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

Re: [FYI] openT2T

From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 10:56:40 +0000
Cc: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8B24FB3A-B115-418A-842D-C1B6EDFB0710@w3.org>
To: 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr>

> On 10 Nov 2016, at 06:36, 전종홍 <hollobit@etri.re.kr> wrote:
> Hi All,
> Doesn’t we need to check this project ?
> https://github.com/openT2T <https://github.com/openT2T>
> https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2016/04/05/open-translators-to-things-an-open-approach-for-accessing-similar-things/#wsRYOJ3J3qrqqEAA.97 <https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2016/04/05/open-translators-to-things-an-open-approach-for-accessing-similar-things/#wsRYOJ3J3qrqqEAA.97>
> Best Regards,
> — Jonathan Jeon 

Thanks for the pointer.

This makes for an interesting discussion. In principle, we could see community  driven development of shared models for things, perhaps along the lines of schema.org. Vendors could choose to expose their devices with both a richer vendor specific thing and as a community standard based thing. A further possibility is the use of third parties that develop virtual things as a community standard based front end to vendor specific things. These virtual things could be implemented as services that are downloaded from an open marketplace and installed on to the user’s smart home hub.

A twist to this narrative is where the device vendor wants control over which software is allowed to use the device. One motivation might be where the vendor is concerned about liability and wants to limit the client software to trusted code that has been vetted in an approved process. Another motivation could be the business relationships between the device vendor and other companies, e.g. relating to the exploitation of data collected by the device.

What are the implications for W3C?  We want to enable semantic models of things as a basis for discovery, composition and validation, but for the Web of things Working Group, we’ve decided to rule of  of scope standardisation of these models. The Working Group is expected to address the security requirements, including access control, and we should look forward to discussion around the detailed requirements.

Independently of that I believe there is a need for discussion around agile processes for vocabulary development and the role of community driven approaches as an alternative traditional standardisation bodies. What should W3C be doing to support this?

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

Received on Thursday, 10 November 2016 10:56:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:08 UTC