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

Hi Michael,

So far the examples we’ve seen for Thing Descriptions focus on data models together with the use of JSON-LD contexts to bind names to RDF URIs. Within the WoT IG, we’ve done practically no work on semantic models and domain constraints. As you suggest the thing description provides a way to associate things with application semantics. Several of us are interested in starting such work, drawing upon the wealth of external work on ontologies.  To guide this work, I initiated a joint effort on a white paper on semantic interoperability in collaboration with Omar Elloumi (Nokia & oneM2M) and Paul Murdock (Landisgyr & IEEE P2413). I am most grateful to Paul for driving this effort forward.  There are a broad range of contributors from over 30 organisations. You can view the work in progress at:

     https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=8DBCB9710F1A3AC0!116&authkey=!AHtm9Ps1PTl85QY&ithint=file%2cdocx

When we have a stable draft, I will bring it to the consideration of the IG as a potential IG Note for publication under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. I am also expecting to launch a similar joint effort on security and privacy, with the same view of creating a shared understanding across IoT alliances and SDOs and guiding next steps for convergence. We expect to start that once the first white paper is done.

Following that I would like to initiate a study within the IG with the emphasis on implementation experiments and in-depth analysis. This work would be guided by the above work on joint white papers. 

Best regards,
    Dave

> On 16 May 2016, at 19:40, Michael Koster <michael.koster@smartthings.com> wrote:
> 
> I think we could look at how ontology can drive semantic interoperability using W3C WoT architecture and Thing Description as an operational framework.
> 
> One area of interest is in providing a layer of application semantics on top of APIs. For example, we could look at a consistent way of annotating Thing Descriptions with application semantics derived from ontologies including SAREF. Thing Description can become the well-known way to associate application semantics with resource instances.
> 
> What are the information design patterns and best practices that enable discovery, interaction, and service composition based on W3C Thing Description with semantic annotation? What does semantic annotation of a TD look like? How can we use ontology to annotate TD with context information? 
> 
> How can we build domain models using TD and ontology? Can TD become a modeling language and constructor for instances of connected things? 
> 
> It seems like it starts with aligning the concepts in the ontology around describing the Actions, Events, and Properties of things, and adding a descriptive contextual layer. This seems to me to be where a lot of interesting work needs to be done.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael
> 
>> On May 16, 2016, at 6:27 AM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Jasper,
>> 
>> Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Do you you have any suggestions for what we should put in the IG charter?  It sounds like we could have a work item on investigating APIs and the use cases that motivate them.
>> 
>> Brainstorming a little, I can envisage APIs for the following:
>> 
>> checking that a thing description conforms to a given domain model
>> applying a domain model to validate the current state of a thing’s properties
>> applying a domain model to validate messages exchanged with a thing
>> validating the interoperability for service compositions involving multiple things
>> searching for services that match particular requirements at the semantic level
>> 
>> There could also be APIs that focus on the dynamic use of semantic models to represent the current state of a system at an abstract level. This could embody geographic models, e.g. for a city, covering many aspects of the transport system, and fed from multiple source of information. Related to this are APIs for streaming analytics based upon semantic data streams.
>> 
>> A further area combines semantics and security, for instance, allowing checks that a given service composition is permitted by the access control policies for the parties involved. Semantic models of the trust assumptions could enable further checks on what data can passed between platforms defined by different organisations.
>> 
>> There are lots of possibilities, and the Interest Group could play a valuable in pulling together ideas from a broad range of existing studies.
>> 
>> How much should we say in the IG charter and can we provide links that substantiate the viability of the approach?
>> 
>>> On 16 May 2016, at 11:47, Roes, J.B.M. (Jasper) <jasper.roes@tno.nl <mailto:jasper.roes@tno.nl>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello Soumya and Dave,
>>>  
>>> I also agree on the need to have work items on semantics and security, as these seem to be most relevant topics at this moment in WoT and IoT. But what we have to keep in mind is that while on the security side it is normally fairly easy for people to understand why it is important and why work should be done, on the semantics side this is often much more difficult, especially when going into RDF/Linked Data and so forth. For most developers this is way out of their current activities and they cannot easily contribute to it, that is why in the Netherlands somebody proposed to extend the 5-star open data model, to a six star open data model, adding an additional step between the 4-star and 5-star level of the original model, being API’s. So what I think is important is to show how semantics can help making it easier for parties to being able to use data, and ensuring that they do not have to implement new API’s almost every day, as the data can be translated. The WoT group can then focus on have standards API descriptions (important for developers and them might want to provide input on this, or at least review), and focus on the semantics by creating domain models and constraints based on RDF/ontologies. This would benefit both parties as it solves issues that parties are currently facing with and endless amount of API’s that they need to implement that all work different, but the work on RFD domain models also paves the way for introducing more state-of-the-art techniques in the near future as the base has already been layed. This is at least what I am seeing with the work that we are doing around the Smart Appliances Reference ontology (SAREF) with ETSI. Most parties now interested in SAREF are not into ontologies, but are seeing that in the future the world of ontologies can help them in reaching interoperability and being able to sell their products in a broader market.
>>>  
>>> Best regards,
>>>  
>>> Jasper
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>] 
>>> Sent: vrijdag 13 mei 2016 17:40
>>> To: Soumya Kanti Datta
>>> Cc: public-wot-ig@w3.org <mailto:public-wot-ig@w3.org>
>>> Subject: Re: How to attract new members to the WoT IG?
>>>  
>>> 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 <mailto: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 <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> <mailto: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 <https://sites.google.com/site/skdunfolded> | Skype id: soumyakantidatta
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Quoting Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org> <mailto: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>
>>> <mailto: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>
>>> <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%20%3cmailto:dsr@w3.org>> <mailto:dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> ?
>>>  Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org> <mailto:dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>> <mailto:dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> This message was sent using EURECOM Webmail: http://webmail.eurecom.fr <http://webmail.eurecom.fr/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> —
>>>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org> <mailto:dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> —
>>>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.
>> 
>> —
>>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

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