Hi David, We collected some feedback in a document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jbZUgqFiJa_R5E3OxPduFSiVsmOYGSWw66VVLij9FyA/edit?usp=sharing> and I'm going to try to summarise it here. Please let me know if you feel this feedback is appropriate and feel free to edit it before sending. I also welcome further feedback from this list if it can be provided in time.
There were some concerns expressed around the clarity of the goals set out in the charter and whether there has been sufficient research and incubation in order to proceed with the drafting of specifications via a Working Group. We propose 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 and a reduced scope around methods for device discovery. We propose that the deliverables could 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. It is suggested 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. Mozilla welcomes the activity in this area but the charter as currently proposed may need some work. Let me know what you think Ben On 11 October 2016 at 02:52, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > The W3C is proposing a new charter for: > > Web of Things Working Group > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Sep/0005.html > https://www.w3.org/2016/09/wot-wg-charter.html > > Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through > this Friday, October 14. > > Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should > say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should > support or oppose it. > > My initial reaction would be to worry about whether there's > properly-incubated material here that's appropriate to charter a > working group for, or whether this is more of a (set of?) research > projects. W3C has an existing Interest Group (not a Working Group, > so not designed to write Recommendation-track specifications) in > this area: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/ . > > -David > > -- > 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 > 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 > Before I built a wall I'd ask to know > What I was walling in or walling out, > And to whom I was like to give offense. > - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) > > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > email@example.com > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform