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

Re: IG charter - alpha 4

From: Soumya Kanti Datta <Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:32:47 +0530
To: 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr>, "Dave Raggett <dsr@w3. org>" <dsr@w3.org>
Cc: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, "J. Alan Bird" <abird@w3.org>, Takuki Kamiya <tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com>
Message-ID: <5453519a-f2d7-68f5-8375-003050c08ecd@eurecom.fr>
+1 on this concern.



Research Engineer, EURECOM, France | +33658194342 | @skdatta2010 |
https://sites.google.com/site/skdunfolded | Skype id: soumyakantidatta

On 24-05-2016 07:44, 전종홍 wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> I’d like ask a question to clarify the scope of test activity.
> Regarding on IG’s draft charter, there was defined "one of important 
> activity is the operation of Plugfests to test interoperability”.
> And also WG side, in the figure, there was defined that WoT WG’s 
> activity is “write specs & write test suites”.
> Why it separated into WG’s Test suites and IG’s PlugFest activity ?
> I think we need to make clear what is different between WG’s test 
> activity and IG’s test activity.
> Best Regards,
> — Jonathan Jeon
>> *From:*Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org]
>> *Sent:*Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:40 AM
>> *To:*Public Web of Things IG
>> *Cc:*J. Alan Bird
>> *Subject:*IG charter - alpha 4
>> I am seeking a W3C Management Committee (W3M) member to review the 
>> draft charter, something that is a precondition for asking approval 
>> to start the Advisory Committee Review. I expect to announce the 
>> charter extension as part of the advanced notice for the work on the 
>> IG and WG charters. I plan to send this out on Monday morning.  We 
>> need to finalise the IG charter by the close of Friday, and I will 
>> ask W3M for approval for the AC Review at their next meeting on 
>> Wednesday, Jul 25.
>> Following today’s call, I have generated the alpha 4 version of the 
>> draft IG charter, see:
>> http://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-alpha4.html
>> We’re still in need of dates for first IG notes for each of the 
>> deliverables.
>> The changes are as follows:
>> I’ve switched to the patent disclosure wording from the previous 
>> charter as the new charter template was designed primarily for WGs.
>> Update the relationships figure to fix camel-casing of PlugFest, and 
>> corrected WG description to “write test suites” rather than “interop” 
>> since W3C WGs don’t normally work on interop testing. Instead, they 
>> are required to produce test suites and to collect implementation 
>> reports as a condition for moving from Candidate to Proposed 
>> Recommendation for their specifications. Note clicking/tapping on the 
>> figure gives you the full sized version which could be useful for 
>> people viewing the charter on mobile devices.
>> The first paragraph for the scope section has been split and new text 
>> added to the resulting second paragraph to explain the work on 
>> semantic interoperability and end to end security across platforms 
>> using different standards. It is made clear that this work 
>> will combine implementation experience with in-depth analysis.
>> The bullet points in the scope section have modified to clarify the 
>> distinction between supporting the Working Group in respect to 
>> satisfying the exit criteria for Candidate Recommendations, and the 
>> role of PlugFests for interoperability testing across implementations 
>> for ideas at different levels of maturity.
>> I have added examples for further ideas for topics to the paragraph 
>> following the bullet points.
>> In respect to the deliverables, I would note that without the 
>> deliverables for semantics and security, the W3C is unlikely to 
>> attract the participation of the companies that we need to make the 
>> Web of Things widely successful.  We need a compelling charter to 
>> bring in people from all scales of businesses, with the breadth of 
>> experience across different areas.  We need to become strategically 
>> compelling for businesses as they seek embrace the opportunity and 
>> disruption that the IoT will bring.  I recommend reading the Harvard 
>> Business Review article by Michael Porter and James HeppelMan "How 
>> Smart, Connected Products Are Transforming Competition”. See:
>> https://hbr.org/2014/11/how-smart-connected-products-are-transforming-competition
>> p.s. I am copying Alan Bird, W3C Business Development lead to allow 
>> him to confirm the importance of rising the to opportunity for the 
>> Web of Things.
>> —
>>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2016 08:02:35 UTC

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