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

RE: alpha 3 version of IG charter for review

From: Kovatsch, Matthias <matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 16:42:30 +0000
To: "public-wot-ig@w3.org" <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, "tibor@zovolt.com" <tibor@zovolt.com>, "dsr@w3.org" <dsr@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4EBB3DDD0FBF694CA2A87838DF129B3C017A2179@DEFTHW99EL4MSX.ww902.siemens.net>
Just to correct what I said:

a) The IG does not have the resources to add new deliverables at this point. The topics of the newly proposed deliverables are of interest, should be mentioned in the scope, and the work on them should go in the deliverables we already have or will have in the WG.

b) I said that most startups do not have the resources to work in IGs or WGs. This is reflected in the fact that we lost basically all startups that were present in Berlin and the early steps. In fact, the W3C is locking them out of IGs, which is why the OpenDay is important in the charter. So far, you have not contributed to the calls, either.

c) I never said, thought, or was elected to have special authority on this matter. I am representing an individual in the IG. Individuals need to provide their input so such collective group can function.


Sent from my Android phone using Symantec TouchDown (www.symantec.com)

-----Original Message-----
From: Tibor Pardi [tibor@zovolt.com]
Received: Wednesday, 18 May 2016, 17:20
To: Kovatsch, Matthias (CT RDA NEC EMB-DE) [matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com]; Dave Raggett [dsr@w3.org]; public-wot-ig@w3.org [public-wot-ig@w3.org]
Subject: Re: alpha 3 version of IG charter for review

Hi Matthias

Thank you for your email and explaining the reasoning and what should be in the charter. I really appreciate you have provided more information on this.

I didn't think it was a misunderstanding - you argued against the decentralized, peer-to-peer blockchain item and I was arguing for it. I understood you said we don't have resources to work on decentralized IoT. On the other hand, I argued that open source developers will contribute if we let them to do so. Just like I have been contributing to the web-of-things framework project, I think developers will join us to work on the decentralized IoT. Therefore, I thought your argument that we don't have resources for decentralized, peer-to-peer IoT was not valid. I might overstepped my voluntary role to challenge your authority and sorry about that. If you have the authority to say what will be in the charter then I am totally OK with that, and of course I will be accepting whatever is your decision.

However, if this is a collaborative decision making and we can argue what should be in the charter, then I would still argue for a sentence about decentralized, peer-to-peer approach. Please note, all I have suggested in my previous email and during the meeting to have one sentence in the introduction about decentralized, peer-to-peer approach and indicate that  the IG will work on that. I didn't suggest to include it as a deliverable, but mentioning that we will be making effort in that area. Also, I totally subscribe to the view of Dave's that the charter should outline items that attract businesses including SMEs and developers to WoT. I think one of this can be the decentralized, peer-to-peer approach which could bring interest to WoT and showcase the deliverables in a different ecosystem than the conventional client-server architecture. Wouldn't be more convincing and reassuring for potential adopters if the WoT security and WoT device description would work both on client-server and decentralized architectures, and we could demonstrate that? Also, in this context, I see the inclusion of decentralized, peer-to-peer approach as an architectural item instead of a solution. I fully understand that you do not want to see the IG chartered to work on blockchains. On the other hand, I would like to see it in the charter that the IG will work on it and I hope the decision makers will take this into consideration.


On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Kovatsch, Matthias <matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com<mailto: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

Von: Tibor Pardi [mailto:tibor@zovolt.com<mailto:tibor@zovolt.com>]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Mai 2016 12:37
An: Dave Raggett; public-wot-ig@w3.org<mailto: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.


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:


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 16:42:58 UTC

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