of the WWW, one of the key technologies that made it possible. However, HTTP1.0 was not designed with current Web usage in mind, and has some serious deficiencies. HTTP1.1 contains a number of improvements. This talk describes some of the differences between HTTP1.0 and 1.1, and includes a discussion of some performance comparisons made by Henrik Nielsen, Jim Gettys and others at the W3C. We briefly discuss the contribution that changes in page content can make to the speed and efficiency of transfers.(Brian Ritchie)RDF This talk briefly discusses the need for Metadata on the Web and introduces the W3C Resource Description Framework (RDF). This provides a Web-focused, domain independent mechanism for representing and accessing metadata - information about information on the Web. The objectives behind the RDF proposal and its relationship to existing metadata schemes will be introduced. The RDF model, its XML-based syntax and the schema handling facilities necessary to capture the metadata semantics will then be described and illustrated by means of examples.(Damian Mac Randa)Introduction to SMIL : The W3C working group on synchronised multimedia is developing a Recommendation for Web-Based Multimedia Presentation called SMIL: the Synchronised Multimedia Integration Language (pronounced 'smile'), following an initial proposal from the Chameleon Esprit project. SMIL permits the construction of multimedia presentations on the Web that include video, audio, or animation which can be synchronised with each other. SMIL provides a simple generic declarative language for synchronising multimedia as an alternative to the use of Java extensions to HTML (sometimes called Dynamic HTML) by experienced programmers. Commercial browser developers are expected to incorporate SMIL into releases of their tools. The Chameleon project has developed a browser to play documents written in SMIL before then in order to demonstrate the language and encourage its adoption, and an authoring environment GRiNS, that can be used to create SMIL-compliant documents. Although SMIL, like HTML before it, has been designed so that it is simple, and can be written by hand, an authoring environment makes the use of its advanced features more accessible to non-specialist authors.

3

(Michael Wilson)

4

PNG and Schematic GraphicsPortable Network Graphics (PNG) is a W3C Recommend-ation, approved in October 1996, defining a file format for the transfer of images across the Internet. PNG is now being processed as an ISO/IEC standard. This talk will give an introduction to PNG and an update on the standardization process.The idea behind the Schematic Graphics submission is to develop a lightweight markup language for the types of diagrams that are common in mathematics, computer science, etc., essentially diagrams which consist of connected graphical objects (such as boxes, ellipses, curves) and text. We are looking to create a language which can easily be generated by hand or by machine and that can be used in conjunction with other W3C Recommendations such as MathML (for describing mathematical text). The submission seems to have aroused interest in the web community and other submissions addressing similar requirements are starting to emerge. The talk will give some background to this submission, an outline of what has been done so far and a view of other related developments.(David Duce). CGM : Currently Web graphics presentation has been made using Raster Graphics (e.g. JPEG, GIF and now PNG). These have many disadvantages when displaying complex diagrams and maps. Here vector graphics formats offer many advantages, as they are scaleable rather than having fixed pixel sizes and store graphics elements as lines, areas, text etc., which maintain the structures.The Computer Graphics Metafile (CGM) is an ISO standard file format for the storage of vector graphics information, which has been extensively used in many different application areas and software products. This talk will describe the advantages of vector graphics and demonstrate how CGMs can be integrated into the Web browser and some of the problems of usage which need to be solved.(Roy Platon)

5

4. The Event Itself

The only change to the final on-the-day series of talks was that Brian Ritchie covered the XML talk using Brian Matthews slides, as Brian Matthews was unavailable for personal reasons.

The set of slides used is available on the Web at:

http://www.dci.clrc.ac.uk/Publications/1140/Talks/index.html

IE5 was used as the slide presenter, using the standard W3C slide format. This enabled the CSS talk to illustrate the effect of styles (where implemented) as part of the talk. Additionally, the SMIL talk illustrated the use of SMIL (where possible), the Schematic Graphics talk was supplemented with the Schematic Graphics enabled W3C Amaya demonstrator and the CGM talk was supplemented with the W3C Amaya with CGM plug-in demonstrator.

The W3C-LA Road-Show Boards provided the backdrop the presentations and the W3C-LA set of flyers and other literature were also available during the refreshment breaks for browsing and to take away. In particular, the CSS Primer was made available in the delegate pack.

Delegates at “The Web Of The Future” 17th July 1998

6

5. The QuestionnaireAs part of the delegate pack issued on arrival to the delegates was a questionnaire (see Annex D) . After the last talk, delegates were asked to complete these and place them in a box provided. To encourage a response we offered three W3C Mug’s as “prizes” based upon the first three pulled from the box by the Manager of the W3C Office at RAL - Bob Hopgood.

6. The ResultsThe results from the questionnaire have been summarised into a spreadsheet (see Annex E).

7. Highlights from an Initial AnalysisLooking at the results of the Questionnaire (see Annex E), the balance between universities and industry (50:50) was much as expected. The university sector is always willing to come to events of this type (especially when they are free) so getting 50% from industry was a genuine plus for what we were attempting.

7.1 How did you hear of this event?Over 50% of the attendees came from the mailing list that we have built up so that is showing a positive effect. Most of the companies on the mailing list were not ones that RAL has regular contact with so this indicates that the W3C mailing list is having a positive effect at getting the message out. We had used several different routes for getting contacts (mailing list, emails, CCLRC Web site, RAL Open Days) and all gave some results. Not doing any one of these would have reduced the audience. This emphasises the need for many different attacks to ensure the contacts are made.

7.2 Where are you from?About 50% were from industry. There were a number of RTOs and Government Agencies. The only organisation that sent many employees was the University of Wolverhampton which is relatively local to RAL.

7.3 Is this the first W3C event you have attended?The large number of people who indicated this was the first such W3C/W3C-LA event they had attended was very high (81%). This what we had hoped for in that we wanted this more technical programme to hit a different audience from the RSA event which had been mainly aimed at Managing Directors.

7.4 Was this the first introduction to W3C work?The worrying result was that in a quite knowledgeable Web audience, about 40% appeared to have little knowledge of W3C and its activities. One of the objectives of W3C-LA is to address this issue and this clearly shows the need in the UK at least.

7.5 Did you find the day informative and useful?The 100% of replies that said the day was very useful was extremely impressive and reflects on the efforts of the staff to put on a good day of technical talks. It also indicates that the talks overall were at the right level.

7.6 Were all the talks useful?The talks with the lowest marks were the ones on graphics and RDF. The general view was that the RDF talk was quite new to the audience and hence they found it rather heavy going. Even though the CGM talk had the “worst marks”, it still had nearly 79% finding it useful. The CGM area is one area where people outside the engineering sector or that of large schematic drawings would find it more esoteric.

7

7.7 Any areas not covered?The main comments, and our immediate response, are:(1) “An in-depth XML “. We had kept away from this as there seems to be quite a few

appearing in the industry sector now.(2) “MathML, HTTP-NG, Performance issues, P3P”: technical talks could be given on

each of these.(3) “No mention of scripting”. As this is really outside W3C’s role, we had kept away

from it.

7.8 Most useful aspect of the day?All areas other than CGM and schematic graphics were mentioned as the most useful. That implies that the balance was about right.

7.9 Did you like the venue?There was almost no complaints about the venue which implies that getting technical people out of London to RAL for the day was not a drawback as far as the audience was concerned.

7.10 Any other comments?There was some indication that a venue further North (or South) might be more appropriate! Most of the comments were about the catering in the breaks!

8. ConclusionsThe day seemed to have achieved its objectives very well.

8

Annex A1 The Flyer Invitation

Technical Talk SeriesJuly 1998

The Web of the FutureAs you read this the underlying nature of the Web is changing to offer a more flexible and controllable use. For you and your enterprise to take full advantage of these changes you need to understand the underlying technologies. As part of the W3C-LA Project's Technical Workshop series, a one-day technical workshop is planned on Friday 17th July 1998 at CCLRC’s Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, the home of the W3C UK Office.The workshop has been designed to highlight the new tools and techniques that are determining the shape of the Web of the future. Everyone is welcome although the workshop is targeted for people with a technical background. There is no charge for attendance but we do require registration in advance.Items to be covered in the talks include architectural issues, performance issues and enhanced functionality, with topics including HTTP1.1, XML, RDF, CSS, PNG, CGM, SMIL. These are put into the context of the shift to new underlying technologies and the implications of this shift for users of the Web.These technological developments come from the vendor-neutral World-Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the ESPRIT leveraging action W3C-LA.

Programme 09.30 - 10.00

Registration

10.00 Start of meeting

10.00 - 10.15

The Context Stuart Robinson (RAL)

10.15 - 10.45

CSS Bob Hopgood (W3C Office at RAL)

10.45 - 11.15

HTTP 1.1 Brian Ritchie (RAL)

11.15 - 11.45

Coffee

11.45 - 12:30

XML Brian Matthews (RAL)

12.30 - 13:30

Lunch restaurant available

13:30 - 14:15

RDF

Damian Mac Randal (RAL)

14.15 - 14.45

SMIL Michael Wilson (RAL)

14.45 - 15.00

Tea

15.00 - 16.00

PNG and SG - ML

David Duce (RAL)

CGM Roy Platon (RAL)16.00 - 16.10

Close Stuart Robinson (RAL)

16.10 - 16.30

Coffee/Discussion

All

16:30 Close of meeting

Meal ArrangementsCoffee and Tea will be available upon registration, at the two breaks and at the close of the meeting. No lunch is provided but the RAL restaurant is nearby.

Travel Arrangements - Car or TrainTRAIN: The nearest railway station is Didcot Parkway. We will be providing transport between the station and RAL, leaving the station at 09:15 and leaving RAL at 16:25.CAR: We can arrange for on-site car parking when we know your name and affiliation. Parking will be indicated by signs on the day. Information on how to get to RAL can be found at: http://www.cclrc.ac.uk/Rutherford/get-to.html

Further InformationA Web page will be maintained with the most up-to-date status of the meeting (and an on-line registration form) at http://www.dci.clrc.ac.uk/News/17jul98.aspor further details can be obtained from:

W3C Office at RAL Rutherford Appleton LaboratoryChilton, Nr. Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX Fax: 01235 44 5385

or e-mail: [email protected] with the subject line "W3CLA Workshop 17/07/98" requesting further information.

RegistrationIf you wish to attend, you must register in advance using fax or e-mail using the format below no later than Friday 10th July 1998.If you will require either transport to/from Didcot or on-site parking please notify the W3C Office when you register.

I wish to register for the Workshop “The Web of the Future”Name, Address, telephone, fax, email

Name and affiliation to be used for badge and list of attendeesName: Affiliation:

I will require transport from/to Didcot Parkway yes/noI will require on site parking yes/no

Programme DetailsContext: This talk sets the scene for the rest of the day. We first explain who W3C is and what W3C-LA is. Then, by briefly examining the current Web, we identify the forces that have lead to the changes about to occur to the fundamental infrastructure of the Web which are the topics of the rest of the day.Stuart Robinson co-ordinates the RAL contribution to the W3C-LA project.CSS: The fundamental essence behind the SGML approach to documents is to separate structure from presentation. Although this separation has become blurred with HTML, there are strong reasons to reinstate this clear separation on the WWW. Work on style sheets to contain the style component, originally in the form of Cascading Style Sheets(CSS), more recently with eXtensible Style Language (XSL), addresses these issues.Bob Hopgood is manager of the W3C Office at RAL and author of the CSS primer.

XML: Extending the potential of the Web This talk introduces the Extensible Markup Language (XML), the new language of the Web. The motivations for XML are described, and some of the details of the language are introduced. Finally we discuss how XML is being used to enhance the functionality of the WWW. Some knowledge of HTML is assumed for this talk. Brian Matthews is currently implementing an XML parser for the W3C Amaya browser as part of W3C-LA.

HTTP 1.1The HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is the backbone of the WWW, one of the key technologies that made it possible. However, HTTP1.0 was not designed with current Web usage in mind, and has some serious deficiencies. HTTP1.1 contains a number of improvements. This talk describes some of the differences between HTTP1.0 and 1.1, and includes a discussion of some performance comparisons made by Henrik Nielsen, Jim Gettys and others at the W3C. We briefly discuss the contribution that changes in page content can make to the speed and efficiency of transfers.Brian Ritchie is currently responsible for RAL’s participation in W3C-LA demonstrations.

RDF This talk briefly discusses the need for Metadata on the Web and introduces the W3C Resource Description Framework (RDF). This provides a Web-focused, domain independent mechanism for representing and accessing metadata - information about information on the Web. The objectives behind the RDF proposal and its relationship to existing metadata schemes will be introduced. The RDF model, its XML-based syntax and the schema handling facilities necessary to capture the metadata semantics will then be described and illustrated by means of examples.Damian Mac Randal is currently implementing the RDF based Work-Flow Demonstrator for W3CLA.Introduction to SMIL : The W3C working group on synchronised multimedia is developing a Recommendation for Web-Based Multimedia Presentation called SMIL: the Synchronised Multimedia Integration Language (pronounced 'smile'), following an initial proposal from the Chameleon Esprit project. SMIL permits the construction of multimedia presentations on the Web that include video, audio, or animation which can be synchronised with each other. SMIL provides a simple generic declarative language for synchronising multimedia as an alternative to the use of Java extensions to HTML (sometimes called Dynamic HTML) by experienced programmers. Commercial browser developers are expected to incorporate SMIL into releases of their tools. The Chameleon project has developed a browser to play documents written in SMIL before then in order to demonstrate the language and encourage its adoption, and an authoring environment GRiNS, that can be used to create SMIL-compliant documents. Although SMIL, like HTML before it, has been designed so that it is simple, and can be written by hand, an authoring environment makes the use of its advanced features more accessible to non-specialist authors.Michael Wilson is RAL Project Manager for Chameleon.PNG and Schematic GraphicsPortable Network Graphics (PNG) is a W3C Recommend-ation, approved in October 1996, defining a file format for the transfer of images across the Internet. PNG is now being processed as an ISO/IEC standard. This talk will give an introduction to PNG and an update on the standardization process.The idea behind the Schematic Graphics submission is to develop a lightweight markup language for the types of diagrams that are common in mathematics, computer science, etc., essentially diagrams which consist of connected graphical objects (such as boxes, ellipses, curves) and text. We are looking to create a language which can easily be generated by hand or by machine and that can be used in conjunction with other W3C Recommendations such as MathML (for describing mathematical text). The submission seems to have aroused interest in the web community and other submissions addressing similar requirements are starting to emerge. The talk will give some background to this submission, an outline of what has been done so far and a view of other related developments.David Duce is co-editor of the ISO/IEC PNG standard and is joint proposer (with Bob Hopgood) of the recent Schematic Graphics Mark Up W3C submission. CGM : Currently Web graphics presentation has been made using Raster Graphics (e.g. JPEG, GIF and now PNG). These have many disadvantages when displaying complex diagrams and maps. Here vector graphics formats

