W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > April 2016

minutes from charter session April 13th

From: Michael Koster <michaeljohnkoster@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:23:59 -0400
Message-Id: <BE02EF26-73DE-4DAD-AC02-201F18E06710@gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
09:11] == mivhael [~mivhael@public.cloak] has joined #wot
[09:11] <mivhael> Dave introduces the topic of charter review
[09:12] <mivhael> Interest group has been an incubator of ideas, other working groups forming e.g. security
[09:13] <mivhael> Charter typically 2 years
[09:13] <mivhael> Chair will be needed
[09:14] <mivhael> Process of initial draft + refinement
[09:14] <mivhael> 3 years is not a long time
[09:14] == jeff [Jeff@public.cloak] has joined #wot
[09:15] <mivhael> Joerg: continue discussion from yesterday re inter-platform over web
[09:16] <mivhael> Claes: what is the network effect?
[09:16] <mivhael> Dave: value increases as the number of participants in a service increases
[09:17] <mivhael> Dave: face to face meetings
[09:18] == Soumya [~Soumya@public.cloak] has joined #wot
[09:19] <mivhael> Dave: introduce the web landscape in the document and limits the scope so organizations can determine IPR concerns
[09:19] == yingying [yiyichen@public.cloak] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
[09:19] <mivhael> Dave: the WoT is based on web architecture
[09:20] <mivhael> Dave: introduce diagram and ask Claes to comment
[09:20] <mivhael> Claes: important that scripting API is for both exposing and interacting with things
[09:20] == yingying [yiyichen@public.cloak] has joined #wot
[09:21] == yingying [yiyichen@public.cloak] has quit [Client closed connection]
[09:21] <mivhael> Claes: also important to specify other scripting environments besides js
[09:22] <mivhael> Claes: Table, what is the relation between this table and what we are going to standardize ?
[09:23] <mivhael> DAve: we could annotate this with the information about what we are going to do
[09:23] <mivhael> Sebastian: the document should set out early to define what we are going to do
[09:25] <mivhael> Dave: not a spec for what you do in a browser, otherwise we need browser architects
[09:25] <mivhael> Joerg: figure vs. range of architectures but the figure only shows one scenario for architecture
[09:26] <mivhael> Joerg: it needs to convey what we are working on, and can we communicate the range of scenarios and architectures
[09:26] == kaz [~kaz@public.cloak] has joined #wot
[09:27] <mivhael> Joerg: most people are visual, can we show some of a range of target architectures
[09:27] <mivhael> Joerg: also, what about discovery and other aspects of the system
[09:28] <mivhael> Dave: it needs to be small and we need to be careful about what we express
[09:29] <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/52 <https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/52> Michael's issue on github
[09:30] <mivhael> Joerg: what are the problems we are looking at, and our understanding of the approach
[09:30] <mivhael> Johannes: THe image should convey 3 good messages
[09:31] <mivhael> Johannes: about what we're doing
[09:31] <mivhael> Dave: what is WoT as opposed to IoT should be addresses witj specific intention
[09:32] <mivhael> DAve: sec. 1.1 describes what we want to do
[09:32] <mivhael> Dave: starting with TC as vocabulary rather than ontology; more developer friendly
[09:33] <mivhael> Dave: security data model not discussed
[09:33] <mivhael> Dave: concerned that srcurity is not at the same level of maturity; is trust assertion too ambitious and be dropped
[09:34] == katsu [~katsu@public.cloak] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
[09:34] <mivhael> r/scrurity/security/
[09:35] <mivhael> Kaz: Is this scoping?
[09:35] <mivhael> Dave: what should we do?
