W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > February 2018

[PlugFest] minutes - 7 February 2018

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 02:16:04 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9X0teD1TjC0SuqxA9FpVWEBA0aPOxCjGSP6GPpo6vjFVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Michael McCool!




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

                               - DRAFT -

                              WoT PlugFest

07 Feb 2018


          Kaz_Ashimura, Benjamin_Klotz, Darko_Anicic,
          Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_McCool, Soumya_Kanti_Datta,
          Toru_Kawaguchi, Zoltan_Kis, Michael_Lagally,
          Ryuichi_Matsukura, DarkoAnicic, Michael_Koster


          Koster, Matsukura

          McCool, kaz


     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Agenda
         2. [4]Checklists
         3. [5]Security
         4. [6]Semantic interoperability
     * [7]Summary of Action Items
     * [8]Summary of Resolutions

   <kaz> scribenick: McCool


   Koster: let's review checklists
   ... participants and security
   ... let's also discuss semantic interop
   ... reserve last 20m for sematics


   <mjkoster> [9]General WoT Plugfest Participant Questionnaire

      [9] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/plugfest/2018-prague/checklists/participant-questionnaire.md

   Koster: PR has been accepted for participant questionnaire
   ... want to collect this information so we can see what people
   are thinking
   ... would also like to have a lot of scenarios
   ... we also want to document both what we plan to do
   ... AND what we would do for a real product deployment
   ... for example, we may do something manually in an ad-hoc way
   ... that in a real deployment we would automate
   ... even if you are just bringing connected things, but not a
   ... still good to document
   ... (discussion of application scenario section)

   McCool: what is the timeline on the scenario questionnaire?

   Koster: probably next week
   ... good to have a document that is more focused on use cases
   ... I also plan to work up a more concrete example...
   ... is also a survey of what components people are bringing
   ... important if you want to build scenarios that cross
   components brought by different people
   ... as an additional topic: how do we add extrinsic semantics
   ... are looking at that for the IETF Hackathon the weekend
   before IETF
   ... March 17-18
   ... what we want to look at there is how to do discovery
   ... how can we do some complementary things
   ... some additional information needed to make sense of data
   ... thing directory would be the obvious place (Koster: IMO) to
   add this information
   ... next topic is semantic integration
   ... what ARE the types and capabilties, in English?
   ... what information do you want to express?
   ... what kind of information would you want to find out?
   ... then there's the issue of adapting to engineering units.
   ... now protocol bindings
   ... what protocols you plan to use, and how
   ... are you building a driver, or using the information in the
   protocol binding?
   ... how are observables/events handled in particular? (MQTT,
   SSE, WS, LP, etc)
   ... then how do you generate bindings for exposed things
   ... next topic: system level
   ... proxies, nat traversal, caching, translation, etc.
   ... how does it interact with other things and services
   ... topic security: a few high-level stuff, but look at
   security questionnaire

   McCool: under accessiblility, we probably need to thing about
   semantic tagging
   ... for example, to indicate physical events and ui options
   ... to know when we have to worry about translation into
   alternative sensory modalities

   <Zakim> kaz, you wanted to ask about possible template for use

   <kaz> [10]use case template

     [10] https://www.w3.org/TR/mmi-discovery/#use-cases

   Kaz: there is another template for use cases
   ... the multimodal interaction working group looked at this
   ... and developed a template

   Koster: nice, we can review that at perhaps reuse

   Kaz: work itself was regarding accessibility and user interface
   ... but we can extend it to the more general case, using the

   Darko: when do you expect to obtain some results?
   ... it looks very extensive, but what is the timeline?
   ... how can we get the results as soon as possible?

   Koster: optional, easy to update, etc.
   ... it's all optional
   ... should make it easy for people to update information
   ... we still have six weeks, but...

   Darko: what format? Is the wiki the right place?

   Koster: if there was any easy way to do a survey...

