Hi David,

We collected some feedback in a document
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


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
> --
> π„ž   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
> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
dev-platform mailing list

Reply via email to