[09:35] <mivhael> Kaz: should this be shorter? the explanation is overkill, we should express the key essence
[09:36] <mivhael> Dave: shorter description would broaden the scope
[09:36] <mivhael> Dave: will drop the security one
[09:37] <mivhael> Kaz: should be the few points that express what the whole group agrees with
[09:38] <mivhael> Dave: trying to set expectations without too much detail
[09:38] <mivhael> Dave: we know we need these elements
[09:38] <mivhael> Daniel: second bullet is concrete, others are too abstract
[09:39] <mivhael> DAniel: should be balances in level
[09:39] <mivhael> Joerg: make it more focused and make references to other documents
[09:41] <mivhael> Sebastian: Doubts that we have worked out how security is done with linked data
[09:42] <mivhael> Dave: Oliver wanted to make sure security is mentioned
[09:42] <mivhael> Dave: we could cite external sources instead of adding content
[09:42] <mivhael> Dave: and detail
[09:43] <mivhael> Dave: get review of companies before review
[09:43] <mivhael> Joerg: ask Oliver for more information about what we should do
[09:44] <mivhael> Dave: get feedback on the approach and what security people would like to see
[09:44] <mivhael> Dave: srcipting section - Johannes invited to present this part
[09:44] <kaz> Present: Joerg_Heuer(Siemens), Dave_Raggett(W3C), Kaz_Ashimura(W3C), Michael_Koster(Samsung,_SmartThings), Soumya_Kanti_Datta(Eurecom), Matthias_Kovatsch(Siemens), Taki_Kamiya(Fujitsu), Victor_Charpenay(Siemens)
[09:45] <kaz> Present+ Louay_Bassbouss(Fraunhofer_FOKUS), Toru_Kawaguchi(Panasonic), Frank_Reusch(RWE/Lemonbeat), Kazuo_Kajimoto(Panasonic), Claes_Nilsson(Sony), Yoshiaki_Ohsumi(Panasonic), Katsuyoshi_Naka(Panasonic)
[09:45] <kaz> Present+ Ryuichi_Matsukura(Fujitsu), Kazuaki_Nimura(Fujitsu), Daniel_Peinter(Siemens), Sebastian_Kaebisch(Siemens), Johaness_Hund(Siemens)
[09:45] <mivhael> Johannes: Text based on github collection
[09:46] <mivhael> Johannes: why do we need a scripting API and what functions are needed based on some use case descriptions
[09:46] <mivhael> Johannes: looking at both server side and client side, but it looks like it is not in the document; it should be in there
[09:47] <mivhael> Joerg: it is in the first bullet but not clear
[09:47] == katsu [~katsu@public.cloak] has joined #wot
[09:47] == jeff [Jeff@public.cloak] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
[09:47] <mivhael> Johannes: stronger explanation of the server side scripting
[09:49] <mivhael> Dave: it's not clear what we mean by server
[09:50] <mivhael> Johannes: Message we want to convey is that we are scripting for both access and for exposing, providing
[09:50] <mivhael> Matthias: server defines a specific interaction pattern
[09:51] <mivhael> Matthias: are we locked into protocols that are client-server, should there be an abstract interaction model for who initiates and who provides
[09:51] <mivhael> Dave: client-server is also misleading
[09:52] <mivhael> Matthias: assigning server roles to a browser is confusing
[09:52] <mivhael> Johannes: client interacts, server exposes
[09:52] <mivhael> Kaz: there are some diagrams we could include
[09:53] <mivhael> Joerg: we should not assume too much about the audience, get feedback from reviewers
[09:54] <mivhael> Johannes: when we have a better way, we can update it but for now as is
[09:54] <mivhael> Dave: collect feedback
[09:54] <mivhael> Johannes: could we have 2 bullet points to illustrate provider/consumer
[09:55] <mivhael> Dave: points need to stand alone without relying on a lot of explanation
[09:55] <mivhael> Joerg: security is a question to expect here
[09:56] <mivhael> Joerg: we should explain that we are aware of the security issue
[09:56] <mivhael> Claes: should not use "servient" here
[09:57] <mivhael> Dave: get tech writers to help
[09:58] <mivhael> Dave: this will be reviewed by technical people
[09:59] <kaz> present+ Yingying_Chen(W3C)
[10:01] <mivhael> Joerg: the first section should be more introductory and complete for a first evaluation
[10:02] <mivhael> Joerg: get outside reviewers to look
[10:02] <mivhael> Joerg: let's be clear about what our message is in the first section
[10:03] <mivhael> Johannes: can we get a pull request from Louay?
[10:03] <mivhael> Johannes: describes discovery on one bullet, needs some work?
[10:04] == Sebastian [~Sebastian@public.cloak] has joined #wot
[10:04] <mivhael> Johannes: description of thing life cycle, want to add something like creating a thing as a mirror for another thing as an example
[10:06] <mivhael> Johannes: try to explain how different languages are supported in a consistent way independent of the lenguage
[10:06] <mivhael> Dave: design pattern
[10:06] <mivhael> Soumya: provisioning as pert of the life cycle
[10:06] <mivhael> Johannes: does it belong with discovery?
[10:07] <mivhael> s/pert/part
[10:07] <mivhael> Louay: could define a setup phase in the life cycle
[10:08] <mivhael> Johannes: not part of the runtime
[10:08] <mivhael> Louay: has high requirement for security
[10:08] == yingying [yiyichen@public.cloak] has joined #wot
[10:08] <yingying> present+ Yingying_Chen
[10:08] <mivhael> Soumya: registering could be like provisioning for some cases
[10:09] <Sebastian> present+ Sebastian_Kaebisch
[10:09] <mivhael> Joerg: we need to explain why this appears in the document here
[10:11] <yingying> rrsagent, make minutes
[10:11] <mivhael> How do we define state transitions in the life life cycle model? What are the APIs? examples?
