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

RE: IG charter - alpha 4

From: 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 08:05:29 +0000
To: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
CC: 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: <94BA84BB99B6BF47A36E7658689E85F0013CA0728E@SMTP4.etri.info>
Thanks Kazuyuki,

I agree with your point.

“Testing interoperability” is confused about what is “interoperability”.

I think your proposed sentence looks not confusable.
- "Seeing the feasibility of interoperable implementations based on the IG's draft proposals (on Thing Description, Protocol Binding, etc.)",

Best Regards,

--- Jonathan Jeon

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura [mailto:ashimura@w3.org]
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 3:24 AM
To: Dave Raggett
Cc: 전종홍; JONG HONG JEON; Kovatsch, Matthias; Takuki Kamiya; Public Web of Things IG; J. Alan Bird
Subject: Re: IG charter - alpha 4

Hi Dave, Jonathan, Matthias and all,
Given the message on the *latest* draft IG Charter from Matthias

I'd like to confirm that we are all looking at:

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.

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org<mailto:dsr@w3.org>> wrote:

For the interest group we can be flexible, so I don’t understand why we need the precision in the charter.  We can support the working group by helping to prepare implementation reports based upon the test suites produced by the working group as per the W3C Process, and we can also use plugfests for demonstrating that implementations can work together for ideas at different levels of maturity. The current wording covers both. What more do we need?

On 28 May 2016, at 06:57, 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr<mailto:hollobit@etri.re.kr>> wrote:

Thanks Dave,

During this discussion, I think still many people has different understanding about “interoperability testing” terminology.

someone understand that interoperability testing is only for validation of spec implementation as like as other SDO case,
someone understand that interoperability testing is just general pluggable testing for open connectivity.

Therefore If we can’t define clearly what is the meaning of “interoperability testing”,
we need carefully to use this “interoperability testing” terminology.

That’s my point.

Best Regards,

— Jonathan Jeon

2016. 5. 28., 오전 5:30, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org<mailto:dsr@w3.org>> 작성:

W3C hasn’t previously needed to go into really precise definitions for interoperability, so I am curious what makes you think that the Web of Things Charters require them, or perhaps I am misunderstanding you?

There is a general understanding of testing implementations against test suites, and against each other. What other ideas do you have in mind? Do we have need definitions fit for lawyers in the charter or can we leave this for group participants and group chairs to decide on based upon what a group wants do for a given plugfest, etc.

Best regards,

On 26 May 2016, at 17:00, Jonathan Jeon <hollobit@gmail.com<mailto:hollobit@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Dave,

All of charters are talking about "interoperability" and "interoperability test" many times, but I can't find any clear definitions about "WHAT" is "interoperability" and "HOW" can make it. This is the reason of my question.

Best Regards,

---Jonathan Jeon

2016. 5. 26. 20:49 Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org<mailto:dsr@w3.org>> 작성:
Turning the question back on you, what kind of interoperability are you concerned about?

On 26 May 2016, at 03:31, 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr<mailto:hollobit@etri.re.kr>> wrote:

Hi All,

I’d like to ask to clarify what is the meaning of “interoperability” in here and how can test it ?

What is the meaning of “interoperable” and what is the relationships with WoT WG’s specs ?

I think it is fundamentally important issue and concept. So please make clear.

Best Regards,

— Jonathan Jeon

2016. 5. 25., 오후 5:30, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org<mailto:dsr@w3.org>> 작성:

Just to note that while WGs are required to produce test suites and to publish implementation reports for transitioning from Candidate Recommendation to Proposed Recommendation, WGs do not normally work on interoperability testing.  The idea of the test suites is more oriented towards demonstrating that the specifications are implementable, and thus the test suites are required to cover all of the testable features in a spec. This is why the diagram shows the WG producing specs and test suites.

On 24 May 2016, at 22:38, Kovatsch, Matthias <matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com<mailto:matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com>> wrote:

Hi all

Yes, I see your concern and also want to prevent any formal errors in the charters. I am still not that familiar with the W3C process. Kaz is helping me in this regard (thanks! :D). Yet I think we have the right direction:

The WG will be responsible to produce the CR-relevant test suite as depicted in the IG relation overview by Taki. This test suite will also include test cases similar to, for instance, the RDF test cases (https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/). For this, I added an explicit deliverable to the WG charter, since these test cases are also useful to have an orderly  procedure in the PlugFests. Yet the PlugFest will do more than the usual W3C test suites, in particular in regard to external implementations and test-driving new approaches that might be considered for recommendation track.

I will create an issue on GitHub, since this is something that must be clear and correct in the charter.

