Re: alpha 3 version of IG charter for review

Hi Matthias

Thank you for your email and explaining the reasoning and what should be in
the charter. I really appreciate you have provided more information on this.

I didn't think it was a misunderstanding - you argued against the
decentralized, peer-to-peer blockchain item and I was arguing for it. I
understood you said we don't have resources to work on decentralized IoT.
On the other hand, I argued that open source developers will contribute if
we let them to do so. Just like I have been contributing to the
web-of-things framework project, I think developers will join us to work on
the decentralized IoT. Therefore, I thought your argument that we don't
have resources for decentralized, peer-to-peer IoT was not valid. I might
overstepped my voluntary role to challenge your authority and sorry about
that. If you have the authority to say what will be in the charter then I
am totally OK with that, and of course I will be accepting whatever is your
decision.

However, if this is a collaborative decision making and we can argue what
should be in the charter, then I would still argue for a sentence about
decentralized, peer-to-peer approach. Please note, all I have suggested in
my previous email and during the meeting to have one sentence in the
introduction about decentralized, peer-to-peer approach and indicate that
 the IG will work on that. I didn't suggest to include it as a deliverable,
but mentioning that we will be making effort in that area. Also, I totally
subscribe to the view of Dave's that the charter should outline items that
attract businesses including SMEs and developers to WoT. I think one of
this can be the decentralized, peer-to-peer approach which could bring
interest to WoT and showcase the deliverables in a different ecosystem than
the conventional client-server architecture. Wouldn't be more convincing
and reassuring for potential adopters if the WoT security and WoT device
description would work both on client-server and decentralized
architectures, and we could demonstrate that? Also, in this context, I see
the inclusion of decentralized, peer-to-peer approach as an architectural
item instead of a solution. I fully understand that you do not want to see
the IG chartered to work on blockchains. On the other hand, I would like to
see it in the charter that the IG will work on it and I hope the decision
makers will take this into consideration.

Regards,
Tibor





On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Kovatsch, Matthias <
matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com> wrote:

> Hi Tibor
>
>
>
> Since there was apparently a misunderstanding during the call, here my
> position again (as individual in the IG): We can definitely add a sentence
> about decentralized architectures / distributed infrastructures in the IG
> re-charter, similar to “direct thing-to-thing interaction” or “vendor
> neutral runtime environment”. However, I do not want to see the IG
> chartered to work on blockchains specifically. At best, they can be
> mentioned as an example to set the right context. When you look at the
> charter, the only specific solution mentioned there is URIs, which are
> inherent to the Web, and hence the Web of Things. So why put the blockchain
> in the IG re-charter, when there is no other mentioning at this level?
> There is nothing in there that prohibits you from doing this work; the
> charter actually encourages to “explore areas” and “test-drive upcoming or
> proposed tech”.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Matthias
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Tibor Pardi [mailto:tibor@zovolt.com]
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 18. Mai 2016 12:37
> *An:* Dave Raggett; public-wot-ig@w3.org
> *Betreff:* Re: alpha 3 version of IG charter for review
>
>
>
> Hi Dave
>
>
>
> I suggest to include a sentence about decentralised, peer-to-peer,
> blockchain based Internet-of-Things in the charter. I understand WoT aims
> to reduce cost for businesses, speed up software development as well as
> enable interoperability via standards and the proposed deliverables. I
> think a deliverable for decentralised, peer-to-peer computing fits into
> this mission. Decentralised computing addresses business requirements such
> as scalability, high availability and privacy in a relatively cost
> effective manner. These are everyday problems for businesses and users. To
> address scalability and high availability requirements is a challenge for
> businesses, it's even more pressuring one for SMEs and new businesses (that
> need to build up their infrastructure from scratch). The cost saving what
> decentralised computing could deliver in IoT perhaps justifies the
> inclusion in the charter. I suggest add a sentence at the end of section 1.
> Introduction, which could be: "Decentralised, peer-to-peer, blockchain
> based Internet of Things will be incorporated into the work and solution"
> or something similar which indicates that we aim to work with the
> technology.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Tibor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:
>
> We’ve worked hard today to integrate the various pull requests and make a
> number of other improvements to the draft charter and are seeking your
> review of the complete document, which can be seen at the following
> temporary location:
>
>
>
>      https://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-alpha3.html
>
>
>
> To allow us to achieve the goal of having the IG rechartered by the time
> we get to Beijing, we need to follow a tight schedule with the W3C Advisory
> Committee Review starting in early June. This means finalising the IG
> charter within the next few days so that we can get the W3C Management
> Committee approval to initiate the  AC Review. We are therefore seeking
> your help in spotting an errors, omissions or areas where we can make last
> minute improvements.
>
>
>
> The above snapshot includes several changes in addition to the current
> pull requests.
>
>
>
> The mission statement has been extended to note that industry alliances
> and SDOs are looking to W3C to work on semantic interoperability and end to
> end security across platforms. This motivates the addition of the
> corresponding new deliverables in section 3, and will be used to recruit
> new participants to the IG to drive the work forward.
>
>
>
> Some more details have been provided in the scope section. The first
> paragraph has been extended to state that the Interest Group will identify
> requirements for standardization by exploring use cases and requirements
> for a broad range of application domains, and through examining
> the requirements for integrating a broad range of IoT platforms into the
> Web of Things.
>
>
>
> The following text on the PlugFests has been extended to note that the
> Interest Group will seek to encourage work on open source projects and
> community evaluation of the Web of Things. Some additional details are
> given for PlugFests with three following bullet points.
>
>
>
> We’re still missing dates for the first publication of Working Group Notes
> for the deliverables.  The suggestion is to aim for a publication date in
> the second half of June so that they are available in good time for the
> Beijing meeting. We plan to initiate a week long call for comments on
> publishing each of the current deliverables. For example, Matthias wants to
> freeze the Current Practices document on June 10th to given developers
> sufficient time to adapt their implementations prior to travelling to
> Beijing. The call for comments would thus be able to start on June 10th at
> the earliest.
>
>
>
> p.s. we plan to bring the document back into GiHub to provide a diff
> marked view of the changes.
>
>
>
> —
>
>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>