[10:12] <kaz> kajimoto: mentions the need for managing the transition of state/phase to handle lifecycle
[10:12] == RRSAgent [rrsagent@public.cloak] has joined #wot
[10:12] <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-irc <http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-irc>
[10:12] <yingying> rrsagent, make minutes
[10:12] <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html <http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html> yingying
[10:12] <kaz> s/How/Kajimoto: How/
[10:13] <mivhael> Matthias: we need metadata that describes life cycle transitions and states
[10:14] <mivhael> TD has a life cycle also
[10:14] <mivhael> Sebastian: we are discussing
[10:15] <mivhael> Daniel: should there be a separate security section
[10:15] <yingying> rrsagent, make log public
[10:15] <RRSAgent> I have made the request, yingying
[10:15] <mivhael> Johannes: it's good to have security statements in the descriptions of how we do things also?
[10:15] <mivhael> Dave: in the intro also?
[10:16] <mivhael> BIndings
[10:16] <yingying> rrsagent, make minutes
[10:16] <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html <http://www.w3.org/2016/04/13-wot-minutes.html> yingying
[10:17] <mivhael> Johannes: this is to explain to developers how to adapt protocols to the WoT environment
[10:18] <mivhael> Johannes: each protocol has some important features that need consideration in the binding, the protocol experts should be involved
[10:18] <mivhael> Soumya: oneM2M has a protocol binding system
[10:18] <mivhael> Dave: other groups also have protocol bindings
[10:19] <mivhael> Johannes: bindings to protocols or frameworks, the scope of it is bigger
[10:19] <mivhael> JOhannes: there may be some confusion around this
[10:20] == ohsumi [~ohsumi@public.cloak] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
[10:20] <mivhael> Claes: not sure how this impacts our scope, could it be huge?
[10:20] <Soumya> oneM2M - HTTP protocol binding - http://www.onem2m.org/images/files/deliverables/TS-0009-HTTP_Protocol_Binding-V1_0_1.pdf <http://www.onem2m.org/images/files/deliverables/TS-0009-HTTP_Protocol_Binding-V1_0_1.pdf>
[10:20] <mivhael> Claes: more th escope of the target organization
[10:20] <Soumya> oneM2M - MQTT protocol binding - http://www.onem2m.org/images/files/deliverables/TS-0010-MQTT_protocol_binding-V1_0_1.pdf <http://www.onem2m.org/images/files/deliverables/TS-0010-MQTT_protocol_binding-V1_0_1.pdf>
[10:21] <mivhael> Dave: the 2 have to work together somehow, from both sides, leave it open to joint determination with each organization
[10:21] <mivhael> Johannes: the main output should be how you create a binding to a protocol or a framework
[10:22] <mivhael> Dave: we could have informative docs as well to help with this
[10:22] <mivhael> Matthias: specifically, we want to coordinate and give guidance but not make the documents
[10:23] <mivhael> Dave: we should collaborate on the framework-specific documents
[10:24] <mivhael> Soumya: we could review the oneM2M bindings in TF-AP
[10:24] <mivhael> Johannes: we could work one level up from this
[10:24] <mivhael> Dave: bindings to platforms and protocols, orgs we work with
[10:25] <mivhael> Claes: What about e.g. websockets, who will make the bindings?
[10:26] <mivhael> Dave: we could charter another activity if needed
[10:26] <mivhael> Dave: IETF, OASIS, etc. could get involved and help
[10:27] <mivhael> Johannes: it could be a huge space to try to write binding specifications
[10:28] <mivhael> Johannes, we could statr the work informatively and ask SDOs to pick up the normative work
[10:30] <mivhael> Louay: could use uri-beacon for pointing to a TD, and provide some basic mapping
[10:31] <mivhael> Matthias: some protocols can be mapped, some protocols need to be modified or have a shim layer added which is out of scope for W3C
[10:32] <mivhael> Johannes: this is about who writes the normative text. It's much better if the SDOs do this
[10:34] <mivhael> Johannes: we need to make it very clear what is needed to be done to bind a protocol or platform to WoT
[10:36] <mivhael> Dave: as a matter of scope, we need to be precise about what we are going to do. For example, we could decide to work with SDOs to identify changes
[10:36] <mivhael> Joerg: do this in the context od collaboration
[10:38] <mivhael> Kaz: we have identified target platforms in the landscape documents, can we mention these in the document
[10:38] <mivhael> Joerg: worried about making a list, what message does it sent to orgs that aren't on the list?
