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

Hi Dave

Thanks for sharing the slides. Very informative. Just a brief feedback.

I understand that werable, home automation and metering are much easier to
understand as use cases and probably have a more direct (or noticiable)
impact on end users, so it makes sense to use them to introduce the concept
of IoT.

However, I would like to see that other use cases like smart
infrastructures and smart traffic (which you mention as application) been
also introduced because they bring other requirements, mostly from the
management perspective, but also to have close-to-the-sensor processing
capabilities.

That is, IoT is not only about smart devices, it also about a smarter,
programable environment.

Regards

---------------------------
Pablo Chacin
CTO
SenseFields SL
Tlf (+34) 93 250 45 98
Gran Via 674, principal 1º
08010 Barcelona, Spain
http://www.sensefields.com

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:

> You may find some useful clarifications in my Mindtrek 2014 talk on the
> Web of Things, see:
>
>     http://www.w3.org/2014/11/05-dsr-wot.pdf
>     http://www.mindtrek.org/2014/
>
> This covers the range of platforms, opportunities for common APIs across
> them, and much more.
>
> I am very much hoping that you will be able to participate in the Interest
> Group and help us in the discussions leading towards the deliverables
> identified in the charter.
>
> Best regards,
>
>     Dave
>
>
> On 04/11/14 14:31, Ken Blackwell wrote:
>
>> I've just finished reviewing the charter and I agree with Jonathan's
>> points below, though I think the first point is already called out in the
>> charter in 2.0 Survey of Existing Practices and Standards.
>>
>> I'm very involved in Dell's IoT strategy and what I'm taking away from
>> this document is the need to clearly differentiate the interface boundaries
>> between IoT and WoT.  In my mind, at least, they are not the same thing
>> though they are very complimentary.
>>
>> There is a ton of effort going on right now across the industry to flesh
>> out reference architectures for IoT.  They range from the very simple Thing
>> connected directly via Ip to the internet to multi-tiered architectures
>> with embedded command and control, aggregation layers, and device
>> management and security.
>>
>> Seems to me one of the big problems that we need to take on is how WoT
>> standards handle the range of IoT architectures being developed.  As an
>> example, the simplest case is some JavaScript running in a browser doing
>> inventory and data collection from Things connected directly to the
>> Internet or local network.  There is very little stuff (practically
>> nothing) in between.  The other extreme is a cloud-based repository of
>> device asset/configuration information, metric store with analytics
>> results, orchestration and workflow engine, etc.  In this world, device
>> access is never going to be directly possible but instead it will go
>> through multiple layers of cloud and probably on-premise services.
>>
>> So, as a Web developer, how can I write code once that will work in both
>> environments?  Obviously this means abstracting the tiers (maybe 0, maybe
>> dozens) through common programming interfaces such that my web app does not
>> know or care how complex the IoT infrastructure is.  This means abstracting
>> the security infrastructure as well.
>>
>> Happy to dig deeper if the above needs further explaination.
>>
>> Ken Blackwell
>> Chief Architect, Systems Management | Office of the CTO
>> Dell | Software Group
>> Ken.Blackwell@software.dell.com
>> Office: +1 203 664 1932
>> Mobile: +1 203-733-5381
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 전종홍 [mailto:hollobit@etri.re.kr]
>> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 9:16 PM
>> To: Dave Raggett; public-web-of-things@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Request for comments: Draft W3C Web of Things Interest Group
>> Charter
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> --- Jonathan Jeon
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:17 AM
>> To: public-web-of-things@w3.org
>> Subject: Request for comments: Draft W3C Web of Things Interest Group
>> Charter
>>
>> This June we had the Workshop on the Web of Things in Berlin, see:
>>
>>      http://www.w3.org/2014/02/wot/
>>
>> The workshop report itself can be found at
>> http://www.w3.org/2014/02/wot/report.html
>>
>> As an outcome of that workshop, we are preparing a charter for a Web of
>> Things Interest Group, following the precedents of the Web & TV and Web
>> & Mobile Interest Groups.  You can find the draft charter at:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2014/09/wot-ig-charter.html
>>
>> We would like to hear from a wide range of stakeholders to clarify the
>> mission and scope for the Interest Group, the target topics and industry
>> priorities, and opportunities for liaisons with other related standards
>> development organizations.  We will also be looking for people
>> interested in championing particular aspects of work, e.g. as task force
>> leaders, or as Interest Group Note editors. In the meantime, we welcome
>> suggestions for task force topics.
>>
>> Please send comments and suggestions for changes to the charter to the
>> public list <public-wot-charter@w3.org>, or you can send them to the W3C
>> Staff Contact Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>.
>>
>> Many thanks for your help and looking forward to your comments.
>>
>> -- Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
>>
>>
> --
> Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
>
>
>