offer many advantages, as they are scaleable rather than having fixed pixel sizes and store graphics elements as lines, areas, text etc., which maintain the structures.The Computer Graphics Metafile (CGM) is an ISO standard file format for the storage of vector graphics information, which has been extensively used in many different application areas and software products. This talk will describe the advantages of vector graphics and demonstrate how CGMs can be integrated into the Web browser and some of the problems of usage which need to be solved.Roy Platon is currently integrating CGM into the W3C Amaya browser and drafting the CGM profile for the Web.

Annex A2

The Reminder Letter

15 June 1998

Dear Managing Director,

THE WORLD-WIDE WEB CONSORTIUMThere has been considerable coverage recently in the business and technical press of the Internet and the World-Wide Web. The Web is seen as the next major commercial opportunity for most industrial sectors: from company Intranets through strategic information collection to selling products in a global market-place.The concern is that the UK and Europe lag behind North America in exploiting the opportunities offered by the World-Wide Web.The co-ordination of the Web has shifted from the original development at CERN to the World-Wide Web Consortium (W3C) directed by Tim Berners-Lee. W3C is THE international industry-supported consortium (open to all) that provides a vendor-neutral vehicle for the evolution of the Web, including designing, developing and promoting common technical standards. These range from HTML and HTTP to the new standards such as PICS, XML, RDF and CSS.The European Commission has funded W3C to promote W3C developments in Europe and to leverage the web for European industry. One activity has been to set up a number of local Offices in Europe including the UK Office at RAL. A UK Newsletter describing W3C activities and local events has been distributed since January. If you would like to receive the Newsletter and further information from the UK Office, we would appreciate you returning the reply form enclosed.I enclose some background information on the Web and W3C and details of the Technical Workshop to be held at RAL in July.

Sincerely

F R A HopgoodW3C Office at RAL.

Annex B

List Of Attendees

No FirstName

LastName Company Postal Address

1. Barry Adams Magus Research Rowlandson House289-293 Ballards LaneLondonN12 8NP

2. Sanaa Al-Moumen Lancaster University Graduate CollegeLancaster UniversityLancasterLA2 0PF

3. Chris Audley Navaho Internet PO Box 752southamptonSO17 1ND

4. Andy Bartlett Imperial Software Technology Berkshire House252 Kings RoadReadingRG1 4HP

5. Craige Bevil JET Joint Undertaking 64 North DriveHarwellOX11 0PD

6. Ken Blackler JET Joint Undertaking Abingdon OxfordshireOX14 3EA

7. Matthew Blakemore BBC Education 201 Wood LaneLondonW12 7TS

8. David Bradshaw BBC Research & Development BBC White City201Wood LaneLondonW12 7TS

9. Andy Brady The Met Office London RoadBracknellBerkshireRG12 2SZ

10. Jeremy Branscombe ICS Ltd 8 Ambassador PlaceStockport RoadAltrinchamCheshireWA15 8DB

11. Toby Bryans Cygnet Computer Solutions 94 West HillWembley ParkMiddlesexHA9 9RR

12. Sinclair Budd Imperial College Imperial CollegeLondon

13. Peter Burden University of Wolverhampton14. Alan Carrick Acolyte Science 2 Kinderton Close

High LegKnutsfordCheshireWA16 6LZ

15. Adrian Clark University of Essex Dept Electronic Systems EngineeringColchesterCO4 3SQ

16. Dawn Cole Loughborough University Systems ManagerPilkington LibraryLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughLeics, LE11 3TU

17. Marlon Cole University of Nottingham18. John Constant Weylite 11a Kings Lane

HarwellOxon.

19. Damian Cugley Oxford Computer Consultants Ltd

Littlegate HouseSt Ebbe’s StreetoxfordOX1 1PS

20. John Davies IT DirectorOsborne Clarke

50 Queen Charlotte StreetBristolBS1 4HE

21. John Dodd FEI 10-12 Russell SquareLondonWC1A 5EE

22. John Dodd Cyberexports Ltd Bottom House Farm LaneChalfont St GilesBucksHP8 4EE

23. Anna Drage OUP Oxford University PressGreat Clarendon StreetOxfordOX2 6DP

24. Matt Drake North Lincolnshire College School of ComputingNorth Lincolnshire CollegeMonks RoadLincolnLN2 5HQ

25. Colin Dresner MNX MediaWeb 38 Chapel StreetHazel GroveStockportSK7 4HW

26. Paul Duncan City University Northampton SquareLondonEC1V 0HB

27. Nigel Earnshaw BBC Research & Development Kingswood WarrenTadworthSurreyKT20 6NP

28. Jonathan Farthing JET Joint Undertaking29. Andrea Garratt University of Wolverhampton30. Matt Glubb New Media The Bon Marche Building

444 Brixton RoadLondonSW9 8EJ

31. Ratvinder Grewal University of Wolverhampton32. Lisa Hacket GlaxoWellcome R&D Greenford Road

GreenfordMiddlesexUB6 0HE

33. Graham Hall CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

34. Tony Hammond Academic Press35. Anthony Harvey Soft Options 23 Upper Brighton Road

WorthingWest SussexBN14 9HY

36. Janet Haswell CCLRC Rutherford Appleton37. Charles Hazell D.I.T 16 Bemish Road

LondonSW15 1DG

38. Oliver Hemming JET Joint Undertaking39. Andrew Hinchley Communications Planning 49 Abbeygate Street

Bury St EdmundsSuffolkIP33 1LB

40. Rob Hindle Web Technic Ltd 18 Hoober RoadSheffieldS11 9SF

41. Jon Hirsch Fahrenheit 451 68 Middle StBrightonBN1 1AL

42. Michael Houghton Entranet Limited Thames CourtGoringRG8 9AQ

43. Simon Hume Netskills Computing ServicesClaremont BridgeUniversity of NewcastleNE31 7RU

44. Tony Humphreys Post Office Research Group Manor OfficesOld roadChesterfieldS40 3DY

45. Mike Jackson University of Wolverhampton46. Peter Jefferies Jefferies Automotive Systems 10 Edward Street

Warwick47. Charlotte Jenkins University of Wolverhampton48. Steve Jeyes North Lincolnshire College School of Computing

