Re: IG charter - alpha 4

Dave,

    Here are my comments.

In mission statement, the phrase "Internet of Things (IoT) by" seems to 
be missing a word - maybe it should be "
Internet of Things (IoT) activities by"?

In the *Introduction*, I would change the sentence "This is the second 
charter for the Web of Things Interest Group, and continues with the 
existing work items from the first charter in looking for technology 
building blocks for the application layer that forms the Web of Things." 
to be
"This is the second charter for the Web of Things Interest Group, and 
adds new scope to the group while it continues the existing work items 
from the first charter in looking for technology building blocks for the 
application layer that forms the Web of Things."


Later in the Introduction I would change "across a wide range of IoT 
platforms in collaboration with the corresponding organizations." to 
"across a wide range of IoT platforms in collaboration with the 
corresponding consortia and / or organizations."

In the *Scope *section you say

"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."
I think "The Interest Group will identify requirements for 
standardization by exploring use cases and requirements for a broad 
range of application domains.  This exploration will identify the 
requirements for integrating a broad range of IoT platforms into the Web 
of Things." would be clearer (at least for me!).

The rest looks OK to me.  It states that this is new work that will 
require additional participation and to me that's great.  I also like 
that we say we've identified two areas but others will be revealed.  I 
think getting this reviewed and approved by the AC Reps will give us an 
IG with a clear charter to drive an even larger ecosystem for WoT.

Cheers,

Alan



On 5/18/2016 13:39, Dave Raggett wrote:
> I am seeking a W3C Management Committee (W3M) member to review the 
> draft charter, something that is a precondition for asking approval to 
> start the Advisory Committee Review. I expect to announce the charter 
> extension as part of the advanced notice for the work on the IG and WG 
> charters. I plan to send this out on Monday morning.  We need to 
> finalise the IG charter by the close of Friday, and I will ask W3M for 
> approval for the AC Review at their next meeting on Wednesday, Jul 25.
>
> Following today’s call, I have generated the alpha 4 version of the 
> draft IG charter, see:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-alpha4.html
>
> We’re still in need of dates for first IG notes for each of the 
> deliverables.
>
> The changes are as follows:
>
> I’ve switched to the patent disclosure wording from the previous 
> charter as the new charter template was designed primarily for WGs.
>
> Update the relationships figure to fix camel-casing of PlugFest, and 
> corrected WG description to “write test suites” rather than “interop” 
> since W3C WGs don’t normally work on interop testing. Instead, they 
> are required to produce test suites and to collect implementation 
> reports as a condition for moving from Candidate to Proposed 
> Recommendation for their specifications. Note clicking/tapping on the 
> figure gives you the full sized version which could be useful for 
> people viewing the charter on mobile devices.
>
> The first paragraph for the scope section has been split and new text 
> added to the resulting second paragraph to explain the work on 
> semantic interoperability and end to end security across platforms 
> using different standards. It is made clear that this work 
> will combine implementation experience with in-depth analysis.
>
> The bullet points in the scope section have modified to clarify the 
> distinction between supporting the Working Group in respect to 
> satisfying the exit criteria for Candidate Recommendations, and the 
> role of PlugFests for interoperability testing across implementations 
> for ideas at different levels of maturity.
>
> I have added examples for further ideas for topics to the paragraph 
> following the bullet points.
>
> In respect to the deliverables, I would note that without the 
> deliverables for semantics and security, the W3C is unlikely to 
> attract the participation of the companies that we need to make the 
> Web of Things widely successful.  We need a compelling charter to 
> bring in people from all scales of businesses, with the breadth of 
> experience across different areas.  We need to become strategically 
> compelling for businesses as they seek embrace the opportunity and 
> disruption that the IoT will bring.  I recommend reading the Harvard 
> Business Review article by Michael Porter and James HeppelMan "How 
> Smart, Connected Products Are Transforming Competition”. See:
>
> https://hbr.org/2014/11/how-smart-connected-products-are-transforming-competition
>
> p.s. I am copying Alan Bird, W3C Business Development lead to allow 
> him to confirm the importance of rising the to opportunity for the Web 
> of Things.
>
> —
>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
>
>
>

-- 
J. Alan Bird
W3C Global Business Development Leader
office +1 617 253 7823  mobile +1 978 335 0537
abird@w3.org   twitter @jalanbird