- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 23:50:03 +0900
- To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9XxUP86a-ZxqnuWmqEdZBzFUvt3f=9pXNUkzOme1waOXA@mail.gmail.com>
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2016/11/23-wot-minutes.html
also as text below.
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Web of Things IG
23 Nov 2016
[2]Agenda
[2]
https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/IG_WebConf#Agenda_of_next_WoT_IG_WebConf:_23_November_2016
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/23-wot-irc
Attendees
Present
Ari_Keranen, Daniel_Peintner, Dave_Raggett, Feng_Zhang,
Kaz_Ashimura, Keiichi_Tokuyama, Masato_Ohura,
Michael_Koster, Michael_McCool, Nan_Wang, Ryan_Ware,
Ryuichi_Matsukura, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Takeshi_Yamada,
Takuki_Kamiya, Uday_Davuluru, Yingying_Chen,
Yongjing_Zhang, Jim_Lim, Kazuo_Kajimoto,
Victor_Charpenay
Regrets
Matthias, Johannes
Chair
Yongjing
Scribe
kaz
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]WG Charter status
2. [6]F2F Logistics
3. [7]OCF Liaison
4. [8]Security
5. [9]TD Restructure update
6. [10]Scripting update
* [11]Summary of Action Items
* [12]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<kaz> scribenick: kaz
<scribe> scribe: kaz
yonging: checking the agenda items
... WG Charter status, F2F logistics, OCF liaison
... OCF data modeling next week
... TD and Security
WG Charter status
mm: sent this updated draft Charter PDF to the group
->
[13]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016Nov/
att-0056/wot-wg-2016.pdf Michael's compiled updated draft
Charter
[13]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016Nov/att-0056/wot-wg-2016.pdf
mm: updated the Charter according to the AC Comments
... based on the pull requests
-> [14]https://github.com/w3c/wot/pulls pull requests
[14] https://github.com/w3c/wot/pulls
mm: if you have comments we can include them as well
... (going through the Charter)
... changed the introduction
... "emerging standards"
... (go to "2. Scope")
... put out "triples" from the sentence in 2.1
... added explicit sentence on how TD works
The Working Group will develop solutions to describe Things
through metadata and declarations of their capabilities (e.g.,
possible interactions). This work includes the definition of
different machineunderstandable vocabulary sets as well as
serialization formats of such a Thing Description. The Thing
Description will be aimed at enabling scalable and automated
tooling, including but not limited to search, automated
bridging, service composition, validation, and development
abstractions.While enabling the use of powerful tooling, the
Thing Description will be designed in such a way that even
constrained devices can use it. In particular, for basic usages
there will not be an explicit dependence on RDF and it will not
be necessary for constrained systems to perform explicit
semantic processing. However, to enable more complex usages,
the Thing Description will include extension points to allow
the use of semantic vocabularies and tools (e.g., Linked Open
Data, Schema.org, Resource Description Framework (RDF),
semantic reasoners, etc.).
]]
mm: updated the text in right above "2.2 Scripting API" by
removing redundant text
... changed the title of "Protocol Binding" to "Binding
Templates"
... for section 2.3
... and "2.4 Security and Privacy"
... modified the text
... (going to "3.2 Informative Specifications"
... )
... WoT Binding Templates now informative
kaz: Scripting API is normative and Binding Template is
informative. right?
mm: yes
yz: when will we publish this Charter?
mm: this is a draft Charter
... think it's would be OK
kaz: right. we don't need to specify concrete date here in this
draft
... after getting the final conclusion, we can put the date
later
... our expectation is finalizing the procedure by the end of
the year
F2F Logistics
mm: would input from Ryan and Koster
... the estimated cost is 13,000 USD
<rrware> $13,500
mm: to rent a hotel, e.g., Crowne Praza
rw: any feedback, McCool?
mm: not yet
rw: please poke them again
mm: when is the deadline?
rw: within next couple of weeks
... can you ping them?
mm: will do
... Koster, any response from Samsung?
mk: not yet
... let me try another inquiry
yz: the venue is not fixed?
mm: we have issues on security to hold the meeting at our own
facilities
... the venue should be a hotel
... let me ask withing Intel
... will send an email back
OCF Liaison
<rrware>
[15]https://github.com/ware/wot/blob/security-tf-docs/TF-Securi
ty/Charter.md Security TF Charter
[15]
https://github.com/ware/wot/blob/security-tf-docs/TF-Security/Charter.md
mm: thinking about it
... would call for volunteers
... me, Michael Koster, Yongjing
... so far
... would have a meeting
Security
rw: One question
... relationship between the security tf and the IG/WG
... report back to both of the groups?
yz: my understanding is TFs should report back to the group
kaz: probably the security tf should be the joint tf of the IG
and the WG
... but you could start the TF as a sub group of the IG first
... and report back to this main IG call like TD and Scripting
rw: ok. that makes sense
... (shows github page)
rw: the scope
... Review of WoT related specifications for specific security
relevant properties.
... review of use cases
... security test plans
... suggested test plans for implementations
mm: implementations match standards
... want W3C do that
... recommending test plans rather than implementing them
rw: agree
mm: the WG should recommend test plans
rw: pull request on scope
... lifecycle, e.g., shipping
... questions?
mm: use cases everywhere in the lifecycle
... need security consideration
yz: wondering what "the tf would provide some test plan" means?