North Lincolnshire CollegeMonks RoadLincolnLN2 5HQ

49. Niazy Kioufi iCat Corporation Kinetic CentreBorehamwoodWD6 4PJ

50. Kay Larkin Development Publishing Manager, International Thomson Publishing Europe

International Thomson Publishing EuropeBerkshire House168-173 High HolbornLondonWC1V 7AA

51. Marcus Lauder Magic Moments Design Ltd 102 Rothschild RoadLondonW4 5NS

52. Tony Law SmithKline Beecham BrentfordTW8 9EP

53. Richard Mackessy Magus Research Rowlandson House289-293 Ballards LaneLondonN12 8NP

54. Dr Adam Marshall University of Liverpool Connectc/o foresight CentreUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolL69 3GL

55. Robert Matthews 31 Upton CloseHenley-on-thamesOxon. RG9 1BU

56. Roger May GlaxoWellcome R&D Greenford RoadGreenfordMiddlesexUB6 0HE

57. Mark McLaughlin Tamar Media 10 Barley Mow PassageChiswickLondonW4 4PH

58. Christopher P

Mills Cranfield UniversityRoyal Military College of Science

Information Services Dept (Library)Cranfield University Shrivenham CampusRoyal Military College of ScienceShrivenhamSwindon SN6 8LA

59. Dharmesh Mistry 9 Wardle AvenueTilehurstReadingRG31 6JR

60. Gicela Morales Prince plc Brook House229-243 Shepher’s Bush RoadLondonW6 7AN

61. James Murrell The Met Office (SEG) Room G12London RoadBracknellBerkshireRG12 2SZ

62. Roy Newell JAPONITE 21 Harington VillasHoveEast SussexBN3 6HF

63. Robin North North Lincolnshire College School of ComputingNorth Lincolnshire CollegeMonks RoadLincolnLN2 5HQ

64. Mr C Palton BBC Room 2427

BBC White City201 Wood LaneLondonW12 7TS

65. Emma Parkinson Academic Press66. Bob Parkinson Nottingham University Library Greenfield Medical Library

WMCNottinghamNG7 2UH

67. Kara Partridge Digitext 15 High StreetThameOxfordshireOX9 6BZ

68. Mr Rob Pearce IESD IESDThe GatewayLeicesterLE1 9BH

69. Alan Pibworth Cranfield University Computer CentreBldg 63Cranfield UniversityCranfield Beds, MK43 0AL

70. Ellis Pratt Digitext71. Phil Radden University of Cambridge The Old Schools

Trinity LaneCambridgeCB2 1TS

72. David Rayner TVIS Ltd Hilliard HouseLester WayWallingfordOX10 9AR

73. Alan Seal V&A Museum74. Andy Sibley JET Joint Undertaking Abingdon

Oxon.OX14 3EA

75. Dave Simpson OFTEL Technical BranchOFTEL50 Ludgate HillLondonEC4M 7JJ

76. Christian Smyth ICS Ltd 8 Ambassador PlaceStockport RoadAltrinchamCheshireWA15 8DB

77. Mike Stacey Product Team LeaderRingwood Software

Ringwood HouseWalton StreetAylesburyBucksHP21 7QL

78. Howard Stamp Vertex Data Science Ltd New Town HouseButtermarket StreetWarringtonWA1 2QG

79. Daniel Tagg BBC Education Room 2427BBC White City201Wood LaneLondonW12 7TS

80. Andrew Thompson I-way Ltd 25 Kings RoadReadingRG1 3AR

81. Rod Varty Oxford Computer Consultants Ltd

Littlegate HouseSt Ebbe’s StreetOxfordOX1 1PS

82. Marc Walker BBC Broadcast Room 2402White City201 Wood LaneLondonW12 7TS

83. Jon Wallis University of Wolverhampton84. Dr T Weil Imperial College Imperial College of Science,

Tehcnology & Medicine

85. James Winters Cranfield University DOISCranfield UniversityRMCS ShrivenhamSN8 6LA

86. Julie Zielstra London Borough of Brent Rm 103Corporate ITBrent Town HallForty LaneWembleyMiddlxHA9 9EZ

Annex D

The Questionnaire

W3C-LA Technical Work-Shop Series:

The Web Of the Future

17 July 1998, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Thank you for attending this meeting. We would appreciate it if you would complete this short evaluation form and place it in the box provided by the end of the meeting.

Name (Optional): ____________________________________

I. How did you hear of this event? [ ] Mailing [ ] OtherIf other please specify

II. Are you from: [ ] Research Council [ ] University[ ] Industry [ ] Other

If other please specify

III .Is this the first W3C event you have attended? [ ] yes [ ] no

IV. Was this your first introduction to W3C work? [ ] yes [ ] no If no, please detail

V. Did you find the day informative and useful? [ ] yes [ ] no Comments:

VI. Were all the talks useful?

The Context [ ] yes [ ] noCSS [ ] yes [ ] noHTTP 1.1 [ ] yes [ ] noXML [ ] yes [ ] noRDF [ ] yes [ ] noSMIL [ ] yes [ ] noPNG and SG-ML [ ] yes [ ] noCGM [ ] yes [ ] no

Comments:VII. Were there any areas or subjects you would like to have seen covered or covered in greater detail?

VIII. What was the most useful aspect of the day?

IX. Did you like the venue? [ ] yes [ ] no

If not, please give reasons:

X. Any other comments?

Thank you for completing this questionnaire - it helps us make future events better.

ANNEX E

THE QUESTIONAIRE RESULTS

Question 1: How did you hear of this event?Category .No

.Name (where

given)Affiliation Q I Q I Other

Hear of EventMail 1Other -1

Research Council

Research Council

1 1 Craige Bevil [JET Joint. Undertaking] -1 Open Day2 2 Jonathan

Farthing[JET Joint Undertaking] 1

3 3 Oliver Hemming

[JET Joint Undertaking] -1 Colleagues

% of Total 6Research Council

Mailing 1

Other 2Null response 0Total 3Mailing % 33

Industry Industry -4 1 -15 2 16 3 Barry Adams [Magus Research] 17 4 Andy Bartlett [Imperial Software Technology] 18 5 Toby Bryans [Cygnet Computer Solutions] -1 Through business contacts.9 6 Alan Carrick [Acolyte Science] 1

10 7 John Constant [Weylite] -1 RAL Open day11 8 Damian Cugley [Oxford Computer Consultants

Ltd]1

12 9 John Dodd F.E.I. 113 10 Tony Hammond [Academic Press] 114 11 Rob Hindle [Web Technic Ltd] 115 12 Tony

HumphreysPost Office Research Group 1

16 13 Michael Houghton

[Entranet Limited] -1 Word of mouth

17 14 Marcus Lauder [Magic Moments Design Ltd] 118 15 Tony Law [SmithKline Beecham] 119 16 Richard

