Notes, April 15th, 2025 [via TDM Reservation Protocol Community Group]

Quick recap



The CG discussed the evolution of the opt-out landscape, open issues related to inference, search, and content discovery, and the need for standardization, considering the possibility of integrating the work done at IETF on robots.txt. They also discussed two paths to standardization, via the W3C or ISO.



Next steps





Giulia, Laurent, and Leonard to explore and detail the ISO standardization path for TDMRep.



Upon notification by the people involved in IETF AIPREF discussions, group members to review the IETF mailing list discussions on robots.txt and provide input if interested.



The co-chairs to organize a last call for feedback on the standardization path options before making a final decision.





Multiple initiatives



Laurent made a quick summary of the landscape:




TDMRep: ___location and asset-based specification (EPUB, XMP; the notion of tdm policy is specific to this effort)



C2PA: asset-based specification



Spawning AI: ___location-based specification



IETF AIPREF: ___location-based. The new kid in town, focusing on an evolution of robots.txt.



TDMAI: registry-based specification. It is evolving to support the Open Future recommended vocabulary.



Open Future initiative: specification of a common vocabulary for opt-out refinements. This vocabulary seems to get traction, including in the IETF AIPREF initiative.




Inference, RAG, search & discovery.



The group discussed the need to address the inference use cases with the opt-out. Inference is a broad term; RAG is a technique contributing to inference. Search engines evolve into answering engines. They provide – or don’t – links to reference resources on the Web. The role of Search vs TDM and the applicability of opt-out to search-related functionalities (especially if AI-boosted) is an open question in the IETF discussion.



For Chris (BBC), inference is critical. For Quentin (FEP), the intent behind inference is more crucial than the technique used.



TDMRep vs robots.txt



The group discussed the evolution of the landscape and the need for standardization. They considered the possibility of integrating the work started at IETF on robots.txt, depending on how it evolves. Discussion on AIPREF is public. The TDMRep technique relative to tdmrep.json (a well-known file on the web server where content files are stored) is similar to using a modified robots.txt. An evolution of the latter could satisfy users of the former, and a reference to the IETF specification would then replace the tdmrep.json technique. This could also apply to HTTP headers.



The group agreed to follow the evolution of the IETF initiative before finalizing the specifications to be proposed for formal standardization. They also discussed the potential risks of interference between TDM opt-out and search and discovery, which is also a requirement of the ongoing work at the IETF.



W3C Path for Standardization Discussion



Laurent presented the steps required to achieve W3C Recommendation status. The prominent TDMRep CG members could be invited to the Working Group if they are not W3C members.



The group expressed concern that any member of the W3C can raise a Formal Objection to a Working Group Charter, which blocks the process for some time.



ISO Path for Standardization Discussion



The specification can be worked on by the PDF Association and moved to ISO/C 171/SC2 as Fast Track. The TDMRep CG would be closed, and the W3C TDMRep Report frozen.



Leonard clarified that he is not pushing for any specific direction and is willing to facilitate the process if the group decides to go the ISO path. He also mentioned that the PDF Association has a special arrangement with ISO, allowing for the publication of ISO documents at no charge.



Current CG members have different options for joining the ISO process: through the ISO national standard body and ISO liaison organizations (a fee is required), or by joining the PDF Association (a fee is also required).



In the meeting, the team discussed adopting ISO standards and the potential for opposition from national standards bodies. Leonard clarified that the voting process is not country-based but representative-based, with each representative forming the country's vote. He also mentioned that it's rare for a standard to be rejected due to the vote of a single national standards body. The team also discussed the importance of having experts from different backgrounds to ensure a diverse perspective. The conversation ended with a discussion of the potential challenges and the need for consensus in the ISO process.



----------

This post sent on TDM Reservation Protocol Community Group



'Notes, April 15th, 2025'

https://www.w3.org/community/tdmrep/2025/04/22/notes-april-15th-2025/



Learn more about the TDM Reservation Protocol Community Group: 

https://www.w3.org/community/tdmrep

Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2025 09:55:02 UTC