Re: Bootstrapping the Web of Things Community Group

+1
+ good to see the traction developing
 On 23 Jan 2014 11:22, "Philipp Hoschka" <ph@w3.org> wrote:

>  Wise words
>
> -Philipp
>
> On 1/23/2014 11:02 AM, Nick Allott wrote:
>
>  Just a word of caution: most real world IOT deployments we deal with
> don’t even use IP.
>
>
>
> Look at weightless, or the innumerable RF 868/463 deployments in
> existence. There are hard physics reasons why this is the case.
>
>
>
> Within the subset of IOT devices that use IP (TCP or UDP) – CoAP is one of
> several alternatives
>
>
>
> IMHO a W3C WoT initiative should be inclusive, and implement the
> appropriate functional abstractions to help web developers navigate the
> multiplicity of implementations already in existence.
>
>
>
> I think there is merit in looking at
> http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html as prior art in this space. It
> is:
>
>
>
> -       Functional developer level abstraction
>
> -       Lends itself to many physical implementations
>
> -       Is in reality: web friendly access to a “sensor”
>
> -       Encapsulates the security privacy issue – albeit not adequately
> addressed at present
>
>
>
> Just an opinion
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Xiang Su [mailto:xiang.su@ee.oulu.fi]
> *Sent:* 22 January 2014 12:07
> *To:* Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com; dsr@w3.org; public-web-of-things@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Bootstrapping the Web of Things Community Group
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree with Markus that Coap is clearly cornerstone for WoT. This is
> already standardized by IETF, we should always try to use ready
> standardized work  when possible in development of WoT apps.
>
> What more we could do in this group? The general version of "Web of
> things" is to reuse/adapt web technologies for building application and
> services for "things". While underlying communication issues are being
> solved, it's important to think about how to realize full potential of Web
> technologies. integrating and interoperating huge amounts of information
> provided by things is important.
>
> It's interesting to study best ways to adapt Web architecture principles,
> protocols, identifications, meta formats, etc for WoT. OGC SensorThings API
> is an important effort, and new W3C recommendation JSON-LD (
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-json-ld-20140116/) is also an interesting
> format for WoT.
>
> Another thing is semantics, how to enable sensors/actuators as data
> sources of linked data is a challenge. Can ready W3C languages, including
> OWL ontologies, SPARQL, RIF or SWRL reasoning languages be used in WoT
> straightforwardly? We need to think how to take benefits from these.
>
> Moreover, it important to enjoy the benefit of Web technologies and
> semantics, without breaking the constraints on resource usage. In our
> group, we also study resource consumptions, e.g. usage of processor,
> memory, bandwidth, and energy in WoT applications.
>
> br,
> -Xiang
>
> On 20.1.2014 15:39, Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com wrote:
>
>  Hi Dave,
>
>
>
> One very “Web of Things” oriented effort, that I have not seen mentioned
> on this list before, is the standardization of the Constrained Application
> Protocol (CoAP) in the IETF, see
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/core/charter/ and
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-coap/.
>
>
>
> CoAP is an application protocol that supports the RESTful CRUD methods
> similar to HTTP (in practice GET, PUT, DELETE and POST), but in a more
> lightweight manner. For instance, it runs over UDP (and DTLS for security),
> and is binary encoded. In addition to the baseline protocol, some of the
> related infrastructure, such as resource directories, mirror proxies etc.
> are being standardized. The idea is that CoAP is so compact, that it fits
> nicely on top of IP even on the most constrained radio links, such as
> Zigbee or Bluetooth Low Energy. Otherwise all the normal Web design
> principles apply.
>
>
>
> I don’t know how far the Community Group effort will go, but it would be
> certainly interesting to get CoAP JS API standardized, so that it could be
> supported in browsers or web apps, for instance.
>
>
>
> You can find the contact details of the active CoAP people from the CoRE
> WG pages, including chairs and draft authors. Carsten Bormann, Cullen
> Jennings (WG chairs) and Zach Shelby (base protocol main author) good
> candidates, for instance.
>
>
>
> There is also IP for Smart Objects (IPSO) Alliance,
> http://www.ipso-alliance.org/, an industry group dedicated to the
> promotion of IP/Internet and Web technologies for “smart objects”. Geoff
> Mulligan is the chair.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>                 Markus
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ext Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org <dsr@w3.org>]
> *Sent:* 17 January, 2014 18:54
> *To:* public-web-of-things@w3.org
> *Subject:* Bootstrapping the Web of Things Community Group
>
>
>
> The group has been very quiet until now, and I would like to get things
> moving, especially, as we want your help with the planning the W3C Web of
> Things Workshop to be held this June somewhere in Europe.  The dates and
> location are still to be decided. Please let us have your ideas!
>
>
>
>  The aim of the workshop will be to discuss opportunities for
> standardization as a basis for interoperability and a thriving ecosystem.
> To support that we will be looking for examples of use cases, and analyses
> of requirements and architectures, as well as implementation experiences.
> Please help us to frame the scope of the workshop in more detail.
>
> Which people/organizations should we invite to become part of the
> workshop's program committee?
>
> Send your comments to the Web of Things Community Group mailing list
>
>  *  public-web-of-things@w3.org
>
> Please note that note that everyone on the older list (public-wot) have
> been moved over to the above list. Newcomers to the Web of Things Community
> Group will be automatically subscribed to the above mailing list.
>
> Looking forward to working with you all.
>
> -- Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
>
>
>
>
>