[10:39] <kaz> i|Joerg:|-> https://w3c.github.io/wot/landscape.html <https://w3c.github.io/wot/landscape.html> Landscape document|
[10:40] <mivhael> Dave: we should be able to refer to some examples
[10:41] <mivhael> Matthias: should id be a scope issue vs. a logo collection
[10:42] <mivhael> Matthias: transfer vs. transport
[10:43] <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/51 <https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/51> Michael issue on github about transfer protocol
[10:43] <mivhael> Johannes: this will appear in the collaborations with other organizations
[10:44] <mivhael> Dave: if important protocols or platforms need changes, we would need to take action, what is the action as scope definition
[10:44] <mivhael> Joerg: what is in scope, out of scope, for example a shim layer is between scope
[10:45] <mivhael> all agree we don't do protocols
[10:47] <mivhael> Dave: the charter is expected to provide limited detail on the deliverables
[10:47] <mivhael> Dave: and timelines, e.g. first public draft
[10:49] <mivhael> Joerg: should the deliverables tie back to the scope, and be consistent with what is there
[10:50] <mivhael> Dave: what is the new W3C charter template?
[10:50] <mivhael> Joerg: is it about completion ?
[10:51] <mivhael> Dave: more toward first WG draft as a milestone
[10:51] <kaz> -> https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/tvcontrol-2015.html <https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/tvcontrol-2015.html> TV Control WG charter
[10:53] <mivhael> Dave: non-normative deliveraables also
[10:56] <mivhael> Joerg: add scenarios for cross-platform
[10:57] <mivhael> Matthias: add architecture document as informative reference
[10:57] <mivhael> Dave: could be kept as IG document
[10:58] <mivhael> Dave: binding examples?
[10:59] <mivhael> Dave: requirements could be IG document
[10:59] <mivhael> Joerg: normative vs. official/unofficial
[11:00] <mivhael> Matthias: IG can publish an official informative documants
[11:00] <mivhael> Dave: IG can do the informative work
[11:00] <mivhael> Dave: maybe bindings should be a WG product
[11:01] <mivhael> Joerg: also the primer could be a WG deliverable
[11:03] <mivhael> Matthias: the intention is to cover a broad range in TD without needing a lot of other logic
[11:05] <mivhael> Joerg: specify the relationship of the WG to the IG
[11:05] <mivhael> Done with Charter review
[11:07] <mivhael> Joerg: At some point the comment phase is done when the number of comments is reduced and we have more confidence
[11:08] <mivhael> Joerg: We should repeat the run-through as needed
[11:08] <mivhael> Joerg: set a reasonable time frame, have a webconf run-through
[11:08] <mivhael> Dave: hard to do this in one week
[11:09] <mivhael> Joerg: 3 weeks?
[11:09] <mivhael> Joerg: ask for input, incorporate comments, have the ren-through
[11:10] * kaz the deadline for comments is May 4th :)
[11:10] <mivhael> Claes: email is not usually effective
[11:10] <mivhael> Joerg: github issues
[11:10] <mivhael> all agree on using github issues
[11:11] <mivhael> Johannes: send email when you post an issue
[11:13] <mivhael> Dave: members of IG get feedback from their company/org/community to insure there is a broad level of support
[11:14] <mivhael> Joerg: both company internal, and outreach to the community
[11:14] <mivhael> Joerg: can we get an indication from everyone on whether your company would join the WG
[11:15] <kaz> -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting_2016,_April,_11th_-_13th,_Montreal,_Canada#Wednesday.2C_13th_of_April.2C_WoT_IG_Meeting <https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting_2016,_April,_11th_-_13th,_Montreal,_Canada#Wednesday.2C_13th_of_April.2C_WoT_IG_Meeting> Day2 agenda
[11:15] <mivhael> Joerg: how should we proceed with the meeting today?
[11:16] <mivhael> Joerg: focus on topics for the rest of the day
[11:16] <mivhael> Joerg: rest of the contribution from Fujitsu
[11:16] <mivhael> Joerg: BLE mapping
[11:17] <mivhael> Joerg: start on the bindings scenario document
[11:17] <mivhael> Joerg: those 3 items, are there others?
[11:17] == toru [~toru@public.cloak] has joined #wot
[11:18] == Louay [~Louay@public.cloak] has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
[11:18] <mivhael> Joerg: should we split into 3 groups next?
[11:22] <kaz> [ Room assignment will be put on the wiki ]
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2016 15:24:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:26:58 UTC