W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > September 2015

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

From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:09:41 +0100
Cc: public-wot-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <607FAFA3-3127-422E-8DE9-AD5CAD13C37F@w3.org>
To: Soumya Kanti Datta <Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr>
See responses inline ...

> On 25 Sep 2015, at 15:07, Soumya Kanti Datta <Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr> wrote:
> 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 <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.)

I think the above bullet is sufficient for that. It would certainly be interesting to look at how to map the WoT events/properties/actions to the oneM2M model, so that we can define protocol bindings and connect WoT servers to M2M platforms. Likewise, perhaps oneM2M could enhance their treatment of data models to distinguish events and actions from properties (M2M resources).

>> 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.

Good idea. We can ask Omar if he is willing to add TST WG to this bullet.

>>     •  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?

Formal liaison agreements are expensive to set up, which is why we are looking an a short informal agreement instead.

>>     •  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.

Indeed - I will circle back with Omar.

>> Many thanks,
>> —
>>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>

   Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>

Received on Friday, 25 September 2015 16:09:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:26:45 UTC