Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Interest Group

[L. David Baron]

The W3C is proposing a revised charter for:

Web of Things Interest Group
https://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-ig-2016.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Jun/0008.html

Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
Friday, July 15.

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.

-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)

[mar...@marcosc.com]

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 7:06:39 PM UTC+10, David Baron wrote:

> 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.

It seems to go off into the RDF/XML weeds and tries to mask itself as something different to IoT (whatever that is). I think we should oppose it as it seems that whatever the result is, will not be Web friendly (in the sense that it won't work with web browsers, JS APIs, etc.).

[L. David Baron]

So opposing it takes both a good bit of energy and a potentially a
good bit of political capital (in that it might reduce the
seriousness with which people take future objections that we make).
Do you think it's actually worth getting involved here? If so,
would you be willing to help write the objection?

[Benjamin Francis]

On 22 June 2016 at 17:18, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote:

> So opposing it takes both a good bit of energy and a potentially a
> good bit of political capital (in that it might reduce the
> seriousness with which people take future objections that we make).
> Do you think it's actually worth getting involved here? If so,
> would you be willing to help write the objection?
>

Can we make suggestions about how to improve the charter rather than just
oppose it? I don't necessarily agree with the technical approach the group
is currently taking, but I do agree that the Web of Things could be a
valuable area for standardisation, as a layer of abstraction above various
incompatible IoT protocols which makes "things" linkable, discoverable and
interoperable via URLs.

Perhaps the effort should be more focused on use cases and real world
implementations before, as Marcos says, going off into the RDF weeds.

Ben <https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform>

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Benjamin Francis <bfra...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Can we make suggestions about how to improve the charter rather than just
> oppose it? I don't necessarily agree with the technical approach the group
> is currently taking, but I do agree that the Web of Things could be a
> valuable area for standardisation, as a layer of abstraction above various
> incompatible IoT protocols which makes "things" linkable, discoverable and
> interoperable via URLs.
>
> Perhaps the effort should be more focused on use cases and real world
> implementations before, as Marcos says, going off into the RDF weeds.

We should just let them do their thing and do our thing elsewhere.
Otherwise you get another payments and nobody wins.

I recommend reading through http://dbaron.org/log/2006-08#e20060818a.
A decade old, but nothing changed.


--
https://annevankesteren.nl/

[Martin Thomson]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> wrote:
> We should just let them do their thing and do our thing elsewhere.

This seems like a reasonable plan. Unless and until someone thinks
that a course correction is feasible, or decides that it's worth
trying.