Best regards

Von: Takuki Kamiya [mailto:tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Mai 2016 20:12
An: 전종홍; Kovatsch, Matthias (CT RDA NEC EMB-DE)
Cc: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3. org<mailto:dsr@w3.%20org>>; Public Web of Things IG; J. Alan Bird
Betreff: RE: IG charter - alpha 4


I think IG should probably focus on the validation of specifications being produced
by the WG by testing it from the perspective of use case scenarios and requirements.

This would be different from the interoperability tests conducted by the WG members,
which is rigorous in terms of spec coverage but is meant to be self-sufficient so as
only to ensure implementability of interoperable implementations according to the
verbiages of the spec.

The IG would then give feedback to the WG based on its validation report requesting
any improvements or changes to the draft specification.

Thank you,

Takuki Kamiya
Fujitsu Laboratories of America

From: 전종홍 [mailto:hollobit@etri.re.kr]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 10:57 AM
To: Kovatsch, Matthias
Cc: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3. org<mailto:dsr@w3.%20org>>; Public Web of Things IG; J. Alan Bird; Takuki Kamiya
Subject: Re: IG charter - alpha 4

Hi Matthias,

I agree also with your thought about what’s important relationships between open community and IG.

But, according on W3C process document, spec implementations and its testings are WG’s own duty.


My concern is simple. I think we should do not mix IG's role and WG's duty.

Best Regards,

— Jonathan Jeon

2016. 5. 25., 오전 1:32, Kovatsch, Matthias <matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com<mailto:matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com>> 작성:

An important aspect of having it in the IG charter is to link the PlugFest, and hence implementation work and testing to the OpenDay. Otherwise, non-members, that is, numerous open source developers are looked out of this activity.

PlugFest and fostering open source implementations should thus be part of the IG charter. Yet there is also a formal aspect for the WoT WG CR process. This relation should be clarified.


Von: Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Mai 2016 18:11
An: 전종홍
Cc: Public Web of Things IG; J. Alan Bird; Takuki Kamiya
Betreff: Re: IG charter - alpha 4

On 24 May 2016, at 16:24, 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr<mailto:hollobit@etri.re.kr>> wrote:

Thanks Dave,

2016. 5. 24., 오후 4:55, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org<mailto:dsr@w3.org>> 작성:

On 24 May 2016, at 03:14, 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr<mailto:hollobit@etri.re.kr>> 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 ?

The W3C Process requires WGs to provide normative test suites as a basis for implementation reports for the transition from Candidate to Proposed Recommendation.  The IG’s PlugFests are intended to enable exploration of experimental work, but also to assist with preparing implementation reports for WoT WG Candidate Recommendations. I have updated the wording accordingly.

An important activity is the operation of PlugFests to test interoperability and to validate the current working assumptions of the technology building blocks discussed in the Web of Things Interest Group. These events enable developers to get together to test their implementations and facilitates networking between partners and experts. The Interest Group will seek to encourage work on open source projects and community evaluation of the Web of Things. In more detail, PlugFests enable:
• assist with preparing implementation reports for WoT WG Candidate Recommendations
• test-drive upcoming or proposed technologies for the W3C Recommendation Track
• interoperability testing across implementations for ideas at different levels of maturity
• outreach to other communities and new members (open day, demo track)

I think that PlugFest’s main role looks like “assist the implementation reports for WoT WG CR process”, according to your wording.
I can’t understand why we have to include this kind of CR assist work on the IG’s charter formally ?

It is part of the IG charter because some IG members requested that the IG charter clearly sets out the relationship between the IG and the WG to avoid any potential confusion.  The details have been subject to discussion, and I have tried to update the wording accordingly.

Is there any similar case on W3C’s other IG charters ?

The best I can think of are the Web Payments IG and WG.  Their charters can be found at:



The Web Payments WG charter states:

For more information about Web Payments activities beyond the scope of this charter, see the Web Payments Interest Group<http://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/charter-201510.html#wpig> description below.

Web Payments Interest Group
The Web Payments Interest Group<http://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/> acts as the overall coordinator at W3C of a vision for Web Payments, by gathering Web Payments Use Cases<http://www.w3.org/TR/web-payments-use-cases/>, engaging in liaisons with other payments standards bodies, and developing a high-level architecture. From time to time, the Interest Group will seek feedback from the Working Group on its evolving vision, and share information about the evolution of the Web payments technology landscape. The Web Payments Interest Group also expects to provide technical input to this and other relevant W3C Working Groups, based on a detailed analysis of the relevant Web Payments Use Cases.
The Web Payments IG charter predates the Web Payments WG charter by some time, and therefore doesn’t mention the WG at all.

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

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

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

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

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

Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Auto, WoT, TV, MMI and Geo
Tel: +81 3 3516 2504

Received on Monday, 30 May 2016 08:11:31 UTC

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