W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > February 2017

[wot-ig/wg] minutes - 22 February 2017

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:08:50 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9UOFAp8quSN84E+3gikOTw3_CBrNE2eKM00Obnf2sQo1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2017/02/22-wot-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Darko!

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                               WoT IG/WG

22 Feb 2017

   [2]Agenda

      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#22_Feb_2017

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/02/22-wot-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Kaz, Carlos, Darko, Dave, Feng, Kajimoto, Naka, Nimura,
          Toumura, Ohura, Matej, Matthias, Johannes, Sebastian,
          MKoster, McCool, Philip, Yamada, Taki, Tokuyama, Victor,
          Yongjing, Nan_Wang, Fernando, Maria, Matsukura, Yingying

   Regrets
   Chair
          Matthias, McCool, Kajimoto, Yongjing

   Scribe
          DarkoAnicic

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Agenda
         2. [6]Presentation from Konica Minolta
         3. [7]The WoT Ontology
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     * [9]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

Agenda

   Matthias: today we have two external presentations: one from
   Konca Minolta and another one related to the WoT ontology
   ... we need a press realise and a blog post etc. to show the WG
   started to work - there will be a meeting organized

   Matthias: there exist 4 mailing lists at the moment. We need to
   reduce a number of emails by organizing the communication.

   <McCool> anyhow, I was going to say we discussing creating an
   Editor's mailing list (actually, will have Editors and Chairs)

   <McCool> specifically to cover organizational topics related to
   editing the drafts

   Matthias: for instance we can publish first on the members-only
   WG list, and once we have an agreement or a proposal, then we
   can publish it on the public mailing list.

   <McCool> generally better to use github issues for "sticky"
   topics

   kajimoto: I would like to create a mailing list for the
   architecture deliverable.

   Matthias: this is an old issue: mailing list vs. GitHub issue

Presentation from Konica Minolta

   Presenter: Matej Dusik

   Presenter II: Carlos A Velasco

   project "Cognitive Hub" presented

   jhund: very interesting presentation. What kind of protocols do
   you support? What kind of Things can be connected to?

   Matej Dusik: we would like to support the W3C WoT

   Matej Dusik: different Things can be connected over our
   semantic platform

   Matej Dusik: we are currently driven by different use cases

   Carlos: introducing himself, we are working on topics like
   semantics, WoT

   Matthias: you are invited to give a short presentation on your
   work, activities etc.

   <Zakim> kaz, you wanted to ask if Matej can send these slides
   to the group list

   kaz: Matej, could you please send the presented slides?

   Matej: yes.

   Matthias: why did you choose Lora.

   Matej: Low maintenance, low power

   jhund: you are invited to participate in our Plug Fests to test
   the interoperability

   <McCool> never mind, stupid network

The WoT Ontology

   Matthias: Since Fernando is not present, we will skip the
   presentation

   Jhund: we have a new repo. Zoltan will provide a strawman for
   the ED, we still no access yet. Email notification will be
   provided.

   <kaz> [10]Scripting minutes

     [10] https://www.w3.org/2017/02/20-wot-minutes.html

   jhund: IG space will be merged with the new repo and the
   current content will be freezed, and a visitor will be
   forwarded to the new repo.

   Matthias: we should delete the old (current) content in order
   not to confuse visitors (it will not be deleted anyway, in case
   it is needed).

   <McCool> McCool: beside moving "normative" details out, I think
   we also need to work on outlines for each document

   kajimoto: I have updateed the architecture document (from the
   IG work) to be used in the WG

   Matthias: we should ensure that the most recent template is
   used in docs

   <kaz> [11]wot architecture tentative area

     [11] https://github.com/w3c/wotwg/tree/master/architecture

   <kaz> [12]wot architecture final area

     [12] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture

   Matthias: in the work on the architecture we want to cover,
   apart from device to clould comm., also other scenarious, e.g.,
   Thing to Thing interactions etc. Currently we don't have a
   separate call for the architecture work, email communication is
   crrently used.

   Carlos: could we organize the work more clearly regarding where
   and how to contribute?

   Matthias: the input has been inhereted from the IG. We now use
   the WG list.

   <inserted> [ all the 4 deliverable documents (WoT Architecture,
   TD, Scripting, Binding Templates) are WG deliverables, so
   should be handle on the WG side. ]

   Presenters: Maria and Fernando

   Maria: we extracted requirements from the Current Practise
   document, and provided an OWL ontology and HTML documentation
   for the ontology
   ... the outcome is online and avilable for comments

   mjkoster: how to link this ontology with other domain specific
   ontologies?

   Maria: we will work on showing how to use the ontology w.r.t
   example use cases

   sebastian: small modifications are needed to be align with the
   current TD model.
   ... shall we consider the work as a starting work for the model
   representation?
   ... Maria, you are invited to the TD discussion on the basic
   model.

   <cvelasco_Fraunhofer> Sorry, I have to leave

   <McCool> I don't think there is any particular reason to try to
   divorce things from RDF

   <McCool> at least its basic "triples" methodology

   Yongjing: if take this as a starting work on the basic model
   representation, then we should be aware that this
   representation is bound to RDF

   <McCool> but not really to any specific serialization; that
   indeed should not matter, but I don't see evidence it does

   <McCool> anyhow, I don't think we want to reinvent semantic
   technologies; we want to build on what's there already

   <McCool> useful <-> what are the use cases?

   <McCool> eg. validation, bridging, etc.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [13]scribe.perl version
    1.148 ([14]CVS log)
    $Date: 2017/02/27 07:59:06 $

     [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 27 February 2017 08:10:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 27 February 2017 08:10:08 UTC