Hi David, Have you had any more correspondence with the W3C on Mozilla's behalf regarding this charter?
From the Web of Things Interest Group mailing list <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/> it appears that the group is happy to remove the dependency on RDF as suggested in our feedback (although they claim this wasn't intended as a dependency in the first place). Instead I understand they would like to include an extension point in the Thing Description such that semantic annotations could be added externally to the Thing Description specification if desired. This seems reasonable to me. On the point of the charter being too broad I don't think much has been done to address this. The group still seems intent on including a language-agnostic "scripting API" in the charter, despite Google's feedback that the Thing Description should be the central focus of the charter and that the scripting API should be moved to a supporting research themed status. I'd like to share a recommendation from the IoT platform team in Connected Devices that the charter should include only a *Web Thing Description* with a default JSON encoding and a *Web Thing API* which is a REST API that can be implemented using HTTP (or HTTP/2 or CoAP). We have started to draft a potential member submission <https://moziot.github.io/wot/> to illustrate this proposal (this is just a skeleton at the moment, contributions welcome on GitHub <https://github.com/moziot/wot/issues>). With this reduced scope no scripting API should be necessary (most programming languages already have the capability to call a REST API via HTTP and anyone can create a helper library to call the WoT REST API). It should also simplify the security and privacy requirements considerably given this is a well established and well understood technology stack on the web. This kind of RESTful approach is already becoming a de-facto standard in IoT (e.g. Google Weave, Apple HomeKit, Samsung SmartThings, EVRYTHNG, AWS IoT, Azure IoT, IoTivity, AllJoyn). What's missing is a standard data model and common API using this pattern. This is also the direction the Open Connectivity Foundation <https://openconnectivity.org> is taking with CoAP and their OIC specification, and the direction we expect the Mozilla IoT Framework to take. We'd very much like to collaborate on this specification via the W3C but currently the charter still seems too broad and I would argue not in line with the direction of the wider industry. Ben On 17 October 2016 at 19:15, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > The comments I submitted on the WoT charter are archived at: > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2016Oct/0004.html > > -David > > On Friday 2016-10-14 15:03 +0100, Benjamin Francis wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > > π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π > > > π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π > > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π > π’ Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ π > 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
