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

Let’s be more specific.  Telemetry from remote sensors is clearly an important role for the IoT.  An example is collecting a stream of data from remote weather stations. Consider a wind sensor that reports the wind speed and direction. The telemetry stream then consists of a sequence samples where each sample gives that speed and direction at the time of the measurement.

For a thing description, a stream can be defined as a property. For the wind vane example, there would be sub-properties for the speed and direction. The property metadata would indicate the time interval between samples. Imagine an app that displays a scrolling graph with the wind speed and direction. This could read one sample at a time from the stream. Another app might want to perform some statistical measurements over the stream, and require access to a history of samples over some time window. 

The wind sensor could use a wind and solar powered microcontroller to transmit blocks of readings over CoAP. The MCU thus needs to buffer the requisite number of samples for each packet. An app running on a more powerful device would be able to access a much larger number of samples. 

This is straightforward and low risk. W3C needs to embrace telemetry as part of the Web of Things.

> On 23 May 2016, at 07:50, Christian Groves <Christian.Groves@nteczone.com> wrote:
> 
> I think that having a concise set of work items that are an active focus rather than having a larger set of "wish list" work items is the best way to attract people. I've seen plenty of examples where standards bodies who create work items for marketing purposes to "attract people" and the work items go nowhere.
> 
> Regards, Christian
> 
> 
> On 20/05/2016 2:46 AM, Soumya Kanti Datta wrote:
>> Without having some work items or deliverables on E2E Security or Semantic aspects it would be difficult to attract new people to actively contribute to the IG work. If you look into the IoT platforms or other SDOs, everyone has dedicated building blocks addressing semantic interoperability, data representation, security etc.
>> 
>> Soumya
>> 
>> Research Engineer, EURECOM, France | +33658194342 | @skdatta2010 |
>> https://sites.google.com/site/skdunfolded | Skype id: soumyakantidatta
>> 
>> 
>> Quoting "Roes, J.B.M. (Jasper)" <jasper.roes@tno.nl>:
>> 
>>> Yes, I think the suggestions that the both of you do are interesting  and are worth investigating in the near future. For now I hope that  the current text in the IG charter is enough for this moment, as  working it out in more detail would in my opinion take more time  that we have to in finishing the IG charter. Next to that, I think  it would be good to work out the details with a broader group of  people that are interest in semantic interoperability and the  relation with WoT, instead of trying to do it now with a limited  group of people.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Jasper
>>> 
>>> From: Michael Koster [mailto:michael.koster@smartthings.com]
>>> Sent: maandag 16 mei 2016 20:40
>>> To: Dave Raggett
>>> Cc: Roes, J.B.M. (Jasper); Soumya Kanti Datta; Public Web of Things IG
>>> Subject: Re: How to attract new members to the WoT IG?
>>> 
>>> 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]
>>> 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 | 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>>
>>> 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> <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>> 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%20%3cmailto:dsr@w3.org>> <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ?
>>> Dave Raggett <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>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ?
>>>   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>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> This message was sent using EURECOM Webmail: http://webmail.eurecom.fr
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

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