AW: Proposed introduction for IG charter scope

I would recommend to close PR https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/127 and simple refer to the new one PR https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/142



Von: Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2016 15:45
An: Kaebisch, Sebastian (CT RDA NEC WOS-DE)
Cc: Kovatsch, Matthias (CT RDA NEC EMB-DE); Public Web of Things IG
Betreff: Re: Proposed introduction for IG charter scope

So what do I need to do in practice ?

On 11 May 2016, at 13:09, Kaebisch, Sebastian <sebastian.kaebisch@siemens.com<mailto:sebastian.kaebisch@siemens.com>> wrote:

Dave,

your introduction PR (https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/127) do not contain the complete proposal with 3 paragraphs that you have provided in the mail. I think, this is the conflict. Taki also mentioned this issues before.

Best regards
Sebastian

Von: Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2016 14:04
An: Kovatsch, Matthias (CT RDA NEC EMB-DE)
Cc: Kaebisch, Sebastian (CT RDA NEC WOS-DE); Public Web of Things IG
Betreff: Re: Proposed introduction for IG charter scope

I thought that I had submitted a new pull request on the bullet points. It just shows how hard this process is in the practical details.

We need people to comment on the content, which is why I sent out the emails.

On 11 May 2016, at 12:22, Kovatsch, Matthias <matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com<mailto:matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com>> wrote:

I am very confused about the revival of the monolithic issues and pull requests---which both were closed!

Might the mail have been stuck in the outbox and only delivered now?
I would say the discussion at this monolithic level is void.

Kind regards
Matthias


Von: Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2016 11:22
An: Kaebisch, Sebastian (CT RDA NEC WOS-DE)
Cc: Public Web of Things IG
Betreff: Re: Proposed introduction for IG charter scope


On 11 May 2016, at 08:02, Kaebisch, Sebastian <sebastian.kaebisch@siemens.com<mailto:sebastian.kaebisch@siemens.com>> wrote:

I think, the first paragraph is quite good. However, paragraph 2 and 3 already quite technical. For someone not touched by our former discussions and working assumptions it is quite hard to follow (e.g., “This URI can be dereferenced to access the thing's description, which can include its relationship to other things.”).

Can you be more specific?  For instance, would replacing “dereferenced” by “ followed” make it clearer?  The relationship between things is what makes this a “Web” of things, so I consider that an important part of how the Web of Things fits into the core Web Architecture, as explained in:

      http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/







Maybe, the text in the introduction should be more generic such as that we are looking for technology building blocks for the application layer that forms  WoT.

That’s just one role, we also have to work with the broader community to drive a shared understanding and convergence, e.g. through collaborations with IoT alliances and standards development organizations, and with the open source and Maker communities to encourage the development and deployment of solutions.







Von: Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org]
Gesendet: Montag, 9. Mai 2016 16:59
An: Public Web of Things IG
Betreff: Proposed introduction for IG charter scope

I am seeking feedback on some proposed wording for the IG charter for a brief introduction. I am having problems with github, Matthias is helping me, but I am not sure that everyone in the IG is tracking the pull requests, and have copied the proposed changes here in the interim.

          <h2>Introduction</h2>

          <p>The Internet of Things (IoT) suffers from a lack of interoperability across platforms. As a result developers are faced with data silos, high costs and limited market potential. This can be likened to the situation before the Internet when there were competing non-interoperable networking technologies. The Internet makes it easy to develop networked applications independently of those technologies. W3C is seeking to do the same for the Internet of Things.</p>

    <p>To achieve this goal, we need platform independent APIs for application developers, and a means for different platforms to discover how to inter-operate with one another. The approach we are taking is based upon rich metadata that describes the data and interaction models exposed to applications, and the communications and security requirements for platforms to communicate effectively. A further aspect is the need to enable platforms to share the same meaning when they exchange data. We are therefore seeking to enable expression of the semantics of things and the domain constraints associated with them, building upon W3C's extensive work on RDF and Linked Data.</p>

    <p>The Web of Things is founded on the core architecture of the Web. Things stand for physical or abstract entities. Each thing is identified with a URI. This URI can be dereferenced to access the thing's description, which can include its relationship to other things. Due to the variations in requirements across application domains, there are many protocols. Things can be interacted with on many kinds of platforms and devices including resource constrained IoT devices, gateways and cloud-based server farms. In addition, Web browsers may be used for the human-machine interface for services based around the Web of Things.</p>

This would be inserted just before the scope heading.

Comments/questions?

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

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

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

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