A Semantic Definition Format for Data and Interactions of Things
charter-ietf-asdf-01

To revisit my two items of feedback from the initial charter review:

** What is "Thing Interaction and Data Modelling"?
** What is currently outstanding to make SDF “IETF quality”?  I worry that the text currently reads as “start with SDF and make it better”.

Here is text that could address those:

OLD
The objective of the ASDF working group is to develop SDF to an IETF-quality specification for Thing Interaction and Data Modelling, working with experts from OneDM and its contributing organizations.  On the way to that specification, further functionality requirements will be addressed that emerge in the usage of SDF for model harmonization.

The ASDF WG will work closely with the CBOR WG, home of the CDDL specification.


NEW

The objective of the ASDF working group is to develop a standards-track SDF specification for thing interaction and data modelling. In the course of developing this specification, further functional requirements that emerge from the model harmonization will be addressed.

The ASDF WG will work with the experts from OneDM and its contributing organization.  In the IETF, it will work closely with the CBOR WG, home of the CDDL specification.

Explanation of the edit proposed edit:

-- s/an IETF-quality specification/standards-track specification/ which speaks more concretely the quality bar expected

-- s/Thing Interaction and Data Modelling/thing interaction and data modeling/ because none of these are proper nouns.  I got confused in the initial charter review because the capitalization made it read like this was a formal name for something (proper noun)

-- s/working with experts from OneDM and its contributing organizations// because this paragraph should describe what the WG is doing.  The reference to OneDM and contribution organization should be noted with the rest of partners (in the next paragraph).

-- s/On the way to that specification, further functionality requirements will be addressed that emerge in the usage of SDF for model harmonization/ In the course of developing this specification, further functional requirements that emerge from the model harmonization will be addressed/ to make clear the source of the functional requirements and why they can’t be articulated now.  If the basis of how any deconfliction will be done can be noted, this would be helpful (e.g., minimize disruptive change across the existing models in the ecosystem now)

Looking forward to seeing this WG in action !

Some comments though:

"the Semantic Definition Format (SDF) was created" should a reference to SDF be added ? Then, later, it seems that SDF specification is the key work item for ASDF WG.


"Some 200 models in SDF format have been contributed " a reference to the repository would be welcome. Should "in 2020" be added to provide more context ?

"they look to the IETF for developing SDF 1.0 further into a high-quality specification" is positive for the IETF but this claim has no reference.

Expanding "WISHI" would help the non-expert reader (like myself).

"The Thing-to-Thing Research Group (T2TRG) and its WISHI program
can be instrumental in engaging researchers and other SDOs in this space,
such as W3C Web of Things, which is working on Thing Description
Templates and related specifications."

This seems like a strange note to have in the charter for ASDF, as it is not about ASDF. I would suggest reframing this to talk about the expected interaction between ASDF and T2TRG rather than having an independent endorsement of T2TRG.

I think I was expecting some changes to the charter text in response to Roman's point from the internal review:

    ** What is currently outstanding to make SDF “IEFT quality”?  I worry that the  
    text currently reads as “start with SDF and make it better”.                    

but I will let Roman decide whether or not to make a blocking objection of it at this time.