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

[wot-ig] minutes - 18 May 2016

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 23:05:33 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9XW+gy5gnk3vLdinr8VSdpjbe6j0VpFBXdy-HeCTtX1Qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2016/05/18-wot-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks,

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                                 WoT IG

18 May 2016

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/05/18-wot-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Kaz_Ashimura, Dave_Raggett, Achille_Zappa, Masato_Ohura,
          Matthias_Kovatsch, Ryuichi_Matsukura,
          Soumya_Kanti_Datta, Yun_Li, Daniel_Peintner,
          Michael_Koster, Claes_Nilsson, Darko_Anicic,
          Takuki_Kamiya, Tibor_Pardi, Yingying_Chen,
          Toru_Kawaguchi, Ali_Keraenen, Sebastian_Kaebisch,
          Shuting_@@@, Nan_Wang, Victor_Charpenay, Johannes_Hund,
          Chao_Ma, Jim_@@@, Katsuyoshi_Naka, Soumya,
          Kazuaki_Nimura, Tuan_Tran, Kazuo_Kajimoto

   Regrets
   Chair
          Matthias

   Scribe
          kaz

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]IG extension
         2. [5]IG Charter
     * [6]Summary of Action Items
     * [7]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

IG extension

   kaz: until when?

   dsr: till the Beijing meeting

   kaz: the end of the meeting?
   ... or maybe we should simply aim the end of July

   <mkovatsc> Sebastian asked if it is possible to extend without
   expiration date, but to use "when re-charter becomes active"

   sebasitan: possible to extend till the new IG Charter is ready?

   dsr: our Charter is already expired

   kaz: so we need to provide the W3M a concrete date for our
   extension
   ... the IG charter we're working on is for the working period
   of, e.g., 1-2 years, to finalize the deliverable documents
   ... and after we launch the expected WG, we can recharter the
   IG with updated scope again

   matthias: ok
   ... are there any topics to discuss quickly?

   kaz: Dave is back with the W3M approval for the extension till
   the end of July

   dsr: They've approved our extension till the end of July
   ... next step is review by one of the W3Mers

   kaz: who is the reviewer?

   dsr: need to find a candidate
   ... may be Philipp

   kaz: and might be Judy as well from the accessibility viewpoint

IG Charter

   -> [8]http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-ig-2016.html draft
   IG Charter

      [8] http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-ig-2016.html

   dsr: compilation of various pull requests
   ... main changes are the sentence on the introduction section

   -> [9]https://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-alpha3.html alpha
   3 version

      [9] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-alpha3.html

   kaz: difference between this alpha3 version and the github
   version?

   dsr: need to check the diff
   ... added "Industry alliances and standards development
   organizations are looking to W3C to take the leadership in two
   critical areas: semantic interoperability and end to end
   security across different platforms." to the introduction
   ... scope section describes the relationship and the IG and the
   expected WG


   The Interest Group will identify requirements for
   standardization by exploring use cases and requirements for a
   broad range of application domains, and through examining the
   requirements for integrating a broad range of IoT platforms
   into the Web of Things.
   ]]

   dsr: bullet points describe the aim of the plugfest:


   * tests for conformity for recommendation track technology
   * test-drive upcoming or proposed tech for the recommendation
   track
   * outreach to other communities and new members (open day, demo
   track)
   ]]

   scribe: should have discussion now
   ... questions?

   matthias: would agree with the current scope section
   ... bullet points and summary too
   ... outreach through requirements for other SDOs

   ari: sent an email right before this call
   ... regarding semantic work
   ... we need to reuse existing mechanism generated by others

   dsr: people would like to see what this group do
   ... and why they need to join this group

   matthias: I'm fine
   ... and agree it's kind of too much
   ... it's not that W3C would rule overall things

   dsr: ok

   ari: that would be much better

   <dsr> I will change the wording to “ looking to collaborate
   with W3C in two”

   ari: and another point of mine is including semantic web groups
   ... would have discussion offline

   dsr: ok
   ... what about the "Scope Summary"?

   matthias: this is editorial

   toru: my colleague raised an issue
   ... would like to know...
   ... there are two things about testing
   ... plugfest and interoperability
   ... what is the difference?

