Re: Request for comments: Draft W3C Web of Things Interest Group Charter

On 03/11/14 02:15, 전종홍 wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> How about to add these kind of tasks in the task part:
>   • Tracking and documenting Web technologies that are particularly relevant on IoT/WoT
>   • Definition of requirements that enable Web of Thing technologies to be used to enable the Small-constrained devices and Open Source Hardware.
>   • Definition of requirements that enable Web technologies to be used to enable Thing(or device) management.

The list of tasks is provisional and will be decided by the IG. The plan 
is to first focus on studying use cases across application domains 
before splitting up into parallel task forces.

The following proposed deliverable covers your first bullet:

> Survey of Existing Practices and Standards Relevant to the Web of Things
>     This document will look at existing practices and standards, and
>     identify opportunities for new work. 

Your second and third bullet points are covered by the following, see 
below for an explanation.

>   * Identifying requirements for open markets of services for the Web
>     of Things
>       o Data modeling
>       o Unique identification of things, for example using URIs
>       o Registration of things and the services they provide
>       o Service descriptions and dependencies
>       o Coordination and synchronization
>       o Real-time control and cyber-physical systems
>       o Discovery and trust management
>       o Scripting: browsers, service platforms and gateways
>       o Bridging the gap between the Web of Things and the IoT
>       o Relationship between app/service layer and network layer
>       o Monetization
>       o Provisioning and life cycle management
>

In particular, the subtasks on scripting, bridging the gap between the 
web of things and the IoT, and provisioning and life cycle management.  
In more detail, in anticipation of the IG analysis, we will need support 
for IoT protocols by gateways, and in some cases by browsers for direct 
access to IoT devices (e.g. from smart phones to wearables, home 
automation, and home healthcare devices). There is already a W3C 
Bluetooth CG focusing on the GATT profile for BLE and work on further 
profiles is expected. We may see interest from browser vendors in 
additional IoT protocols, e.g. CoAP and MQTT. Where practical, it makes 
sense to use the same APIs across browsers and gateways. Discovery, 
registration, provisioning and life cycle management are further topics 
for requirements analysis.

Hoping this helps.

Kind regards,

-- 
Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett