W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > June 2016

Re: [FYI] WWDC 2016 Apple Homekit

From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:27:35 +0100
Cc: 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr>, "public-wot-ig@w3.org" <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D9BE2594-3F74-4148-A2B9-E1574176D415@w3.org>
To: Scott Jenson <scottj@google.com>

> On 22 Jun 2016, at 15:21, Scott Jenson <scottj@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>> wrote:
> I very much agree with what you say. Is this something that you can help to realize? It would be great to have Google involved. Do you have any comments on the new Web of Things Interest Group Charter [1] currently undergoing W3C AC Review, and the early draft charter for a Web of Things Working Group [2]?  The Interest Group could study ways to support versioning, and if there is sufficient consensus, this could be standardized in the Working Group. What suggestions do you have in respect to standardizing the device/service models for specific domains such as smart homes?
> I'm happy to help as I can, but as there are multiple teams at Google working on various IoT projects and I can't speak for them. I will suggest, however, that one of the key groups contact you. Is someone from Apple already on this list and participating? 

At this point no one from Apple is participating in the W3C web of things Interest Group. However, it would still be interesting to survey the Home Kit solutions as well as what other companies, big and small are working on.  I would very much like to chat with Google people about their work, including the Google Cloud Platform, as a lot of the value for the IoT will be upstream from the IoT devices themselves.

> As to standardizing on the device/service model, it usually helps to do a quick survey of what existing models are already out there. In addition to HomeKit, can anyone else suggest any other projects? It seems reasonable to start with these existing models, find a resonable subset for "Version 1" and then allow the differences to be expressed using the 'optional' mechanism. Subsequent standards work would then try to move the optional pieces into the required.
> Scott

   Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
Received on Friday, 24 June 2016 09:27:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 24 June 2016 09:27:46 UTC