Mackessy[Magus Research] -1

20 17 Robert Matthews

0 RAL Open Day

21 18 James Murrell [The Met Office (SEG)] -1 WWW22 19 Chay Palton [BBC] -1 From web site23 20 Kara Partridge [Digitext] -124 21 Ellis Pratt -1 Colleague (who got mailing)

% of Total 39Industry Mailing 11


University / Education

University / Education -

25 1 Sinclair Budd [Imperial College] 126 2 Peter Burden University of Wolverhampton 1 (e-mail from colleague)27 3 Dawn Cole [Loughborough University] -1 Colleague28 4 Marlon Cole [University of Nottingham] 129 5 Matthew Drake [North Lincolnshire College] -1 work30 6 Andrea Garratt [University of Wolverhampton] 1

31 7 Ratvinder Grewal

[University of Wolverhampton] 1

32 8 Mike Jackson [University of Wolverhampton] -1 e-mail33 9 Charlotte

Jenkins[University of Wolverhampton] 1

34 10 Adam Marshall [University of Liverpool] -1 word of mouth35 11 Christopher

Mills[Cranfield University] -1 Associates e-mail

36 12 Rob Pearce [IESD] -1 Web37 13 Alan Pibworth [Cranfield University] 138 14 Phil Radden [Univcersity of Cambridge] 139 15 Jon Wallis [University of Wolverhampton] 0 email list

40 16 T. Weil [Imperial College] 141 17 James Winters [Cranfield University] -1 W3C Website

42 18 Steve Jeyes [North Lincolnshire College] -1 Bradford conference on WWW as agent of change in HE

43 19 Robin North [North Lincolnshire College] -1 Colleague attended WWW

Conference @ Bradford% of Total 35University / Education

Mailing 9


Other - Other -

44 1 145 2 -1 Through departmental contacts46 3 Ken Blackler [JET Joint Undertaking] 147 4 David Bradshaw [BBC Research & Development] 148 5 Andy Brady [The Met Office] 1 Colleague49 6 Anthony Harvey [Soft Options] -1 JAPONITE50 7 Roy Newell [JAPONITE} -1 Open day

51 8 Andy Sibley JET -1 Work52 9 Dave Simpson [OFTEL] 153 10 Daniel Tagg [BBC Education] -1 Colleague @ work54 11 Julie Zielstra [London Borough of Brent] -1 Discussion list, but which one?

% of Total 20Other - Mailing 5


Overall Mailing 26Other 26Null response 2Total 54Mailing % 48

Question II: Where are you from?Category No. Name (where

given)Affiliation Q II Q II Other etc.

Research Council

Research Council -

1 1 Craige Bevil [JET Joint. Undertaking] Research Council/Other

2 2 Jonathan Farthing

[JET Joint Undertaking] Research Council

3 3 Oliver Hemming

[JET Joint Undertaking] Research Council

% of Total 6

Industry Industry -4 1 Industry 5 2 Industry6 3 Barry Adams [Magus Research] Industry7 4 Andy Bartlett [Imperial Software Technology] Industry8 5 Toby Bryans [Cygnet Computer Solutions] Industry/

UniversityUniversity

9 6 Alan Carrick [Acolyte Science] Industry 10 7 John Constant [Weylite] Industry11 8 Damian Cugley [Oxford Computer Consultants

Ltd]Industry

12 9 John Dodd F.E.I. Industry 13 10 Tony Hammond [Academic Press] Industry14 11 Rob Hindle [Web Technic Ltd] Industry15 12 Tony

HumphreysPost Office Research Group Industry


[Entranet Limited] Industry

17 14 Marcus Lauder [Magic Moments Design Ltd] Industry 18 15 Tony Law [SmithKline Beecham] Industry19 16 Richard

Mackessy[Magus Research] Industry


Industry

21 18 James Murrell [The Met Office (SEG)] Industry / Other [Other too?]22 19 Chay Palton [BBC] Industry23 20 Kara Partridge [Digitext] Industry24 21 Ellis Pratt Industry

% of Total 39



25 1 Sinclair Budd [Imperial College] University26 2 Peter Burden University of Wolverhampton University27 3 Dawn Cole [Loughborough University] University28 4 Marlon Cole [University of Nottingham] University29 5 Matthew Drake [North Lincolnshire College] University30 6 Andrea Garratt [University of Wolverhampton] University31 7 Ratvinder

Grewal[University of Wolverhampton] University

32 8 Mike Jackson [University of Wolverhampton] University33 9 Charlotte

Jenkins[University of Wolverhampton] University

34 10 Adam Marshall [University of Liverpool] University35 11 Christopher

Mills[Cranfield University] University

36 12 Rob Pearce [IESD] University37 13 Alan Pibworth [Cranfield University] University38 14 Phil Radden [Univcersity of Cambridge] University39 15 Jon Wallis [University of Wolverhampton] University40 16 T. Weil [Imperial College] University41 17 James Winters [Cranfield University] University 42 18 Steve Jeyes [North Lincolnshire College] Other FE College43 19 Robin North [North Lincolnshire College] Other FE College

% of Total 35 Other - Other -

44 1 [?]45 2 Other Public Corporation (BBC)46 3 Ken Blackler [JET Joint Undertaking] Other EU Research Lab47 4 David Bradshaw [BBC Research & Development] Other

48 5 Andy Brady [The Met Office] Other The Met. Office49 6 Anthony Harvey [Soft Options] Other Database consultant to small

business50 7 Roy Newell [JAPONITE} Other JAPONITE Joint Advisory Panel on

IT in Education51 8 Andy Sibley JET Other Research52 9 Dave Simpson [OFTEL] Other Central Government (telecomms

regulation)53 10 Daniel Tagg [BBC Education] Other Broadcaster - BBC54 11 Julie Zielstra [London Borough of Brent] Other Local Governmnet

% of Total 20

Questions III:Is this the first W3C event you have attended?

Question IV: Was this your first introduction to W3C work?Category No Name (where

given)Affiliation Q III Q IV Q IV Comment

First W3C Event

First Intro. W3C Work?

Yes 1

Yes 1

No -1 No -1Research Council

Research Council -

1 1 Craige Bevil [JET Joint. Undertaking] 1 12 2 Jonathan

Farthing[JET Joint Undertaking] 1 1

3 3 Oliver Hemming

[JET Joint Undertaking] 1 -1 Web Site Information


Yes 3 2

No 0 1Null response 0 0Total 3 3Yes % 100 67

Industry Industry -4 1 1 15 2 1 -16 3 Barry Adams [Magus Research] 1 -1 While learning HTML and its

extensions. Books / online.7 4 Andy Bartlett [Imperial Software

Technology]1 -1 libwww v.2.0 a long time ago!

