W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > September 2019

Re: Proposal: Web Thing Protocol Community Group

From: Kis, Zoltan <zoltan.kis@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:49:20 +0300
Message-ID: <CANrNqUd52sUR7V3rH7yy4nUf5hBhA2WFyQ22ib996txsXMq24Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-wot-ig <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, Public Web of Things WG <public-wot-wg@w3.org>
Hello,

I have given support for this CG for the following reasons:
- Indeed the work could be done in the WG/Protocol bindings as well, but
the CG has smaller, specific, well defined deliverables that might
accelerate WoT adoption.
- The smaller scope increases the likelihood of coming to working consensus
about the deliverables.
- A CG is good framework for exploration since has lower entry barrier for
participation, it's easier to attract participants. Again, this might
accelerate WoT adoption.
- A CG is just a framework like a TF, but it's better than a TF for public
proceedings in W3C for the reasons above.
The charter declares supporting the work done in the WG (Protocol
Bindings), which can (will) actually benefit from this CG's work.

Let's see how this will work out, it all depends on people. For the record,
there is an inactive WoT CG with 260 participants, out of which I've only
seen the WG members.
https://www.w3.org/community/wot/

Best regards,
Zoltan


On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 9:54 AM Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:

> For the record, there are several independent proposals for how to use Web
> Sockets which should form part of the discussion wherever it takes place.
>
> On 17 Sep 2019, at 07:45, Ege Korkan <ege.korkan@tum.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> I am still having the opinion that this topic could be covered in the
> protocol bindings task force, which would be more than happy to have you
> onboard! There we can talk of defining the default http/ws protocol binding
> which could be named as the Web Thing Protocol. We can have a separate
> document but this would look like "yet another standard" from my point of
> view.
>
> In the meantime, I have found this draft from you:
> https://iot.mozilla.org/wot/
>
> It seems to be up to date and referencing the W3C WoT Thing Description.
> However, it is still using the Mozilla way of doing things and not really
> using the W3C WoT Thing Description and defining a new "Thing Description".
> Moreover, I couldn't find a way to write issues or discuss things, thus the
> email. Is this a preliminary version until the Community Group is formed?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ege
>
> On 09/16/2019 03:52 PM, Benjamin Francis wrote:
>
> Dear WoT IG/WG members,
>
> I'm writing to announce the proposal
> <https://www.w3.org/community/blog/2019/09/16/proposed-group-web-thing-protocol-community-group/>
> of a Web Thing Protocol Community group.
>
> The purpose of this group is to complement the work of the IG and WG by
> defining a common protocol for communicating with devices over the web, to
> enable ad-hoc interoperability on the Web of Things.
>
> This work is intended to complement or extend the WoT Thing Description
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/wot-thing-description/> with a WebSocket
> sub-protocol, as well as the evaluation of other potential Web of Things
> protocol bindings.
>
> Please see the proposed Web Thing Protocol Community Group Charter
> <https://benfrancis.github.io/web-thing-protocol-charter/> for more
> information. I welcome your feedback and invite you to support the group
> <https://www.w3.org/community/groups/proposed/> via the W3C's website.
>
> Best regards
>
> Ben
>
>
>
> Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
> W3C Data Activity Lead & W3C champion for the Web of things
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2019 07:49:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:53 UTC