W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > November 2020

[wot-usecases] minutes - 17 September 2020

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 14:58:14 +0900
Message-ID: <87k0ujfbpl.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-ig@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.




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

                             WoT Use Cases

17 Sep 2020


      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/IG_UseCase_WebConf#Agenda_17.9.


          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Hazel_Kuok, Jennifer_lin,
          Michael_McCool, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Tomoaki_Mizushima





     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Prev minutes
         2. [5]TPAC
         3. [6]Singapore Geospatial Week
         4. [7]ITU-T SG20 liaison
         5. [8]PRs
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     * [10]Summary of Resolutions

Prev minutes


     [11] https://www.w3.org/2020/09/03-wot-uc-minutes.html

   Lagally: wondering about how to run the liaison with ITU-T
   ... they'll have their meeting in Oct
   ... and we should be able to get some more interesting use
   cases from that meeting
   ... and had discussion on housekeeping
   ... any objections to approve the minutes?




   Lagally: depend on the dynamics of the TF
   ... review UCs, ITU-T input, Singapore Geospatial Week feedback
   ... use case are coming from outside

   Kaz: use case discussion should be the core part of some of the
   joint meetings, e.g., MEIG, PBG and Agriculture CG

   McCool: do you want to pack the discussions with them into one?

   Kaz: possibly we could invite them to the use cases session

   Lagally: let me see the vF2F agenda wiki


     [12] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_October_2020#Proposed_Topics

   Lagally: wondering about the PBG's contribution

   McCool: we could have a Chairs meeting with them to clarify the
   agenda (like we did for WNIG)
   ... note that WNIG is interested in edge computing use case
   ... we could ask them to fill in some template

   Lagally: why don't we reuse our use case template?

   Kaz: good idea

   Lagally: potentially next week at this slot?

   McCool: possibly
   ... note we should concentrate on the use cases from their

   Kaz: yeah, for example, one of the MEIG guys was interested in
   collaboration among media streams, game devices and geolocation
   information for VR games

   McCool: VR game controllers are related to IoT devices

   Kaz: yes

   Lagally: why don't we propose a pre-meeting to them?

   Kaz: sounds good

   Lagally: pre-meeting next Thursday this time

   Kaz: will ask them about that
   ... if they're not available we can think about an alternative

   McCool: we could use this slot in 2 weeks too

   <scribe> ACTION: kaz to ask the ME, ACG, PBG guys about their
   availability for the pre-meeting next week or in 2 weeks

   (like we did for the WNIG :)

   Lagally: (and then continue to put possible topics to the vF2F
   ... requirements and spec gaps
   ... contributions

   Kaz: what do you mean by "contributions" here?

   Lagally: concrete Pullrequests

   McCool: should be sub bullet of requirements and spec gaps

   Lagally: (moves "contributions" as a sub bullet of requirements
   and spec gaps)
   ... (also makes it "contributions in PRs" and then adds
   "Issues" as well)

Singapore Geospatial Week

   Lagally: have looked at the agenda
   ... "mobility & logistics"

   McCool: concrete definition?

   Jennifer: a lot of use cases are very settled and some of them
   are very different
   ... e.g., agriculture
   ... so much content there

   Lagally: why don't we just try to pick some of them :) ?
   ... e.g., pick 3 of them

   Jennifer: ok

   McCool: maybe we can generate a bullet list including the use
   ... on some MD file
   ... one-liner describes them

   Jennifer: ok but maybe I'm a bit biased...

   McCool: you can generate a list, and I can go through it

   Kaz: yeah, that list doesn't have to be very long
   ... you can concentrate on those you're really interested like
   Cristiano's agriculture use cases

   McCool: yeah, bunch of smart sensors, etc.

   Lagally: are you ok with working on that?

   Jennifer: may take some time, though

   McCool: do you have slides of those presentations?

   Jennifer: have some of them locally

   Kaz: don't think we need to capture all the interesting topics
   from this event
   ... you can capture just some of them :)

   Jennifer: ok

   Lagally: can also help you
   ... interested in digital twin use case at airport

   <McCool> correction to above - what I meant was that we don't
   have to capture all the use cases, we just have to capture a
   set that covers the requirements. So we don't need to include
   duplicate use cases with the same requirements, we just need
   good examples in each "category". I used "remote sensing" as an
   example; there are a lot with this requirement, but we don't
   need 20 such use cases, just one good one

ITU-T SG20 liaison

   Lagally: next steps?

   McCool: need another round to work on that
   ... a bit confusing that web object model is a metadata model

   Lagally: ok, you need some more time
   ... MD files are not quite detailed
   ... seems ITU-T in general is thinking about gateways
   ... should we put that for the next call's agenda?

   McCool: yeah

   Lagally: ok
   ... I'll invite GyuMyoung to the next call then
   ... in 2 weeks


   [13]PR 52

     [13] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/52

   Lagally: Mizushima-san has moved all the processed use case MD
   file to "processed" folder

   mizu: yes

   Lagally: will merge it then


   [14]PR 33

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/33

   Lagally: horizontal discovery

   McCool: not perfect yet
   ... recently raised issue on protecting query
   ... need additional PRs
   ... this is a good starting point and can be merged (and then
   create another PR for updates)

   Lagally: (goes through the changes)

   McCool: important to define "discovery"

   Lagally: ok
   ... possible to discover the "Thing Model" too?

   McCool: that's mentioned below
   ... discovery mechanism is already implemented
   ... and handles JSON files
   ... so could easily add Thing Model (given it's also a
   JSON-based model)

   Lagally: (adds comment to fix "TD Template" as "Thing Model"

   Kaz: we can simply fix it right now and then merge this PR 33

   McCool: some more minor edits as well, though

   Lagally: in that case, let's merge this PR as is, and fix typos

   McCool: btw, we can add "horizontal" vs "vertical" categories
   to the use case template

   Lagally: good suggestion
   ... regarding PR 33 itself, let's merge it


   [15]PR 25

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/25

   Kaz: Lionel from Lyon Univ.
   ... we can invite him to the use case call

   Lagally: ok

   McCool: if he is part of the Agriculture CG, we can go through
   that path too

   Lagally: (at the end of the call, Lagally summarizes today's


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: kaz to ask the ME, ACG, PBG guys about their
   availability for the pre-meeting next week or in 2 weeks

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [16]scribe.perl version ([17]CVS log)
    $Date: 2020/11/18 05:43:26 $

     [16] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2020 05:58:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 18 November 2020 05:58:23 UTC