W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > December 2015

[ig/tf-ap] minutes - 16 December 2015

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:13:52 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9WjGVuoxAsBfqM3Z+Xj8k37Cx=euq8xm4ekt3zJcz7LYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
available at:

also as text below.



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

                               - DRAFT -

                        Web of Things IG + TF-AP

16 Dec 2015



   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-wot-irc


          Kaz_Ashimura, Dave_Raggett, Joerg_Heuer, Johannes_Hund,
          Arne_Broering, Achille_Zappa, Claes_Nilsson,
          Danh_Le_Phuoc, Daniel_Peinter, Darko_Anicic,
          Frank_Reusch, Katsuyoshi_Naka, Kazuaki_Nimura,
          Louay_Bassbouss, Michael_Koster, Nikolas_Seydoux,
          Sebastian_Kaebisch, Taki_Kamiya, Toru_Kawaguchi,
          Victor_Charpenay, Yingying_Chen




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Next steps WG topics
         2. [6]Next F2Fs logistics (France in January and MIT in
         3. [7]Louay's contribution, a sketch for a WoT API in
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     * [9]Summary of Resolutions

   <joerg> do we have a volunteer for scribing?

   <scribe> scribenick: kaz

   <scribe> scribe: Kaz

   joerg: let's start the call for the whole IG and the TF-AP
   ... support for the WG items
   ... also logistics for the upcoming f2f meeting
   ... those are for the IG whole
   ... and contribution from Louay on WoT API in WebIDL (TF-AP
   ... useful for the plugfest during the f2f in Jan.

Next steps WG topics

   ems WG item wiki

     [10] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Proposals_for_WoT_WG_work_items

   joerg: discussion during the f2f meeting in Sapporo
   ... got request for extension
   ... so extended the deadline till last week
   ... covering different items
   ... the first is: Linked Data Vocabulary For Describing Data
   ... significant number of support
   ... also there are comments
   ... Siemens and Panasonic
   ... kind of focus on domain-specific topics
   ... also comment from Dave

   dsr: agree with the restriction to horizontal metadata. The
   choice of schema language will impact serialization, especially
   for resource constrained devices. Serialization formats could
   be dealt with as a separate work item (see content types).

   sebastian: agree should define minimum vocabulary
   ... also domain-specific vocabulary
   ... minimum set which would fit any industry
   ... also a vocabulary for small devices with limited capability

   dsr: what about serialization?

   sebastian: should stuck with existing serialization formats
   ... seems we're close with each other

   dsr: one spec for vocabulary and another for serialization
   ... should be handle with separate two specs
   ... would propose we should have a narrow scope
   ... we could extend the scope later

   joerg: maybe we can take this as an initial proposal
   ... we've got significant number of supporters
   ... next steps should be discussed at the upcoming f2f meeting
   in Jan.
   ... we can make conclusion on the description there
   ... supporters could clarify what their expectations are
   ... we can share opinions on each topic

   dsr: would see objective sentence block for each topic
   ... should not be a lot of effort

   danh: people consider constrained devices
   ... similar to SSN ontology?
   ... the comment from Siemens/Panasonic seems correct to me
   ... simple open ontology which could fit devices with different
   ... when you design ontologies, people might think about
   serialization format

   joerg: state to be connected
   ... more discussion to authorize should happen during the f2f
   ... how to move on this topic within the 6 weeks from now?

   <dsr> Some existing text: This will specify a data modelling
   vocabulary for describing things in terms of events, properties
   and actions, and links to domain models and protocol specific
   API descriptions. This work item will include provision for
   late bound data types, re-use of data type definitions, and
   labelled opaque data types for data to be handed on to entities
   that understand it. This vocabulary will be designed to
   supplement the RDF core datatypes, including enume[CUT]

   <dsr> and numeric ranges.

   joerg: supporters listed here should provide clarifications
   ... by providing bullet points

   darko: this sort of discussion could be done on the mailing
   ... or during a telco
   ... and we should have discussion during the f2f meeting as

   dsr: idea to discuss on the ml is good
   ... discussion on each item
   ... issue tracker on GitHub would be good as well

   joerg: ok

   <dsr> see early draft on github

     [11] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/WG/charter.md

   joerg: using GitHub would be convenient

   dsr: if the proposers of each topic could manage the issues
   ... would be great
   ... would be happy to update the document

   joerg: would start with bullet points

   dsr: we could manage the issues using the GitHub issue tracking

   joerg: each item can be discussed individually
   ... we have 9 items

   kaz: so each proposer would create an issue based on their
   ... and supporters add their clarifications

   joerg: yes
   ... we have some more comments
   ... sebastian?

   sebastian: make sense to have description what has access to
   the server
   ... and interaction model
   ... all the scopes are related to each other

   dsr: combine items or modular items?
   ... two buckets
   ... common things or modularizing horizontal metadata

   joerg: next one would be content type for serialization
   ... metadata is JSON-LD
   ... significant number of serialization formats
   ... in the objective section here

   <scribe> ... new one or existing one?

   dsr: if we use JSON-LD, how to encode to JSON-LD?
   ... if we define content types, what kind of mechanism to
   support various devices?
   ... default context and minimum capability
   ... need to know content type

   victor: what you have to discuss is communication between
   devices need to know actual data exchange

   dsr: you're getting the default context
   ... maybe would be better to continue on the ML

   victor: we're talking about serialization

   dsr: need longer discussion...

