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

Re: alpha 3 version of IG charter for review

From: Tibor Pardi <tibor@zovolt.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 11:37:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMJB5ds517FzkT+hrQfBP3Obh1zGV+sidTmoWdXtiXuj999Zgg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, public-wot-ig@w3.org
Hi Dave

I suggest to include a sentence about decentralised, peer-to-peer,
blockchain based Internet-of-Things in the charter. I understand WoT aims
to reduce cost for businesses, speed up software development as well as
enable interoperability via standards and the proposed deliverables. I
think a deliverable for decentralised, peer-to-peer computing fits into
this mission. Decentralised computing addresses business requirements such
as scalability, high availability and privacy in a relatively cost
effective manner. These are everyday problems for businesses and users. To
address scalability and high availability requirements is a challenge for
businesses, it's even more pressuring one for SMEs and new businesses (that
need to build up their infrastructure from scratch). The cost saving what
decentralised computing could deliver in IoT perhaps justifies the
inclusion in the charter. I suggest add a sentence at the end of section 1.
Introduction, which could be: "Decentralised, peer-to-peer, blockchain
based Internet of Things will be incorporated into the work and solution"
or something similar which indicates that we aim to work with the
technology.

Regards,
Tibor




On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:

> We’ve worked hard today to integrate the various pull requests and make a
> number of other improvements to the draft charter and are seeking your
> review of the complete document, which can be seen at the following
> temporary location:
>
>      https://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-alpha3.html
>
> To allow us to achieve the goal of having the IG rechartered by the time
> we get to Beijing, we need to follow a tight schedule with the W3C Advisory
> Committee Review starting in early June. This means finalising the IG
> charter within the next few days so that we can get the W3C Management
> Committee approval to initiate the  AC Review. We are therefore seeking
> your help in spotting an errors, omissions or areas where we can make last
> minute improvements.
>
> The above snapshot includes several changes in addition to the current
> pull requests.
>
> The mission statement has been extended to note that industry alliances
> and SDOs are looking to W3C to work on semantic interoperability and end to
> end security across platforms. This motivates the addition of the
> corresponding new deliverables in section 3, and will be used to recruit
> new participants to the IG to drive the work forward.
>
> Some more details have been provided in the scope section. The first
> paragraph has been extended to state that the Interest Group will identify
> requirements for standardization by exploring use cases and requirements
> for a broad range of application domains, and through examining
> the requirements for integrating a broad range of IoT platforms into the
> Web of Things.
>
> The following text on the PlugFests has been extended to note that the
> Interest Group will seek to encourage work on open source projects and
> community evaluation of the Web of Things. Some additional details are
> given for PlugFests with three following bullet points.
>
> We’re still missing dates for the first publication of Working Group Notes
> for the deliverables.  The suggestion is to aim for a publication date in
> the second half of June so that they are available in good time for the
> Beijing meeting. We plan to initiate a week long call for comments on
> publishing each of the current deliverables. For example, Matthias wants to
> freeze the Current Practices document on June 10th to given developers
> sufficient time to adapt their implementations prior to travelling to
> Beijing. The call for comments would thus be able to start on June 10th at
> the earliest.
>
> p.s. we plan to bring the document back into GiHub to provide a diff
> marked view of the changes.
>
> —
>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2016 10:37:37 UTC

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