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

Re: IG charter - alpha 4

From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 09:49:25 +0200
Cc: 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr>, JONG HONG JEON <hollobit@gmail.com>, "Kovatsch, Matthias" <matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com>, Takuki Kamiya <tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com>, Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, "J. Alan Bird" <abird@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3AB02044-11CF-450B-BB39-5D2897F497C4@w3.org>
To: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>

> On 29 May 2016, at 20:24, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dave, Jonathan, Matthias and all,
> 
> Given the message on the *latest* draft IG Charter from Matthias
> at:
>   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016May/0130.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016May/0130.html>
> I'd like to confirm that we are all looking at:
>   http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-ig-2016.html <http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-ig-2016.html>
> as the basis of this discussion.
> 
> Also I'm wondering what the IG as a whole really would expect
> for our PlugFest activity.
> 
> Maybe what we want to do is not "Testing interoperability" but simply
> "Seeing the feasibility of interoperable implementations based on the
> IG's draft proposals (on Thing Description, Protocol Binding, etc.)",
> and we should clarify that point during the next telephone conference
> on June 1.

Do you mean as a replacement for the bullet point:

interoperability testing across implementations for ideas at different levels of maturity
In which case how about?
exploring interoperability across implementations based on the IG's draft proposals
“Seeing the feasibility” isn’t quite right, e.g. you can check, test, experiment with and explore, but “to see” is the wrong verb. My guess is that we will want to do such experiments across platforms defined by external organisations, e.g. OCF.  Likewise, we may want to support experiments with ideas that are not yet adopted as formal work items by the Interest Group.  I therefore prefer the following wording:
interoperability experiments across implementations for ideas at different levels of maturity
Does that capture what we intend?

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




Received on Monday, 30 May 2016 07:50:07 UTC

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