Re: [WoT WG] Release of WoT WG Charter Draft extendend until next week

> On 17 Oct 2016, at 20:56, Benjamin Francis <bfrancis@mozilla.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear WoT Interest Group,
> 
> Further to the Mozilla Corporation's recent formal feedback on the proposed WoT Working Group Charter archived here https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2016Oct/0004.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2016Oct/0004.html> I would like to offer some more specific but informal feedback as a member of the "Connected Devices" team at Mozilla.

Thanks, much appreciated.

> 
> Firstly, apologies that this feedback is coming quite late in the review cycle of the charter but Mozilla have been ramping up their efforts in the IoT space for the last 9-10 months or so and we have recently become very interested in the WoT approach to the Internet of Things.
> 
> I'd suggest the charter could benefit from a reduced scope, a more lightweight approach and a simplified set of deliverables. This might include a simpler initial data model with a reduced set of metadata and a default encoding without a dependency on RDF (e.g. plain JSON), the specification of a single REST/WebSockets API for interacting with Things and a reduced scope around methods for device discovery. I propose that the deliverables could potentially be reduced down to a single specification describing a Web of Things architecture, data model and API and separate notes documenting bindings to non-web protocols and a set of test cases.
> 
> I'd suggest that the WoT Current Practices <http://w3c.github.io/wot/current-practices/wot-practices.html> and WoT Architecture <https://w3c.github.io/wot/architecture/wot-architecture.html> documents referenced in the charter are not currently a good basis on which to build a specification and that the member submission <http://model.webofthings.io/> from EVRYTHNG and the Barcelona Supercomputing Center could provide a better starting point.

We want to avoid increasing fragmentation by introducing yet another competing platform. Instead, we want to provide an abstraction layer that can be used with both existing and new platforms. This means being agnostic with respect to the protocols, the data encodings and so forth. Different platforms may use the same protocols in slightly different ways, so we need to find ways to describe what’s needed for the specific platform hosting a given thing.

A further consideration is simplifying app development by decoupling the protocol details via delegation to platform developers.  This is where the object model comes in, with things exposed to apps independently of the protocols.

What do you think about the work on APIs?  Google proposed that this requires further incubation.

> 
> We very much welcome the activity in this area but we think the charter as currently proposed may need some work as the goals are arguably not clearly defined and the scope potentially quite large.
> 
> We are currently ramping up our efforts towards what could in future become another implementation of this Web of Things API and data model and so members of the Connected Devices team would be interested in participating in this effort more in future.
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Ben
> 
> On 30 August 2016 at 20:23, Heuer, Joerg <Joerg.Heuer@siemens.com <mailto:Joerg.Heuer@siemens.com>> wrote:
> Dear WoT IG,
> 
>  
> 
> in the last week, unfortunately quite short before the submission deadline, we discussed with the charter / white paper split and initial chair proposals quite significant topics which we had not on the radar before.
> 
>  
> 
> To make sure that we have sufficient time to reflect and review the proposals we should shift the release of the charter to the W3M / AC review and conclude on a joint approach in the above mentioned issues.
> 
>  
> 
> Please make sure that you review and contribute your comments to the documents referenced below [1] [2] before Thursday EOB so we can discuss those in the upcoming webconf.
> 
> Please also provide comments and proposals for chairs. For this we should keep in mind how to handle the discussed parallel setup of the IG and WG.
> 
>  
> 
> To limit if possible the delay on the WG charter release for W3M / AC review to one week, we have to schedule a webconf before the one of the W3M next Wednesday. Matthias has volunteered to setup a Doodle for this to ask for your availability this Friday and next Tuesday.
> 
>  
> 
> BR
> 
> Joerg
> 
>  
> 
> [1] The draft Working Group charter is on GitHub at:
> 
>  
> 
>           https://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-wg-2016.html <https://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-wg-2016.html>
>  
> 
> [2] The draft white paper is at:
> 
>  
> 
>           http://www.w3.org/2016/08/wot-white-paper/ <http://www.w3.org/2016/08/wot-white-paper/>
>  
> 
> Your feedback is welcome on the WoT IG public or member mailing list. Ideally, you open an Issue on GitHub and label it with the orange “WG Charter”:
> 
>  
> 
>             https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/new <https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/new>
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 

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