External coordination (Liaisons) #1059
Conversation
|
Just to make sure, the old list should be carried over. I just wanted to split the two lists for better reviewability. The final version should have a single list. |
|
in a next iteration, we should reconsider whether some external organizations from the previous charter still make sense. We should kind of in sync with https://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison |
| There is also a wiki page linked but that page has not been updated since 2018. | ||
| </p> | ||
|
|
||
| <p>The following list provides examples of organizations with which the WoT Working Group |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Need to merge into one list. Not mentioned: Digital Twin Consortium (DTC), IETF, CSA/Zigbee (Matter), OneDM, OGC, Conexxus, etc. WE could also just list the "new" collaborations, "in addition to existing collaborations".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could also use categories, e.g. "joint work", "review", etc. We could also just reference a wiki page of active and planned collaborations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have added all the orgs in the first comment. Goal of coordination for some of them is not clear and is indicated with a TBD.
| For coordination on the development of the BACnet (ASHRAE 135-2020) Binding for the W3C Web of Things . | ||
| </dd> | ||
| </dt> | ||
| <dt><a href="https://github.com/Azure/opendigitaltwins-dtdl">Azure/Microsoft/OpenDigitalTwins DTDL</a></dt> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How do we deal with specs like this that are from one company? A kind of "de facto" status...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe list under "other collaborations"
|
Some other comments from my side:
|
In this PR, I want to do the following:
The whole PR is in draft stage since there are some notes that should not be in the final version at all.
Note: As I have indicated in the PR, we have a wiki page at https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/How_does_W3C_compare_to_other_organizations that is not updated since 2018. A decision should be reached on what should happen to that page. In its current state, it is also not clear how binding that list is (it is not but it is sort of in the charter).