Re: One week Call for comments: Draft collaboration text with oneM2M

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the draft, looks like a very good starting point. I have 
couple of suggestions, see my comments below.

Cheers,
Soumya

Research Engineer, Eurecom, France | +33658194342 | @skdatta2010
https://sites.google.com/site/skdunfolded | Skype id: soumyakantidatta

On 25-09-2015 15:47, Dave Raggett wrote:
> Following the informal agreement between W3C and the IIC, the W3C 
> staff have been discussing ideas for an informal agreement with 
> OneM2M. Please find below the text proposed by Omar Elloumi for the 
> agreement.  This is a one week call for comments on the text of the 
> agreement as Omar and I would like to sign off on the agreement swiftly.
>
> Note that I have accepted an invitation to talk about the W3C work in 
> the December workshop on M2M hosted by ETSI.  We have had some 
> preliminary presentation of M2M work in the Interest Group, and can 
> look forward to more details in a future presentation on behalf of oneM2M.
>
> *Scope of the collaboration*:
>     •  IoT archiecture and protocol (interoperation between M2M/IoT 
> and web semantics)
[Soumya] The scope could also include design of a common service layer 
(which enables common functions like binding, enforcing access control 
policies, discovery etc.)
> *Method of work*:
>     •  oneM2M (MAS WG) to present its work on semantic interop. to W3C 
> Web of Things WG and get feedback
[Soumya] We should also ask the testing group (TST WG) to share their 
ideas with us. This will eventually become very important for the WoT WG.
>     •  oneM2M to provide its use cases for consideration by the W3C 
> Web of Things working group
>     •  W3C to present its work on Web of Things to oneM2M
>     •  W3C to keep oneM2M updated about the progress of their work on 
> Web of Things (e.g. semantic support for constrained devices)
[Soumya] Are you thinking about a liaison agreement for this one?
>     •  Other methods of works may be developed as we 
> progress (incremental process)
> *Boundaries*: No IPR licensing or confidentiality agreement will 
> be provided. Instead, consultation will be established.
> *Deliverables*: Each organization to publish its own deliverables 
> (no common deliverable currently planned)
> *Communications*: Both organizations to list each other on 
> their respective web pages (when applicable), and to 
> identify opportunities for joint press releases when we have an 
> appropriate story to tell.
> *Timeline of expected results*: may influence R2, more impact expected 
> for R3
> *oneM2M involved WG*: MAS (primary), SEC, PRO
[Soumya] As suggested above, try to include TST also.
>
> Many thanks,
> —
>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
>
>
>