... interoperable tests? conformance tests?
rw: types of tests
... validate the spec is robust against attacks
yz: define some test cases?
rw: yes
kaz: the TF will help the WG generate test suites for the CR
stage
rw: right
mm: regarding the "Deliverables", the TF generates
recommendation for test suites
... conformance tests goes into test suite
rw: not produce WG deliverables themselves but (help) generate
test suite
... and review test suite
... "Relationships to External Gorups"
... W3C Security Activity
... WoT WG, IG
... CG
... Automotive WG
... Web Security IG
... Web Application Security WG
mm: listing groups but those are just examples
ari: external groups should include IETF?
rw: having liaison?
kaz: we should make this section into (1) W3C groups and (2)
external groups
... and could include IETF into #2
... and we should include Device and Sensors WG into #1
rw: ok
... next "Participation"
... "Additionally, ..." will be changed to "Additionally,
recognized security experts..."
... next "Communication"
mm: a typo here
(teleconfrences->teleconferences)
rw: btw, we should have a patent policy section
mm: for this security work or the WG in general?
rw: for this security tf
kaz: regarding the patent policy, there is a W3C Patent Policy
... and we can refer to that
... that is related to W3C WG deliverables
... IG can generate just IG Notes
dsr: given there could be people who would join only IG and not
WG, we should clarify the TF would work on informative work
kaz: the scope and the deliverables of this TF is generating
(informative) test suite and reviewing test suite, probably
there would be no problem
TD Restructure update
<kaz> [16]TD minutes
[16] https://www.w3.org/2016/11/23-wot-td-minutes.html
sk: held a call today
... talked about pull requests for the draft WG Charter
... and then discussed streaming and compound values proposal
by Dave
... server-sent events of HTML5
... and then discussion on representation format
... should stuck with JSON-LD or not
... more restricted version?
... and then the status of the Current Practices document
... would update the document by the end of Nov.
... Daniel's pull request on Media Type
... the next meeting will be held next Wednesday at 8pm CET
yz: question on JSON-LD discussion
... any conclusion?
sk: not yet
... invited the JSON-LD expert as well
... talked about the next version of the spec
... maybe it would not match our WoT work if wait for the Ver.
2 version
... we should consider other serialization including C language
... standardize TD should be independent from specific
technologies
... we could have our own light-weight JSON-LD
... which would better fit with developers' need
... need to think about what would be the right direction
... based on the preference of the group
mm: sorry couldn't join the call
... ideally should be subset of RDF technology and semantic web
... we should r
... leverage existing technologies
sk: the group should set up based on RDF modeling
... challenging task
... JSON-LD is a good compromise
... you have some JSON-like format and can convert it to RDF
mm: changing the way?
yz: not good enough
mm: JSON-LD is a Recommendation
... but there is some restriction
... some blocking point
... could make certain features option and make it compatible
with JSON
dsr: pros and cons
... trying to thinking in general is good
... but need simpler way for small devices
... if you want, I can show a demo of translator
mm: maybe next week?
sk: good topic for the next TD call
yz: people may choose the better format based on their need
sk: please join the next TD call :)
... many dependencies on this topic
... will add this to the agenda
Scripting update
<yingying> [17]Scripting minutes
[17] https://www.w3.org/2016/11/21-wot-minutes.html
dape: we need to think about constrained devices
... so Johannes invited Ben for Web Assembly discussion
... they want to use a certain API
<kaz> [18]Be's slides
[18]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zOWdvXTl_jZNup_-oyoB-0QiQOcikSUrpSP2bKZMk28/edit#slide=id.g13b9fc0958_0_0
dape: many supports by browsers
... Mozilla, Chrome, etc.
... after that I talked about EXI
... looking at what we can achieve
... EXI for JS can generate efficient data
... would involve Samsung people as well
mm: subset of the functionalities for small devices?
dape: general discussion on what "Small Devices" mean
... we want to look into it
yz: we're looking into several different options?
dape: we're currently working on WebIDL
... in theory could be mapped to any languages
... we need to identify what we should achieve
yz: WebIDl is the basis?
dape: think so
... but WebIDL itself is a generic IDL mechanism
dsr: question for the WG about the language
... second question is what kind of small devices should be
handled?
... I think the WoT group should consider very small devices
which GWs can't talk with as well
dape: need to define what "small devices" are
dsr: we could have APIs for scripting but interesting to talk
with application platforms
mm: good example is beacon and temp sensor
... always those devices are too small to have runtime
dsr: could have some groups of devices
... having some way to talk with small devices would be good
mm: subset of features for small devices would make sense
ari: constrained devices
... there is definition of classes of devices within IETF
mm: know about that
... but need to clarify what could be done by which devices
... devices can change classes
ari: ok. we can do detailed discussion later
... how much functionality should be done by the end point
uday: how we could address class of devices?
... they would need to talk with the GW
... we should keep in mind that "device" could be anything
mm: when/where should we have this discussion?
yz: within the TF call?
mm: would add this to the Scripting agenda
... architecture for restricted devices
[ adjourned ]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version
1.148 ([20]CVS log)
$Date: 2016/11/23 14:46:29 $
[19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2016 14:51:22 UTC