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

Re: How to attract new members to the WoT IG?

From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 16:40:23 +0100
Cc: public-wot-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <AE2CD441-4CE5-413C-9742-2F607047EA45@w3.org>
To: Soumya Kanti Datta <Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr>
In my experience it is hard for SMEs to actively participate in W3C groups due to a lack of resources. The key people are already working flat out and have very little time to devote to standards groups.  This is where outreach to SMEs and developer communities would be helpful, including semi-permanent plugfests available over the Internet. In return, we could seek ways to solicit feedback from developers in a way that isn’t too time consuming for them. Requiring github pull requests would be an example of raising the bar way too high.

I am hoping the we can apply the outstanding pull requests so that we have a better picture of what the IG charter draft currently says and where we could strengthen it, e.g. in respect to SMEs.

Do we really have to wait for the Wednesday call?  That would see very slow and inefficient way to progress.

> On 13 May 2016, at 09:38, Soumya Kanti Datta <Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr> wrote:
> 
> Don't forget SMEs not having a big team and doing a lot of innovation in IoT and WoT spaces.
> 
> Soumya
> 
> Research Engineer, EURECOM, France | +33658194342 | @skdatta2010
> https://sites.google.com/site/skdunfolded | Skype id: soumyakantidatta
> 
> On 12/05/2016 15:09, Dave Raggett wrote:
>> 
>>> On 12 May 2016, at 13:46, Soumya Kanti Datta
>>> <Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr <mailto:Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr>>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dave,
>>> 
>>> I agree that we need work items on semantics and security.
>> 
>> Great - I will put some thoughts together for these to stimulate
>> discussion, including people at potential member organisations.
>> 
>>> But from my exp, not a lot of developer can create software modules
>>> for semantic computing. So, with a colleague of mine, I worked on
>>> creating a framework trying to hide semantics from developers. It was
>>> the same I talked about during the last f2f open day.
>>> 
>>> I feel best practice guidelines are highly necessary to give
>>> guidelines to developers.
>> 
>> Most people are specialists in some area or other. This is why teams are
>> important as a way to bring together people with complementary skills.
>> Guidelines that can help different kinds of developers would indeed be
>> useful, but as Alan says, not sufficient to convince people to come and
>> be part of the Interest Group and help us progress.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Soumya
>>> 
>>> Research Engineer, EURECOM, France | +33658194342 | @skdatta2010 |
>>> https://sites.google.com/site/skdunfolded | Skype id: soumyakantidatta
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Quoting Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Soumya,
>>>> 
>>>> Do  you think that a ?best practices? document will be sufficient to
>>>> attract new members?  Wouldn?t it be much weaker than having
>>>> explicit work items on semantics and security?
>>>> 
>>>>> On 12 May 2016, at 03:20, Soumya Kanti Datta
>>>>> <Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr
>>>>> <mailto:Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dave,
>>>>> I agree that semantics and security are really vital for WoT. At
>>>>> the same time, we must keep in mind that WoT or IoT is highly
>>>>> interdisciplinary. Therefore, it would be good to create a best
>>>>> practices deliverable/document (showing guidelines for global
>>>>> interoperability) to attract the developers.
>>>>> Soumya
>>>>> Research Engineer, EURECOM, France | +33658194342 | @skdatta2010 |
>>>>> https://sites.google.com/site/skdunfolded
>>>>> <https://sites.google.com/site/skdunfolded> | Skype id:
>>>>> soumyakantidatta
>>>>> On 11-05-2016 19:49, Dave Raggett wrote:
>>>>>> What do we need to do in the IG charter to make it easier to
>>>>>> attract new members?  Before writing a pull request, it makes
>>>>>> sense to first discuss this challenge and see what ideas emerge
>>>>>> and where we have a rough consensus.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> When talking with people in IoT alliances and other standards
>>>>>> development organisations, I have seen that there is general
>>>>>> agreement on the importance of semantic interoperability and
>>>>>> security.  W3C is respected for its work on standards relating to
>>>>>> RDF and linked data, and is expected to take the lead on enabling
>>>>>> declarative domain models and constraints.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For security, so far each organisation has approached this
>>>>>> independently. This risks problems for end to end security for
>>>>>> services that span platforms specified by different organisations.
>>>>>>  Without shared trust assumptions, parties will only be able to
>>>>>> share data that is marked as being publicly accessible.  By
>>>>>> focusing on inter-platform standards for the IoT, W3C has a
>>>>>> mission to work with the IoT organisations to encourage alignment
>>>>>> over trust assumptions for security and how to describe this in
>>>>>> metadata.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We have very few people currently in the IG with the requisite
>>>>>> experience. What do we need to do in the new IG charter to help
>>>>>> attract such people?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do you agree that semantics and security are critical to realising
>>>>>> the potential for the Web of Things?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> One idea would be to add explicit deliverables on semantic
>>>>>> modelling and end to end security, what do you think?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>  Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org> <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ?
>>>>  Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org> <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> This message was sent using EURECOM Webmail: http://webmail.eurecom.fr
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> —
>>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

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




Received on Friday, 13 May 2016 15:40:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:03 UTC