Re: Proposal: Web Thing Protocol Community Group

I would also like to give my support for this CG.  We discussed doing something like this at Munich after all.  My understanding is that the goal is to define a concrete *prescriptive* HTTP-based protocol for greenfield IoT devices.  We basically agreed that it made sense and would complement the more descriptive work we were doing in the WoT group with the TD etc.

I think whether we should we cover this by a Protocol Binding or simply use a reference to a separate “Web Thing Protocol” definition in the Protocol Binding is just a topic that can (and should( be discussed in the context of the proposed CG and the WoT IG.

(From: Michael McCool)

On Sep 17, 2019, at 16:51, Kis, Zoltan <zoltan.kis@intel.com<mailto:zoltan.kis@intel.com>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:dsr@w3.org>> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
W3C Data Activity Lead & W3C champion for the Web of things