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

Re: IG charter - alpha 4

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 10:39:02 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9VOVj23RdFTdpW1LfkRM9FnZ+6C16Z+Zo0=88LiEPsp0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: kawaguchi.toru@jp.panasonic.com
Cc: hollobit@etri.re.kr, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, hollobit@gmail.com, matthias.kovatsch@siemens.com, Takuki Kamiya <tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com>, Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, Alan Bird <abird@w3.org>
Hi Kawaguchi-san, Jonathan and Dave,

Thank you for your responses!

Let's talk about this during the telconf tomorrow :)

Thanks,

Kazuyuki



On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 5:42 PM, <kawaguchi.toru@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:

> I also support Kaz’s idea.
>
>
>
> “Testing interoperability” seems to be implying something more formal one
> than we expect.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Toru Kawaguchi
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* 전종홍 [mailto:hollobit@etri.re.kr]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 30, 2016 5:05 PM
> *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
> >
> *Subject:* RE: IG charter - alpha 4
>
>
>
> 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 <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
>
> at:
>   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
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kazuyuki
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Jonathan,
>
>
>
> 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> 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> 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,
>
>     Dave
>
>
>
> On 26 May 2016, at 17:00, Jonathan Jeon <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> 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> 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> 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> 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
>
> Matthias
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Takuki Kamiya [mailto:tkamiya@us.fujitsu.com
> <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>; Public Web of Things IG; J. Alan Bird
> *Betreff:* RE: IG charter - alpha 4
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> 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 <hollobit@etri.re.kr>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2016 10:57 AM
> *To:* Kovatsch, Matthias
> *Cc:* Dave Raggett <dsr@w3. org>; 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.
>
>
>
> https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#candidate-rec
>
>
>
> 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>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Matthias
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org <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> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks Dave,
>
>
>
>
>
> 2016. 5. 24., 오후 4:55, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> 작성:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24 May 2016, at 03:14, 전종홍 <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:
>
>
>
>    http://www.w3.org/2014/04/payments/webpayments_charter.html
>
>    http://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/charter-201510.html
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> and
>
> 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>
>
>
>
> —
>
>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> —
>
>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> —
>
>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> —
>
>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Auto, WoT, TV, MMI and Geo
>
> Tel: +81 3 3516 2504
>
>
>



-- 
Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Auto, WoT, TV, MMI and Geo
Tel: +81 3 3516 2504
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2016 01:40:20 UTC

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