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
Other 9Null response 1Total 21Mailing % 52
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 9Null response 1Total 19Mailing % 47
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
Other 6Null response 0Total 11Mailing % 45
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
16 13 Michael Houghton
[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
20 17 Robert Matthews
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
University / Education
University / Education -
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
% of Total 6Research Council
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
16 13 Michael Houghton
[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
20 17 Robert Matthews
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
No 2 13Null response 0 1Total 21 21Yes % 90 33
University / Education
University / Education -
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
31 7 Ratvinder Grewal
[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
[University of Wolverhampton]
-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
No 4 7Null response 0 0Total 11 11Yes % 64 36
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
% of Total 6Research Council
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
8 5 Toby Bryans [Cygnet Computer Solutions]
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
16 13 Michael Houghton
[Entranet Limited]
1 Very useful general context, clear speakers, and exceedingly helpful post-talk question answering!
17 14 Marcus Lauder [Magic Moments Design Ltd]
1 Very well planned and ran
18 15 Tony Law [SmithKline Beecham]
1
19 16 Richard Mackessy
[Magus Research]
1
20 17 Robert Matthews
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
University / Education
University / Education -
25 1 Sinclair Budd [Imperial College]
1 Good adjustment of level
26 2 Peter Burden University of Wolverhampton
1
27 3 Dawn Cole [Loughborough University]
1
28 4 Marlon Cole [University of Nottingham]
1
29 5 Matthew Drake [North Lincolnshire College]
1
30 6 Andrea Garratt [University of Wolverhampton]
1
31 7 Ratvinder Grewal
[University of Wolverhampton]
1 very educational & interesting.
32 8 Mike Jackson [University of Wolverhampton]
1
33 9 Charlotte Jenkins
[University of Wolverhampton]
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
No 0Null response 0Total 19Yes % 100
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
No 0Null response 0Total 11Yes % 100
Overall Yes 54
No 0Null response 0Total 54Yes % 100
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
No 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 3Null response 4 0 0 0 2 1 1 1Total 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19Yes % 79 100 95 95 68 95 89 79
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
No 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 1Null response 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1Total 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11Yes % 91 100 100 91 64 73 91 82
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.
8 5 Toby Bryans [Cygnet Computer Solutions]
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.
17 14 Marcus Lauder [Magic Moments Design Ltd]
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
27 3 Dawn Cole [Loughborough University]
hearing about future developments & CSS
28 4 Marlon Cole [University of Nottingham]
Gaining a detailed view of future devlopments
29 5 Matthew Drake [North Lincolnshire College]
30 6 Andrea Garratt [University of Wolverhampton]
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.
32 8 Mike Jackson [University of Wolverhampton]
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
Dislike 0Null response 0Total 19Like % 100
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
Dislike 0Null response 0Total 11Like % 100
Overall Like 53
Dislike 0Null response 1Total 54Like % 98
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