RE: [WoT IG] Proposals for potential work items of a WoT WG

Dear Joerg-san and WoT IG members,

I strongly agree with Joerg-san’s proposal that listing up items for preparing WG first,
before WG charter detail discussion.

I’m confident we could conclude abstract WoT API in spite of not only wide variety of
description languages but also wide variety of implementation models such as “Web
Centric”, “Smartphone Centric”, “Hub Centric” and “Cloud Centric” as described in attached
PDF file.

It is important to make consensus among WoT IG members that there are many description
languages and both practical and ideal implementation models for Web of Things.
Based on the consensus, we could make WoT WG scope clear. And it’s just purpose of
WoT IG.

BR,

----
Kazuo Kajimoto
Senior Councillor of Groupwide Software Strategy,
Groupwide CTO Office
kajimoto.kazuo@jp.panasonic.com<mailto:kajimoto.kazuo@jp.panasonic.com>


From: Heuer, Joerg [mailto:Joerg.Heuer@siemens.com]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 6:56 AM
To: public-wot-ig@w3.org
Subject: [WoT IG] Proposals for potential work items of a WoT WG

Dear all,

It seems that we still try to make the second step (setting up the WG Charter) before the first one (identify and discuss the relevant work items and timeframe for a WG). As discussed in the Sunnyvale meeting we want first to compile a list of proposed work items for a potential WoT WG before concluding on a charter.

So let’s first compile a list of these proposed work items before starting to go into a detailed formulation of a charter without having consensus on the work items in the first place.

A format to collect proposals could be:


-          Objective / WoT Building Block

-          Why is this a white gap?

-          Why is this in scope of W3C?

-          What are the risks of the proposal and what are mitigations?

To not miss proposals a wiki page to list those was set up:
https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Proposals_for_WoT_WG_work_items#Proposal_Structure

To provide a sample proposal, I would like to pick up API for the WebThing model, which I think was also referred to by a comment from Jonathan.

WoT API
=======

-          Objective / WoT Building Block

o   Abstract WoT API, which can be mapped on scriptiong languages

-          Why is this a white gap?

o   Currently no protocol independent API for WoT interactions exists

-          Why is this in scope of W3C?

o   Traditionally W3C standardises APIs e.g. web socket API

-          What are the risks of the proposal and what are mitigations?

o   Acceptance of API without concrete mapping and implementations

o   Provide specifications and sample code for concrete mappings into different script languages

Please contribute your proposals and comments to the wiki and the email list.

BR,
Joerg