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

I agree "telemetry" is a fundamental use case for IoT however I don't 
see anything particularly unique about it. All it seems you're 
describing is the ability of a device to report combinations of sensor 
data at various time scales. I'm not sure how this relates to the 
charter or attracting new members?

Regards, Christian


On 23/05/2016 7:03 PM, Dave Raggett wrote:
> 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 
>> <mailto: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 
>>> <mailto: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><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><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><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><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> 
>>>>  <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> <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> | 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>>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2016 05:17:48 UTC