   Darko: could use google
   ... using doodle is a little awkward

   Kaz: there is a questionairre functionality we can use in W3C

   <kaz> [ we can use hyperlinks using W3C WBS (Web-based
   straw-poll system like

     [11] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/WoTF2F201803/?login

   Koster: would be nice if it can also do file attachments

   McCool: ok if people can just hyperlink to their own github
   ... I think two weeks out do get some initial drafts would be

   Darko: but it is important to be able to see answers from
   ... it is useful so that one can look at others for examples

   Koster: so... we need to go look at tools, can do that offline


   <kaz> [12]Security questionnaire

     [12] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/plugfest/2018-prague/checklists/security.md

   <inserted> scribenick: kaz

   McCool: (goes through the questionnaire)
   ... would like to add figures
   ... there is picture in the Security note
   ... would like to check if we can use SVG
   ... concrete example would be helpful

   Koster: concrete example and implementation guidance would be

   McCool: right now the security note is quite high level
   ... need concrete example on provisioning key, etc.
   ... let us know if anything to be added
   ... or need clarification

Semantic interoperability

   <scribe> scribenick: McCool

   Soumya: project with another company
   ... set up tools that can insure interoperability
   ... will create a couple of slides that can share in the next

   Koster: can you discuss the idea of testing semantic interop
   ... what is the system being tested, what are the inputs and

   Soumya: better to let me put it down on some slides first
   ... better than saying things now

   Koster: are you available for the Friday meeting?

   Soumya: yes, I am

   <kaz> (4pm in Europe)

   Koster: that would be good time to discuss the conceptual
   ... also participation in the Eurecom testing

   [13]Darko's slides (esp. p5 on "Next Steps")

     [13] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/images/2/20/2018-02-02-W3C-WoT-TF-LD-Prague-PlugFest-Preparation.pdf

   Darko: let me show what we are thinking about for the next
   steps for semantic interop
   ... want a set of scenarios
   ... extend scenarios with "WoT challenges"
   ... which in order to be implemented need semantic integration
   ... provide semantic artifacts (queries, capabilities, recipes,
   etc) needed for these scenarios
   ... in addition, Eurecom may want to participate with some
   other semantic models
   ... rather than using iotschema
   ... may want to use other semantics models...
   ... iotschema in particular has three levels
   ... can talk about interoperability at these levels
   ... but other models may have other levels

   Soumya: think that iotschema is a good place to start

   Darko: that makes things easy...
   ... but we can look at additional capabilities

   Koster: I did a presentation that added a "thing type"
   ... that would be useful
   ... I think it's far more useful for capabilities
   ... but some people still want to think in terms of
   ... types

   Darko: it would be great to get feedback from telcos on
   ... so we can direct our work in the direction of results from

   Koster: thing we discussed in Wishi group earlier this week
   ... extrinsic information
   ... is this something we want to add?
   ... seems to be in scope, but we haven't really discussed

   McCool: concrete examples?

   Koster: location is one for sure

   Darko: SOSA
   ... location, also "feature of interest"
   ... eg: what are you measuring?
   ... is a pattern, not everyone will want it
   ... but will be useful for some people

   Koster: location is kind of an aspect of FOI
   ... want to know which capabilities are applied to which FOIs

   Darko: sometimes the FOI is more important that the capability
   ... for instance, I may want to find out everything I can about
   some FOI
   ... but don't necessarily know in advance what things are being
   sensed about that FOI

   Benjamin: is this integrated into Iotschema.org

   Darko: not integrated/public yet
   ... SOSA would be an additional pattern, as opposed to a
   horizontal layer
   ... in order to keep it simple
   ... but we need to go back and look at SOSA pattern

   Koster: ok, will take this up in the Friday meeting

   <inserted> scribenick: kaz

   McCool: when is the iot.schema meeting?

   Koster: once charter, etc., is clarified, would have one

   McCool: github, etc.?

   Koster: there is a iot.schema repo

   McCool: place for pullrequests?

   Koster: yes, there is a place for that purpose
   ... ontology pattern is very simple
   ... iot.schema is based on ontology

   McCool: legal framework?

   Koster: charter would clarify license, etc.
   ... you need to part of the W3C CG

   McCool: we're already part of W3C

   Koster: the venue will go under the W3C CG framework

   <inserted> scribenick: McCool

   Koster: there have been some important decisions made recently
   ... interactions seem to be central

   darko: properties may not be top-level
   ... also mention shape constraints
   ... some companies some things may be a property
   ... for others may be an action
   ... be more generally, have interaction patterns

   Koster: let's put that down as a topic for the next iotschema
   ... our hour is up

   kaz: regarding CG for iotschema...
   ... not created yet, correct?

   Koster: right. first thing is to create the charter
   ... thought we could use the existing WoT CG
   ... timeline is... we write up the charter
   ... and then have to decide whether we want to create a new CG
   or reuse the existing WoT one
   ... any more business? No? then adjourn...

   <kaz> [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [14]scribe.perl version
    1.152 ([15]CVS log)
    $Date: 2018/02/07 17:11:51 $

     [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2018 17:18:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 February 2018 17:18:07 UTC