8 5 Toby Bryans [Cygnet Computer Solutions]

1 -1 Knowledge & interest in HTML

9 6 Alan Carrick [Acolyte Science] 1 -1 followed W3C site since '9510 7 John Constant [Weylite] 1 -1 Worked in member organization -

Novell.11 8 Damian Cugley [Oxford Computer

Consultants Ltd]1 0 I've used the W3C specifications

for HTTP, HTML, PICS etc.12 9 John Dodd F.E.I. 1 -1 Seen details on Web & have

discussed with BSI13 10 Tony Hammond [Academic Press] 1 -1 Invited to RAL Open day.14 11 Rob Hindle [Web Technic Ltd] 1 115 12 Tony

HumphreysPost Office Research Group

-1 -1 Attended presentation at RSA in London Dec '97


[Entranet Limited] 1 -1 Some work as a research student in 1995-6

17 14 Marcus Lauder [Magic Moments Design Ltd]

1 -1 Exposure via UKERNA, CLRC, etc publications

18 15 Tony Law [SmithKline Beecham] -1 -119 16 Richard

Mackessy[Magus Research] 1 1


1 -1

21 18 James Murrell [The Met Office (SEG)] 1 122 19 Chay Palton [BBC] 1 123 20 Kara Partridge [Digitext] 1 124 21 Ellis Pratt 1 1

% of Total 39Industry Yes 19 7




25 1 Sinclair Budd [Imperial College] -1 -1 3 years ago26 2 Peter Burden University of

Wolverhampton1 1

27 3 Dawn Cole [Loughborough University]

1 1

28 4 Marlon Cole [University of Nottingham]

1 1

29 5 Matthew Drake [North Lincolnshire College]

1 1

30 6 Andrea Garratt [University of Wolverhampton]

1 1


[University of Wolverhampton]

1 1

32 8 Mike Jackson [University of Wolverhampton]

1 -1 Heard Tim Berners Lee get BCS Hon. Fellow.

33 9 Charlotte Jenkins


-1 -1 Attended WWW7 in Brisbane earlier this year.

34 10 Adam Marshall [University of Liverpool] 1 -1 Tracked W3C progress for years35 11 Christopher

Mills[Cranfield University] 1 1

36 12 Rob Pearce [IESD] 1 137 13 Alan Pibworth [Cranfield University] -1 -1 Web based information38 14 Phil Radden [Univcersity of

Cambridge]1 -1 Regular reading of all the content

of http://www.w3.org/39 15 Jon Wallis [University of

Wolverhampton]1 -1 Have followed W3C since its

inception

40 16 T. Weil [Imperial College] -1 -1 W3C Web site, RSA Symposium41 17 James Winters [Cranfield University] 1 -1 Member of XML & SMIL mailing

lists42 18 Steve Jeyes [North Lincolnshire

College]1 -1 have looked at SMIL and PNG

before via Web43 19 Robin North [North Lincolnshire

College]1 -1 Currently involved in research

into Web based learning% of Total 35University / Education

Yes 15 8

No 4 11Null response 0 0Total 19 19Yes% 79 42

Other - Other -44 1 1 145 2 1 146 3 Ken Blackler [JET Joint Undertaking] 1 -1 General Reading47 4 David Bradshaw [BBC Research &

Development]-1 -1 WWW7 Conference W3C track

Workshops48 5 Andy Brady [The Met Office] 1 -1 Aware of work from WWW49 6 Anthony Harvey [Soft Options] 1 150 7 Roy Newell [JAPONITE} -1 -1 Newsletters & Open Day

51 8 Andy Sibley JET 1 152 9 Dave Simpson [OFTEL] -1 -153 10 Daniel Tagg [BBC Education] -1 -1 Visited Website many times,

attended WWW & TV Workshop last month.

54 11 Julie Zielstra [London Borough of Brent]

1 -1 Website. mention in media.

% of Total 20Other - Yes 7 4


Overall Yes 44 21

No 10 32Null response 0 1Total 54 54Yes% 81 39

Question V: Did you find the day informative and useful?Category No Name (where

given)Affiliation Q V QV - Comments

InformYes 1No -1

Research Council

Research Council

1 1 Craige Bevil [JET Joint. Undertaking]

1

2 2 Jonathan Farthing

[JET Joint Undertaking]

1

3 3 Oliver Hemming

[JET Joint Undertaking]

1


Yes 3

No 0Null response 0Total 3Yes % 100

Industry Industry -4 1 1 Very good broad introduction,

well pitched, perhaps with the exception of the RDF talk, which went into too much details

5 2 16 3 Barry Adams [Magus

Research]1

7 4 Andy Bartlett [Imperial Software Technology]

1


1 Very interesting to learn about current and future developments.

9 6 Alan Carrick [Acolyte Science]

1 More over.

10 7 John Constant [Weylite] 1 11 8 Damian Cugley [Oxford

Computer Consultants Ltd]

1

12 9 John Dodd F.E.I. 113 10 Tony Hammond [Academic

Press]1

14 11 Rob Hindle [Web Technic Ltd]

1

15 12 Tony Humphreys

Post Office Research Group

1


[Entranet Limited]

1 Very useful general context, clear speakers, and exceedingly helpful post-talk question answering!


1 Very well planned and ran

18 15 Tony Law [SmithKline Beecham]

1

19 16 Richard Mackessy

[Magus Research]

1


1

21 18 James Murrell [The Met Office (SEG)]

1

22 19 Chay Palton [BBC] 1 The information was useful, but a more defined definition of the standard would have been good

23 20 Kara Partridge [Digitext] 124 21 Ellis Pratt 1

% of Total 39Industry Yes 21

No 0Null response 0

Total 21Yes % 100



25 1 Sinclair Budd [Imperial College]

1 Good adjustment of level

26 2 Peter Burden University of Wolverhampton

1


1


1


1


1



1 very educational & interesting.


1

33 9 Charlotte Jenkins


1

34 10 Adam Marshall [University of Liverpool]

1 Very!

35 11 Christopher Mills

[Cranfield University]

1

36 12 Rob Pearce [IESD] 1 I've learned a lot about what there is I still have a lot to learn about!

37 13 Alan Pibworth [Cranfield University]

1

38 14 Phil Radden [Univcersity of Cambridge]

1

39 15 Jon Wallis [University of Wolverhampton]

1

40 16 T. Weil [Imperial College]

1

41 17 James Winters [Cranfield University]

1 More emphais on strategic direction may have been useful

42 18 Steve Jeyes [North Lincolnshire College]

1

43 19 Robin North [North Lincolnshire College]

1 Excellent - pitched at correct level.

% of Total 35University / Education

Yes 19


Other - Other -

44 1 145 2 146 3 Ken Blackler [JET Joint

Undertaking]1

47 4 David Bradshaw [BBC Research & Development]

1

48 5 Andy Brady [The Met Office] 149 6 Anthony Harvey [Soft Options] 150 7 Roy Newell [JAPONITE} 1 References in presentations for

further information were very helpful

51 8 Andy Sibley JET 152 9 Dave Simpson [OFTEL] 153 10 Daniel Tagg [BBC 1

Education]54 11 Julie Zielstra [London

Borough of Brent]

1

% of Total 20Other - Yes 11


Overall Yes 54


Question VI: Were all the talks useful?Category No. Name (where given) Affiliation Q VI Q VI

Useful talks?Yes 1No -1

Useful Talks?

