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

[WoT IG] minutes - 3 March 2016

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 02:00:27 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9U0V1K_EO0MJ9jd3qt0UV+YTfiYkOMkkSyrvg7NAHDEbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
Sorry for the delay.

The minutes from the IG call on March 3rd are available at:

also as text below.



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

                               - DRAFT -

                            Web of Things IG

03 Mar 2016



   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-wot-irc


          DarkoAnicic, Johannes_Hund, Matthias_Kovatsch,
          Claes_Nilsson, Yingying_Chen, Kaz_Ashimura,
          Louay_Bassbouss, Kunihiko_Toumura, Sebastian_Kaebisch,
          Toru_Kawaguchi, Soumya


          dsr, kaz


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Architect document
         2. [6]Current Practices for Plugfests
         3. [7]Working Group Charter status
         4. [8]Montreal f2f
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     * [10]Summary of Resolutions

   <dsr> scribenick: dsr

   <kaz> [ so far: kaz, dave, joerg, claes, dan, daniel, darko,
   frank, kajimoto, katsuyoshi, kunihiko, matthias, takuki, toru,
   tuan, yingying, louay, sebastian, Soumya ]

   Joerg reviews the agenda

Architect document

   Joerg: this is not yet available on github, but some people are
   already commenting on it.

   Kajimoto: I’ve uploaded my current document to




   Kajimoto introduces the architecture document





   Kajimoto: I would invite all of you to comment on figure 1

   I’ve tried to name each of the modules required for a WoT



   My thanks to Darko and Johannes for their help

   Joerg: any comments as yet on this document?
   ... we should transfer this to github for ease of commenting,
   when can that be done?

   kajimoto: I will do this as HTML using the template that
   Johannes sent me.

Current Practices for Plugfests

   <kaz> [16]Current practices

     [16] http://w3c.github.io/wot/current-practices/wot-practices.html

   Joerg: this is a new document to describe the current practices
   prior to each plugfest

   Matthias introduces the document

   He asks people to provide meaningful commit messages when they
   edit the document

   This is in HTML and using ReSpec

   Daniel: I am working on the plans for the Montreal plugfest.
   We’re hoping to encourage more experimentation.

   This is a work in progress so I encourage you to take a look
   and discuss what you want to see happen

   Last time, we were able to remotely control an air conditioner
   in Japan, this time it would be great to do something

   Daniel: we want to include something on discovery and are
   discussing some ideas

   Joerg: it is 5 weeks to go and it is now time to get concrete
   on our plans

   We need to cover a broader range of capabilities and to become
   more consistent

   Joerg encourages everyone to get involved and share their ideas

   Kaz: do we want to have specific scenario for demos this time?

   Joerg: that could be a good idea

   Last time we had control over a coloured light.

   Joerg asks Kaz for suggestions for this time

   Joerg: we need suggestions during the next 2 weeks

   Darko: we need to select the scenario very quickly, so that
   people can get the necessary equipment

   Joerg: we could look at smart homes..

   Darko: we need to exploit readily available sensors and

   Dave: I’m thinking more in terms of features than real-world

   Matthias: I agree with Darko about the need to reach agreement

   Claes: I currently don’t have specific input, sorry

   Dan: [no sound]

   Daniel: We have info in github and the wiki and this could be
   confusing. Perhaps we should focus on the wiki page with the
   ideas for Montreal?

   Joerg: so you propose to have the technical specs in github and
   other info on the wiki?

   Daniel: yes

   The github doc provides a link to the wiki

   Joerg: please remember to add yourself to the wiki page for the
   meeting if you plan to participate in the plugfest

   Frank: [inaudible]

   Kajimoto: At the last face to face, we were able to use thing
   descriptions nicely. I don’t have specific ideas for scenarios
   for Montreal

   <Sebastian> Sorry, I have to go.

   <Sebastian> cu

   <DarkoAnicic> I have to leave today early too.

