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

Re: alpha 3 version of IG charter for review

From: Michael Koster <michael.koster@smartthings.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 08:40:58 -0700
Cc: Tibor Pardi <tibor@zovolt.com>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1FB4558A-04C4-470F-A960-44473CBEC210@smartthings.com>
To: "Kovatsch, Matthias" <matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com>
Hi,

I would point out that we have so far specifically excluded development of new transfer protocols from the charter. Personally, I believe that we should keep the charter focused on development of Thing Description and the WoT Servient reference architecture as "centers of gravity" for the work. 

To the extent that TD provides a vehicle for annotation of resources with application semantics, we should work with others that will focus on the definition of application semantics in their charters.

To the extent that TD describes resources, I believe that we should consider alternate transfer protocols as use cases for TD and use them to inform "how deep" into the transfer layer TD should go in definition. I like the idea of a clean separation between TD and the other layers of the system.

For example, I would propose one way to indicate transfer layer processing is through the existing content typing mechanism (media type, content type, content-format, etc.) used on the web. The Streembit transfer layer could be indicated in TD by a content type "application/streembit" associated with one or more of the values in the hrefs list. Likewise, we could indicate default transfer layer processing by "application/wot+json" and alternate transfer layers like "application/zcl+cbor" as well, allowing different or multiple transfer layers to be offered in a TD. 

Tibor, I would encourage you to consider doing this innovative transfer layer work in conjunction with IETF or the IRTF Thing to Thing Research Group (T2TRG). For example, I am doing some transfer protocol work in T2TRG to adapt REST and hypermedia driven design patterns to IoT and WoT. I think your work on peer to peer distributed protocols using DHT and distributed consensus would be a great addition and is very interesting. In a past life, I helped develop a distributed PAXOS algorithm to deal with distributed database log consistency and durability (ACID properties).

Best regards,

Michael

> On May 18, 2016, at 7:19 AM, Kovatsch, Matthias <matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tibor
>  
> Since there was apparently a misunderstanding during the call, here my position again (as individual in the IG): We can definitely add a sentence about decentralized architectures / distributed infrastructures in the IG re-charter, similar to “direct thing-to-thing interaction” or “vendor neutral runtime environment”. However, I do not want to see the IG chartered to work on blockchains specifically. At best, they can be mentioned as an example to set the right context. When you look at the charter, the only specific solution mentioned there is URIs, which are inherent to the Web, and hence the Web of Things. So why put the blockchain in the IG re-charter, when there is no other mentioning at this level? There is nothing in there that prohibits you from doing this work; the charter actually encourages to “explore areas” and “test-drive upcoming or proposed tech”.
>  
> Best regards
> Matthias
>  
>   <>
> Von: Tibor Pardi [mailto:tibor@zovolt.com] 
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Mai 2016 12:37
> An: Dave Raggett; public-wot-ig@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: alpha 3 version of IG charter for review
>  
> 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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>


Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2016 15:41:32 UTC

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