   -> [10]https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/163 issue-163

     [10] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/163

   dsr: the role of plugfest includes interoperability test

   toru: deference between the roles by the WG and the IG?

   matthias: different aspect of the plugfest
   ... conformity of implementation
   ... demo-like approach

   toru: interoperability test by WG is for fixing the rec draft?

   dsr: in the W3C process, we need implementation reports for
   exiting CR
   ... check implementation

   kaz: in that case, it would be better to say "Testing for CR
   exit", etc., for the WG side in this figure

   <dsr> we will change tests for conformity for recommendation
   track technology to testing for CR exit or words to that effect

   kaz: would be less misleading

   jhund: three points
   ... would make a good future candidate using plugfest
   ... testing for comformity is misleading
   ... from the WG perspective, plugfest would help
   interoperability in public manners
   ... "conformity" is misleading

   dsr: test suite by the WG will be used for CR-PR transition
   ... maybe could replace the bullet by two ones
   ... e.g., one on CR and the other on interoperabiity across
   different implementations

   jhund: maybe you could put it into one bullet

   jhund: the difference is maturity
   ... the purposes are different

   dsr: test suites are very comprehensive and different from what
   we're doing
   ... will update the bullet points and people can review it

   matthias: the first bullet point including "conformity" is
   misleading
   ... the first point is new staff coming up to the IG
   ... the second point is similar to what we've been doing

   dape: plugfest is for the second point
   ... everyone should understand the difference between the first
   point and the second
   ... also the capitalization: PlugFest

   kaz: we should be clear between the difference

   dsr: will update the first point so that people can review it
   ... let's move ahead
   ... "Deliverables"
   ... discussion with Matthias and Johannes
   ... Use Cases and Requirements
   ... Architecture

   matthias: the first two deliverables are included in the
   previous charter
   ... quite easy to fix the pub date
   ... also positive for the IG to produce them
   ... and can concentrate new work architecture and current
   practice
   ... need editors' contributions
   ... who want to have the other two: end-to-end security acrros
   IoT platforms, semantic models and APIs
   ... additional deliverables may be added

   dsr: talking to other SDOs is one of our key values

   matthias: semantic models and apis
   ... this is a useful document
   ... why do we need another one here?

   <Soumya> I will support the new two deliverables

   dsr: important role of semantics

   soumya: would support both the two new deliverables
   ... there is a notion of semantic web
   ... what we're doing is linking to semantics, so need to define
   some specific semantic model

   jhund: we had discussion yesterday
   ... how to see thin description, etc.
   ... the question is we have separate deliveralbles
   ... would be brought to a recommendation

   dsr: work on ontology by other groups
   ... what is the main constraint?
   ... we haven't done
   ... and we should take the lead for that

   matthias: my question is who would take the lead for these two
   work?

   soumya: me

   dsr: and me

   michael: interested in domain model using RDF, etc.
   ... W3C should focus on document formats
   ... how the TD would be used for annotation

   dsr: standardizing cross-domain metadata
   ... how to be used collaboratively with other SDOs

   kaz: wondering the difference between this semantic model and
   TD

   dsr: sensor should define data based on ontology
   ... select services, apply constraints
   ... which ontology uses which semantics

   sebastian: basic idea of the capability

   <jhund:> if TD is the HTML of the Web of Things, then we would
   not want to standardize the content of web pages

   dsr: we need a common understanding

   matthias: would repeat who representing which company would
   work for it?

   michael: we need to see Thing Description as the deliverable
   ... that's the role of this group
   ... to work properly
   ... common language layer
   ... not sure how much survey is needed, though
   ... annotating things

   dsr: role of the model
   ... collaboration with the other SDOs

   <dsr> It is not just about thing descriptions

   matthias: why do we need this work item which don't have enough
   people support
   ... we're interested in working on Thing Description

   dsr: report is a deliverable and part of the culture of
   plugfest

   <kajimoto> My audio has trouble now... (kajimoto)

   dsr: there are various approaches on semantic information for
   IoT
   ... very important to show scalability
   ... if we don't do this, WoT won't be successful
   ... likewise security we would get new members for this as well

   jhund: @@@couldn't hear well

   matthias: how about include this into the current practices?

   soumya: let me rephrase what Dave is saying
   ... what we need here is generic framework/concept applicable
   to various frameworks

   sebastian: we have technology landscape, current practice
   documents
   ... I think this would make people confused

   dsr: don't think so

   jhund: why we couldn't do this within the tech landscape work?