   Daniel: this time it would be good to ask the registry rather
   than the devices

   <DarkoAnicic> +1

   some consistency is needed for interoperabiity

   Sebastian: we need more semantics and could look at the IoT
   lite ontology

   I unfortunately have to leave now, so bye

   Joerg: so discovery should be in focus for this plugfest,

   Darko: we first need to decide on the scenario

   Louay: for devices with bluetooth low energy the device id can
   be used to search for the thing description.

   since it isn’t practical for such devices to transfer their
   thing description directly

   So we are looking at layering discovery on top of existing

   I hope to provide a demo around this

   Kunihiko: [no comment]

   Soumya: I support Louay’s comment. This time we should work on

   Joerg asks Soumya and Louay to work on a proposal over the next

   [they agree]

   Takuki: I agree with focusing on interoperability, and also
   some work on a shared vocabulary through the registry

   Joerg encourages Takuki to contribute to the plans for the
   plugfest, e.g. updating the wiki page over the next few days

   Soumya: do you want Louay and me to update the wiki page or to
   use email?

   Joerg: the current practice document in github

   The wiki is more about what people are individually planning

   Joerg: this is for everyone to contribute to

   Kaz: a quick question on the plugfest - I wonder if anyone
   wants to try using EXI encoding?

   Daniel: it definitely sounds interesting, lets discuss this

Working Group Charter status


     [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/WG/wot-wg-items.md

   <inserted> scribenick: kaz

   dsr: material on github

   joerg: will you share the screen?

   dsr: have been collecting ideas on the github wiki
   ... scripting, biding, thing description
   ... idea on scope vs. out-of-scope
   ... have put into the HTML format for charters

   <dsr> [18]https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/wot-wg-2016.html

     [18] https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/wot-wg-2016.html

   dsr: we have the structure
   ... myself and kaz will be the proposed contacts to be approved
   ... there is yellow/red text at Scope
   ... we need to define what to do
   ... attempted to do so for Thing Description
   ... (showing the github HTML and github wiki in parallel)
   ... checked with Soumya and Oliver
   ... Louay also provided some text
   ... what the proposed API will do
   ... proposed plan is to get clear idea what to do and what do
   ... so that we can get stronger proposal by the Montreal

   soumya: we decided the work will go into TD and Scripting API
   ... here we don't have much about that
   ... jointly discuss TD and AP
   ... Dave, Kaz and myself discussed during the DI call
   ... the working group draft Charter is not very clear about DI
   ... how can you interact with all the aspects
   ... we should focus discovery aspect as well

   joerg: ok

   jhund: would be good to have discussion on bullet points on the
   wiki vs the text on the HTML
   ... which text on the left side (=HTML version) covers which
   part of the wiki
   ... any good proposals?

   dsr: email would be a good starting point
   ... we can move on using GitHub issues

   joerg: a bit concerned about the consistency
   ... maybe we should have the draft charter and confirm the
   points on the wiki are covered by the HTML
   ... if there are any missing points, we need to check them

   dsr: need to include "Issue:" text
   ... we need richer interaction for discussion
   ... the source wiki document was unclear for the Charter
   ... had clarification discussions with colleagues

   jhund: maybe we could put IDs for each point

   dsr: sounds like an action item for somebody

   jhund: can update the document

   joerg: any comments/questions?

   dsr: with this new HTML version of the Charter, we expect some
   normative specs and no-normative ones
   ... on the right side (=original wiki) the description was

   joerg: on the right side (=wiki) wasn't there description?
   ... questions are, we need to have a consistent charter with
   the wiki
   ... the wiki has scope/out-of-scope/delivelables sections
   ... that would be question 1
   ... question 2 is security/privacy topics
   ... distributed over the building blocks
   ... not that focused what we need to achieve
   ... in the left HTML document, what's in-scope and what's
   ... protocol mapping would be cross cutting points
   ... you have to understand each topic should be covered
   ... privacy and discovery should be also covered
   ... can we have sub section of 2.1?
   ... clear building blocks which correspond bullet points

   dsr: number of separate specs
   ... which deliverable corresponds to security/privacy?
   ... what is the best way for refactoring?

   kaz: maybe we might want to copy all the bullet points to the
   HTML as is
   ... and then start structural edits next?

