W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > June 2016

Re: [FYI] WWDC 2016 Apple Homekit

From: Scott Jenson <scottj@google.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 13:11:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAfQcpS0yDOR3sP7GRTwGRkYi7r9BPpcJ=bxSc0XYAvbbXW9QQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Cc: 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr>, "public-wot-ig@w3.org" <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Essentially, to integrate to any existing IoT device, we just need the
> metadata describing the data and interaction models exposed
> to applications, the protocols and communication patterns that can be used,
> and descriptions of the kinds of things are involved and the
> relationships between them.
>

There is quite a bit packed into your sentence. As a UX designer, I'd like
to make sure that we appreciate that Apple is doing much more than just
"metadata description and discovery":

   - A *limited* set of device categories
   - Clear and *limited* functional schema for each category
   - A fairly limited app to find and control these devices

I'm not disagreeing with your comment, this is a "yes and" type of reply.
If we truly expect these devices to work in in the home, we have to go
beyond just the metadata description and discovery. We need to appreciate
interoperability comes from hard decisions: by having a strong, if limited
set of devices and functions.  I realize this is a more business strategy
comment than an engineering one. However, I'm fearful we're just going to
recreate another "32 Bluetooth profiles" mess all over again.

Is there any proposal to have the concept of a required base set of
functionality? There can also be an optional set but taking a hard stand on
required, as Apple as done, goes a long way in providing interoperability.

Scott
Received on Sunday, 19 June 2016 20:12:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 19 June 2016 20:12:09 UTC