   dsr: generic framework across the platforms
   ... how ontologies could be used

   nimura: @@@couldn't hear and asked him to type-in

   <k_nimura> i dont think it is feasible because both are
   expecting some other oraganizations involvement.

   dsr: as an IG, we need to coordinate with other SDOs
   ... so it's something we do

   <dsr> we invite talks from outside of the IG

   <k_nimura> without understanding every specs we cannot do
   plugfest

   <dsr> we give talks to other groups

   <dsr> we invite orgs to participate in plugfgests

   <dsr> we collaborate on joint reports

   <k_nimura> nobody commited it yet.

   kaz: Dave, maybe you also can agree we need some kind of basic
   survey for this purpose

   dsr: yes, that's the study

   matthias: we just have 15 more mins
   ... currently more opposes to be included in the IG Charter

   dsr: from the viewpoint of W3C BusDev Team, we should keep it
   ... it's an IG
   ... we need this stuff
   ... we need to encourage more people to join the IG

   <kajimoto> How do you think that IG charter dividing to IG1 for
   creating WG, IG2 for continuous input from other organizations
   ?

   sebasitan: would propose to remove this proposal from the
   deliverables section
   ... and have some description in the scope section

   dsr: would harm to get new people...
   ... this is important to recuruit people
   ... please look at the previous charter

   ->
   [11]https://www.w3.org/2014/12/wot-ig-charter.html#deliverables
   previous Charter

     [11] https://www.w3.org/2014/12/wot-ig-charter.html#deliverables

   tibor: want to agree with Dave
   ... important for a startup company as well

   <kajimoto> Creating WG, technology landscape has power, IG1
   charter includes important 4 deliverables that is use case,
   architecture, plugfest practice and technology landscape.

   tibor: sent an email to the list about "decentralized..."

   <kajimoto> On the other hand, as IG2, continuous requirement
   input by many organizations with the latest technology.

   ->
   [12]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016May/
   0080.html Tibor's message

     [12]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016May/0080.html

   tibor: suggesting decentralised, peer-to-peer,

   blockchain based Internet-of-Things in the charter

   scribe: from business viewpoint, there are definitely use cases

   <kajimoto> Reading IRC discussion, some of us insist IG1 to
   create WG, Dave and some guys says IG2 for continuous
   requirement input to WG,

   kaz: Matthias, there're several different opinions and we need
   some more time to wrap up this

   matthias: blockchain-based IoT would be a possible solution
   ... but we should not charter for some specific solution which
   is not yet analyzed

   tibor: I put much effort on WoT platforms
   ... who has the final vote for what should be done?

   matthias: as I mentioned, we should not charter for some
   specific solution which is not analyzed yet

   tibor: some of the IG participants agree and some don't
   ... how to make decision in that case?
   ... my company and myself would volunteer to work for this item

   dsr: decentralized architecture as the topic, and blockchain as
   an example
   ... will come up with some text for review
   ... also would see the timeline for each document

   matthias: Kajimoto-san, do you have any idea when we could have
   a stable version for the architecture document?
   ... will check with him
   ... also will see the tech landscape, etc.

   dsr: thanks very much

   matthias: there are 4 bullet points open on the issue tracker

   <kajimoto> Middle of Jun, we finalize stable document.

   matthias: let's try to finalize the pull requests
   ... by the end of this week

   taki: would agree to take some challenge for the new charter
   ... saw some keywords like semantic model
   ... having some new challenges would be good
   ... good for existing members too

   matthias: you mean we should have that in the deliverables
   section?

   taki: not sure, but just continuing the current work would be
   not attracting

   toru: my colleague raised another issue-162
   ... would discuss that
   ... on email is fine
   ... patent policy, etc.
   ... should be replaced by the text from the previous Charter
   ... don't think IG's deliverables require IPP commitment

   dsr: tx
   ... will replace the text

   matthias: difficult to have specific solutions for the charter
   ... not a good way

   dsr: we need to discuss the level of solutions

   <Soumya> have to leave for another meeting, bye

   dsr: please look into the background as well
   ... we don't have enough time now, though...

   matthias: we'll close the call
   ... until the end of this week, we'll try to wrap up the
   discussion

   [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [13]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([14]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/05/18 13:58:46 $

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



-- 
Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Auto, WoT, TV, MMI and Geo
Tel: +81 3 3516 2504
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2016 14:06:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:03 UTC