Context

CSS HTTP 1.1

XML RDF SMIL PNG / SG-ML

CGM

Research Council Research Council -1 1 Craige Bevil [JET Joint. Undertaking] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 2 Jonathan Farthing [JET Joint Undertaking] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 3 Oliver Hemming [JET Joint Undertaking] 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1

% of Total 6Research Council Yes 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3

No 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0Null response 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3Yes % 100 100 100 100 100 67 100 100

Industry Industry -4 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 05 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 06 3 Barry Adams [Magus Research] 0 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -17 4 Andy Bartlett [Imperial Software Technology] 0 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -18 5 Toby Bryans [Cygnet Computer Solutions] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 6 Alan Carrick [Acolyte Science] 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0

10 7 John Constant [Weylite] 0 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -111 8 Damian Cugley [Oxford Computer Consultants

Ltd]1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

12 9 John Dodd F.E.I. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 113 10 Tony Hammond [Academic Press] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 114 11 Rob Hindle [Web Technic Ltd] 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 015 12 Tony Humphreys Post Office Research Group 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 116 13 Michael Houghton [Entranet Limited] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 117 14 Marcus Lauder [Magic Moments Design Ltd] -1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 018 15 Tony Law [SmithKline Beecham] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 119 16 Richard Mackessy [Magus Research] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 120 17 Robert Matthews 0 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -121 18 James Murrell [The Met Office (SEG)] 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 122 19 Chay Palton [BBC] 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 123 20 Kara Partridge [Digitext] 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 124 21 Ellis Pratt 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

% of Total 39Industry Yes 14 20 19 21 13 20 15 11

No 1 0 1 0 4 0 4 4Null response 6 1 1 0 4 1 2 6

Total 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21Yes % 67 95 90 100 62 95 71 52

University / Education University / Education -25 1 Sinclair Budd [Imperial College] 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 126 2 Peter Burden University of Wolverhampton 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 027 3 Dawn Cole [Loughborough University] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 128 4 Marlon Cole [University of Nottingham] 1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -129 5 Matthew Drake [North Lincolnshire College] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 130 6 Andrea Garratt [University of Wolverhampton] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 131 7 Ratvinder Grewal [University of Wolverhampton] 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 132 8 Mike Jackson [University of Wolverhampton] 0 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -133 9 Charlotte Jenkins [University of Wolverhampton] 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 034 10 Adam Marshall [University of Liverpool] 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -135 11 Christopher Mills [Cranfield University] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 136 12 Rob Pearce [IESD] 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 137 13 Alan Pibworth [Cranfield University] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 138 14 Phil Radden [Univcersity of Cambridge] 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 139 15 Jon Wallis [University of Wolverhampton] 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 140 16 T. Weil [Imperial College] 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 141 17 James Winters [Cranfield University] 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 142 18 Steve Jeyes [North Lincolnshire College] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 143 19 Robin North [North Lincolnshire College] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

% of Total 35University / Education Yes 15 19 18 18 13 18 17 15


Other - Other -

44 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 145 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 146 3 Ken Blackler [JET Joint Undertaking] 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 147 4 David Bradshaw [BBC Research & Development] 0 1 1 1 -1 1 1 048 5 Andy Brady [The Met Office] 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 149 6 Anthony Harvey [Soft Options] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 150 7 Roy Newell [JAPONITE} 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 151 8 Andy Sibley JET 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 152 9 Dave Simpson [OFTEL] 1 1 1 1 0 1 -1 -153 10 Daniel Tagg [BBC Education] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 154 11 Julie Zielstra [London Borough of Brent] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

% of Total 20Other - Yes 10 11 11 10 7 8 10 9


Check Cat. No. Total 54Check % 100.00TotalResponses 54

Overall Yes 42 53 51 52 36 48 45 38No 1 0 2 2 11 4 6 8Null response 11 1 1 0 7 2 3 8Total 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54Yes % 78 98 94 96 67 89 83 70

Questions VII: Any areas or subjects you would have liked to se covered?

Question VIII: What was the most useful aspect of the day?Category No. Name (where given) Affiliation Q VII Q VIII

Research Council Research Council - Other Areas to be Covered Most Useful Aspects1 1 Craige Bevil [JET Joint. Undertaking] XML accompanied by more visual

demonstrations Intorduction to XML

2 2 Jonathan Farthing [JET Joint Undertaking] The general overview of current developments

3 3 Oliver Hemming [JET Joint Undertaking] HTTP 1.1 & XML The comparison of HTTP 1.1 and HTTP 1.0 showing the effect on bandwidth. Also seeing the new developments and work beinbg done with W3c was useful.

Industry Industry -4 1 MathML, CML etc.5 2 I would like to have seen more on

RDF & XMLAn overview of new & emerging standards

6 3 Barry Adams [Magus Research] MathML. Support timetable for the new languages in various browsers

7 4 Andy Bartlett [Imperial Software Technology]

1. The only Java involved was during the coffee break. Strange. 2. It was completely "browser-centric". Again strange.

For me, the HTTP presentation.


The talks on XML & SMIL, very enlightening

9 6 Alan Carrick [Acolyte Science] privacy, signatures, "web commerce"

"one stop shop" technical overview with good refs

10 7 John Constant [Weylite] Migrations from today's standards to next generation.

11 8 Damian Cugley [Oxford Computer Consultants Ltd]

Differences between HTTP 1.0 and 1.1

Tea

12 9 John Dodd F.E.I. The evolution of RDF from a broader viewpoint. This is probably the most critical subject from a user point of view - getting at real content quickly & easily.

13 10 Tony Hammond [Academic Press]14 11 Rob Hindle [Web Technic Ltd] Improved understanding of

directions & how components fit together.

15 12 Tony Humphreys Post Office Research Group

Role of XML in superseding, for instance, elements of CSS

The overall knowledge conveyed.

16 13 Michael Houghton [Entranet Limited] oops - see previous answer plus some discussion of XML - data (though any questions were

The discussion of RDF and SMIL, were at an appropriate level of detail, and provided a good peak

answered adequately after the session!)

into the near future.


More details on HTTP 1.1, NG (?), etc might have been useful

Bringing together the range of subjects.

18 15 Tony Law [SmithKline Beecham] No. It was at the right level. Covereing many "aware" (?) areas in a compact time.

19 16 Richard Mackessy [Magus Research] XML SMIL / RDF / XML20 17 Robert Matthews The general update on what's

happening in the industry.21 18 James Murrell [The Met Office (SEG)] SMIL Gain info on the latest workings

for the WWW.22 19 Chay Palton [BBC] I would have liked to know more

about VRML

23 20 Kara Partridge [Digitext] 24 21 Ellis Pratt

University / Education University / Education -25 1 Sinclair Budd [Imperial College] No Talks26 2 Peter Burden University of

WolverhamptonMore on performance issues + search engines (a research interest)searchability

XML, Graphics


hearing about future developments & CSS


Gaining a detailed view of future devlopments



No The talks on CSS, XML & RDF because they were relevant to my research project.

31 7 Ratvinder Grewal [University of Wolverhampton]

CSS and SMIL were excellent talks and presented very well. Until this talk I had no knowledge of these whatsoever. After today I will go home educated with XML and CSS and SMIL.