   mike: looking at here is for constrained devices
   ... might have fixed codes
   ... for interaction

   joerg: yeah, we have to revisit scope discussion
   ... some comments not clear enough
   ... again, the group should prepare your understandings for the
   GitHub document
   ... next: Web of Things scripting API
   ... supportive comment
   ... don't see points to discuss here
   ... please get prepared for your contribution
   ... next: Bindings to Common Protocols

   jhund: my point is on the wiki

   Siemens + Panasonic: W3C excels in defining models, payloads
   and APIs. The actual protocols are mainly driven by the
   respective consortia and standardization bodies. Therefore, a
   possible deliverable should be rather a model and a guideline
   on how to create a protocol binding rather than the binding
   itself, which might better be provided in the scope of the
   actual protocol definition. The inputs for this should be drawn
   from both the APIs and the thing description.

   jhund: need abstracted layer
   ... we WoT group should show how existing protocols should be
   ... the people defining the protocols should think about the
   best practices

   dsr: this is what W3C and IETF work for WebSocket
   ... similar model would work for WoT
   ... other groups work for XMPP or MQPP
   ... W3C need to work with those external groups

   jhund: you mentioned the successful story of WebSocket
   ... it is more on the protocol implementers
   ... taking up the WoT stack as the starting point would work

   dsr: the key thing is communication metadata should be
   ... you want a minimum set of abstract messaging?

   jhund: yeah, we should keep the level abstract here

   dsr: wondering which to do: W3C spec, IETF spec or W3C/IETF
   joint spec

   <dsr> Let’s not fix this now, and rather leave it to
   discussions with the respective SDOs

   joerg: let's move on: Uniform and Technology Independent
   ... just a few supports
   ... discussion within the discovery group?
   ... and outcome here
   ... support to consider?
   ... louay, soumya?
   ... related to protocol mapping?
   ... if so, should be combined

   louay: related to API for me
   ... uniform API to access all the technologies
   ... not sure if you've already looked at my proposal on WebIDL
   ... unified interface or technology for discovery

   joerg: maybe we should take this into smaller group discussion
   ... next: WoT Security and Security-Enabling APIs

   <jhund> we had to switch agenda points to progress on the WG
   topic before F2F, the topic of Louay's contribution is next up
   on the agenda

   <Zakim> dsr, you wanted to ask whether it makes sense to merge
   this with the scripting APIs work item

   dsr: given the strong supports for APIs
   ... should be merged?

   joerg: similar to how the security group works
   ... need to think about what would be the best structure
   ... for Authorization for Things Discovery
   ... and Things Metadata for Security and Security-Enabling
   ... discussion to be done at the f2f
   ... let's discuss the next steps for the 9 items on the GitHub
   ... using bullet points of description
   ... and discussion during the f2f meeting
   ... would volunteers from the active supporters

Next F2Fs logistics (France in January and MIT in April)

   joerg: f2f in Nice

   6th_%E2%80%93_28th,_France,_Nice f2f wiki


   joerg: the host can't cover all the cost
   ... would like to ask you follow the link here to get
   ... there are two registration forms
   ... meeting registration and payment
   ... would appreciate Eurecom's help
   ... any comments?

   dsr: Soumya is looking after people's interest in the OpenDay
   on Jan. 25

   victor: John Davis's participation?

   dsr: suggested to Soumya

   victor: preparation for the plugfest?
   ... talked with Soumya and the logistics team, but seems we
   can't have a room on 24th
   ... would be helpful if we could use a room for preparation on

   dsr: one option is hosting a room within INRIA
   ... another possibility is a room at a hotel nearby
   ... can ask
   ... my concern is people's travel
   ... will come on Sunday?
   ... INRIA would be closed on Sunday
   ... so the choice might be a hotel room

   joerg: please check the possibility
   ... maybe 8-9 people
   ... please do your registration by Christmas
   ... and would see the possibility of the preparation meeting
   ... further comments?


   joerg: the next meeting after this will be the one at MIT in
   ... hotel booking should be made asap
   ... for the April meeting
   ... would be quite expensive if in March, April

   dsr: need to pin out the date
   ... precisely

   joerg: would say 12-14
   ... without openday

   dsr: ideally would have an openday
   ... unfortunate if we couldn't have an openday

   joerg: openday or plugfest?

   dsr: or combine them perhaps?
   ... how about having a 4-day meeting?

   joerg: would stuck with 3-day
   ... unless we get further comments
   ... is it ok by people to make reservation now?

   kaz: it's difficult for JP participants to make reservations
   for April meeting now, because JP fiscal year changes
   ... will ask them for their opinions and let you know about the
   responses next week

   <Zakim> dsr, you wanted to ask for confirmation in respect to
   location for July face to face

   yingying: is the date confirmed?
   ... for July meeting

   joerg: 12-14 is the proposal

   dsr: is CETC in Beijing?

   yingying: yes

   joerg: great

   ngs WoT wiki (f2f plan)

     [13] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_Page#Face_to_Face_Meetings

   joerg: that's it for the whole IG

Louay's contribution, a sketch for a WoT API in WebIDL

   jhund: not much time
   ... but would acknowledge Louay's contribution
   ... would have a longer slot during the next call
   ... useful to our plugfest

   louay: don't think need to share my screen now



   louay: already shared the link above
   ... discussion in Sapporo
   ... how to have unified API for discovery
   ... even registration remotely
   ... this is an initial idea and need your feedback/contribution
   ... maybe missing security/privacy aspects
   ... put concrete scripts for each interface description

   jhund: thank you very much!
   ... would everybody to look at it
   ... and have email discussion
   ... maybe easier to have GitHub issues
   ... ok if people add proposals?

   louay: of course
   ... we need contributions from different aspects
   ... link between APIs and TD, etc.
   ... actions, events, etc.

   jhund: would raise this topic before the upcoming f2f

   joerg: ok
   ... please make sure to get registered for the f2f
   ... and remind yourself to add clarifications for the WG

   [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [15]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([16]CVS log)
    $Date: 2015/12/16 15:09:38 $

     [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [16] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 15:15:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:26:53 UTC