   dsr: wouldn't be very productive way...

   joerg: starting with section 1 Scope
   ... and see if all our points are covered
   ... also may ask Oliver and Soumya to check security portion
   ... security/privacy captured in the scope section or not?
   ... ask for comments following up the f2f discussion
   ... would ask you see if there is any open points in the GitHub
   document within 2 weeks
   ... especially on the scope at section 1

   dsr: sounds reasonable
   ... but we need to clarify what people really are thinking

   <Soumya> Kaz, can you assign me a work item related to the
   points Joerg mentioned

   joerg: would like to start with the open points people think in
   the scope section

   <scribe> ACTION: soumya to review the HTML version of the draft
   charter to see if there are any open points esp. in the scope
   section [recorded in

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-wot-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-33 - Review the html version of the
   draft charter to see if there are any open points esp. in the
   scope section [on Soumya Kanti Datta - due 2016-03-10].

   <Soumya> Thanks Kaz

   dsr: and check what's missing

   joerg: ok
   ... starting point for the draft charter
   ... and would make you aware of the f2f meeting agenda on the

   <dsr> There is a lot of missing context to the work items and
   hidden issues

Montreal f2f

   h_-_13th,_Montreal,_Canada montreal f2f wiki


   joerg: preparation day for plugfest
   ... Sunday afternoon
   ... and on Monday, combination of OpenDay/Plugfest
   ... Tuesday/Wednesday IG meeting
   ... please put your input/comments on the wiki
   ... very much focus on TFs
   ... we might have some blocks in the afternoon, Tuesday
   ... current practice/architecture documents
   ... editing comments for them would be welcome
   ... please feel free to put your comments on the wiki
   ... next web conf call will be Wed., Mar. 16
   ... is that OK with you?
   ... completing the IG before the Montreal f2f

   kaz: we need to work for brief extension of the IG for that
   ... because the current charter expires a the end of this month

   joerg: ok

   soumya: what would be the time for the next call?

   joerg: Wednesday call will be 2pm CET
   ... will update the wiki
   ... any other comments/questions?


   [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: soumya to review the HTML version of the draft
   charter to see if there are any open points esp. in the scope
   section [recorded in

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-wot-minutes.html#action01

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([23]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/03/03 13:46:44 $

     [22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

   [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144  of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34
Check for newer version at [24]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/

     [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/yingying/yingying, louay, sebastian ]/
WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/xxx/[25]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/imag
WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/XXX/[26]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/imag
WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/XXX/[27]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/imag
Succeeded: s|XXX|[28]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/images/0/0d/2016-03-
Succeeded: s|XXX|[29]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/images/0/0d/2016-03-
Succeeded: s|XXX|[30]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/images/0/0d/2016-03-
FAILED: s|XXX|[31]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/images/0/0d/2016-03-03-
Succeeded: s/tto/to/
FAILED: s/tto/to/
Succeeded: s|s/tto/to/||
Succeeded: s/sebastian ] ]/sebastian, Soumya ]/
Succeeded: s/suggesitons/suggestions/
Succeeded: s/no,/now,/
Succeeded: s/Topic: Working Group Charter status//
Succeeded: i/https/topic: Montreal f2f
Succeeded: i/material on github/scribenick: kaz
Found ScribeNick: dsr
Found ScribeNick: kaz
Inferring Scribes: dsr, kaz
Scribes: dsr, kaz
ScribeNicks: dsr, kaz
Present: DarkoAnicic Johannes_Hund Matthias_Kovatsch Claes_Nilsson Yingy
ing_Chen Kaz_Ashimura Louay_Bassbouss Kunihiko_Toumura Sebastian_Kaebisc
h Toru_Kawaguchi Soumya
Agenda: [32]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016Mar/0
Got date from IRC log name: 03 Mar 2016
Guessing minutes URL: [33]http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-wot-minutes.html
People with action items: soumya

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-wot-minutes.html

   [End of [34]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

     [34] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Monday, 7 March 2016 17:01:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:26:56 UTC