HTTP / NG XML intro

33 9 Charlotte Jenkins [University of Wolverhampton]

Metadata issues could have been covered in a more resource discovery based approach. Belonging to a research group concerned with search engine evaluation and design, resource description and resource discovery are of particular interest.

Style sheets, HTTP 1.1 and XML sessions were very interesting and useful. RDF session was useful and the W3C overview was interesting.

34 10 Adam Marshall [University of Liverpool] Relationship of JavaScript & CSS SMIL / RDF Talks35 11 Christopher Mills [Cranfield University] No Gaining an insight into what is

likely to become new technolgies

from the Web point of view. Previously, I have only found out about new technolgies once a particular company releases a program that supports it.

36 12 Rob Pearce [IESD] Intro to XML & RDF All except XML & RDF *very* useful

37 13 Alan Pibworth [Cranfield University] Internationalisation of Web pages using non-Roman character sets.

Update on futures such as XML. Demos of implemented new standards + real-life examples.

38 14 Phil Radden [Univcersity of Cambridge]

Browser support, how to use whilst retaining something useful for old browsers, when good support is expected.

39 15 Jon Wallis [University of Wolverhampton]

Accessibility Probably XML. *Least* useful was probably PNG - SG-ML (although it was still quite interesting)

40 16 T. Weil [Imperial College] P3P, XSL XML, SMIL41 17 James Winters [Cranfield University] Transport protocols e.g. TCP ATM

etc.XML & HTTP 1.1 talks

42 18 Steve Jeyes [North Lincolnshire College]

developments in control of Browser Display / Capability

CSS, XML, SMIL, PNG SG-ML all very good.

43 19 Robin North [North Lincolnshire

College]Scipting largely ignored - why? CSS XML & SMIL all of equal

value.Other - Other -

44 1 PNG, CGM Everything was very useful45 2 RDF - Difficult, maybe needs

expandingAll very useful

46 3 Ken Blackler [JET Joint Undertaking] XSL Overview of XML47 4 David Bradshaw [BBC Research &

Development]More on XML as this is fundamental to some other new developments

CSS & XML

48 5 Andy Brady [The Met Office] No. The level of talks was well pitched.

CSS, RDF & PNG

49 6 Anthony Harvey [Soft Options] Exposure to potential of Web design methods

50 7 Roy Newell [JAPONITE} I would have appreciated more real live examples from the Web

Good very well documented up to date presentations

51 8 Andy Sibley JET More visual examples (graphics demos good). More on dynamic aspects of web pages (CSS2)

Vision of the future! What next in 5 years time?

52 9 Dave Simpson [OFTEL] PICS / P3P / Security / DigSigs Overview53 10 Daniel Tagg [BBC Education] DOM SMIL A bite size summary of all the

Web technolgies. Meeting others in the same business

54 11 Julie Zielstra [London Borough of Brent]

Metadata The accessible delivery by all speakers of all subjects. *Really good.*

Question IX: Did you like the venue?Category No Name (where given) Affiliation Q IX Q IX - Reasons

Like venue?Like +1Dislike -1

Research Council Research Council -1 1 Craige Bevil [JET Joint. Undertaking] 12 2 Jonathan Farthing [JET Joint Undertaking] 13 3 Oliver Hemming [JET Joint Undertaking] 1

% of Total 6Research Council Like 3

Dislike 0Null response 0Total 3Like % 100

Industry Industry -4 1 15 2 16 3 Barry Adams [Magus Research] 17 4 Andy Bartlett [Imperial Software Technology] 18 5 Toby Bryans [Cygnet Computer Solutions] 19 6 Alan Carrick [Acolyte Science] 1 But also try the North e.g.

Daresbury (2:1 alternate?)10 7 John Constant [Weylite] 111 8 Damian Cugley [Oxford Computer Consultants

Ltd]1

12 9 John Dodd F.E.I. 113 10 Tony Hammond [Academic Press] 114 11 Rob Hindle [Web Technic Ltd] 115 12 Tony Humphreys Post Office Research Group 116 13 Michael Houghton [Entranet Limited] 117 14 Marcus Lauder [Magic Moments Design Ltd] 118 15 Tony Law [SmithKline Beecham] 119 16 Richard Mackessy [Magus Research] 120 17 Robert Matthews 121 18 James Murrell [The Met Office (SEG)] 122 19 Chay Palton [BBC] 123 20 Kara Partridge [Digitext] 024 21 Ellis Pratt 1

% of Total 39Industry Like 20

Dislike 0Null response 1Total 21Like% 95

University / Education University / Education -

25 1 Sinclair Budd [Imperial College] 126 2 Peter Burden University of Wolverhampton 127 3 Dawn Cole [Loughborough University] 128 4 Marlon Cole [University of Nottingham] 129 5 Matthew Drake [North Lincolnshire College] 130 6 Andrea Garratt [University of Wolverhampton] 131 7 Ratvinder Grewal [University of Wolverhampton] 1 Morning Tea was very short

timing compared to lunch. Not enough gap between the two.

32 8 Mike Jackson [University of Wolverhampton] 133 9 Charlotte Jenkins [University of Wolverhampton] 134 10 Adam Marshall [University of Liverpool] 1 It would have been nice to have

orange juice as an alternative to tea & coffee. On this questionnaire should have 3 options in questions V & VII i.e. not just yes/no: rank on a scale of 1:3?

35 11 Christopher Mills [Cranfield University] 136 12 Rob Pearce [IESD] 137 13 Alan Pibworth [Cranfield University] 138 14 Phil Radden [Univcersity of Cambridge] 139 15 Jon Wallis [University of Wolverhampton] 1

40 16 T. Weil [Imperial College] 141 17 James Winters [Cranfield University] 1

42 18 Steve Jeyes [North Lincolnshire College] 1 excellent day - would like similar as an annual event to keep up with WWW developments. If possible have manufacturere like Sausage / Chameleon doing demos on the day for lunch /teabreaks etc.

Being free allowed three of us rather than one to benefit from the material.

43 19 Robin North [North Lincolnshire College] 1% of Total 35University / Education Like 19


Other - Other -

44 1 145 2 1

46 3 Ken Blackler [JET Joint Undertaking] 147 4 David Bradshaw [BBC Research & Development] 148 5 Andy Brady [The Met Office] 149 6 Anthony Harvey [Soft Options] 150 7 Roy Newell [JAPONITE} 1 But rather a long way to come

(from Hove)

51 8 Andy Sibley JET 152 9 Dave Simpson [OFTEL] 153 10 Daniel Tagg [BBC Education] 1 54 11 Julie Zielstra [London Borough of Brent] 1

% of Total 20Other - Like 11


Overall Like 53


AcknowledgementThis document reports work carried out as part of Task 2.2 of Work-Package 2 : Marketing and Dissemination of the Esprit Project No 26229 - W3C-LA

ESPRIT Project 26229 - W3C-LA Project Deliverable M2.2

Documents

ERCIM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ERCIM/EXEC/P · Web viewAs part of the delegate pack issued on arrival to the delegates was a questionnaire (see Annex D) . After the last talk, delegates