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

[WoT vF2F][DRAFT] minutes - Day 2, 7 October 2020

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 04:24:24 +0900
Message-ID: <87y2kavsif.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-ig@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2020/10/07-wot-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Michael McCool and Michael Lagally!

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                     WoT-IG/WG vF2F Meeting - Day 2

07 Oct 2020

   [2]Agenda

      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_October_2020#Oct_7

Attendees

   Present
          Kaz_Ashimura, Endo_Hiroki, Gyu_Myoung_Lee, Takuya_Handa,
          Takuji_Kiura, Shinya_Abe, Michael_McCool,
          Michael_Lagally, Takio_Yamaoka, Kunihiko_Toumura,
          Ege_Korkan, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Rob_Smith,
          Hiroshi_Fujisawa, Zoltan_Kis, Dave_Raggett,
          Ryuichi_Matsukura, Daniel_Peintner, David_Ezell,
          Hiroshi_Ota, Ken_Ogiso, Sebastian_Kaebisch

   Regrets

   Chair
          McCool, Sebastian

   Scribe
          kaz, McCool, mlagally

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Scribes
         2. [5]Opening
         3. [6]Agenda for today
         4. [7]Arch TF part 2
              1. [8]Issues and PRs
              2. [9]Profile
         5. [10]Use cases
              1. [11]WoT IG Use Case TF
              2. [12]PRs for the latest draft
         6. [13]Collaboration with other W3C groups
              1. [14]Agriculture - Kiura-san
              2. [15]NHK - Endo-san
              3. [16]AR use cases - Rob Smith
         7. [17]Wrap-up for today
     * [18]Summary of Action Items
     * [19]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <McCool> presentations will be here, including opening decks:
   [20]https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/PRESENTATIONS/2020-1
   0-online-f2f

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/PRESENTATIONS/2020-10-online-f2f

   <inserted> scribenick: kaz

Scribes

   <kaz> McCool, Kaz, Lagally

Opening

   McCool: logistics
   ... call agenda

   [21]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_October_2020

     [21] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_October_2020

   McCool: IRC available

   [22]http://irc.w3.org/?channels=#wot

     [22] http://irc.w3.org/?channels=#wot

   McCool: Guests?

   Kaz: Gyu Myoung from ITU-T again

   Gyu_Myoung: I'm aware of the W3C Patent Policy

   McCool: the other guests from W3C Membership?

   Kaz: please confirm all the other observers are also aware of
   the W3C Patent Policy :)

   all: OK

   McCool: Schedule
   ... Oct 7: use cases, requirements, liaisons
   ... Oct 13: joint with DID and PUB
   ... Oct 14: joint with APA
   ... etc.
   ... Cancellations of the group calls
   ... see the main wot wiki

   [23]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Cancellatio
   ns

     [23] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Cancellations

   McCool: would like to confirm the rest
   ... architecture on Oct 8?

   Lagally: cancelled

   McCool: scriptin on Oct 12?

   Daniel: planning to have it

   McCool: security on Oct 12
   ... cancelled
   ... discovery on Oct 12
   ... will be held
   ... TD on Oct 14
   ... cancelled
   ... architecture on Oct 15?

   Lagally: should have the call
   ... though could be shorter

   McCool: main call on Oct 14
   ... will be held
   ... mainly logistics and organizations
   ... Joint calls
   ... JSON-LD
   ... 3 possible slots
   ... Oct 12, 9am EDT
   ... Oct 13, 9am EDT
   ... Oct 13, 10am EDT
   ... my 2 cents is 10am would be better
   ... any thoughts?

   Sebastian: sounds good

   RESOLUTION: we'll go for Oct 13, 10m EDT for the JSON-LD joint
   meeting

   Sebastian: will let them know

   McCool: Sebastian to confirm with the JSON-LD WG; McCool to
   handle the GitHub issue agenda and outlook invite
   ... APA
   ... Oct 14, 9am EDT
   ... agenda updated and Zoom allocated
   ... Other meetings: DID, PUB, Web&Networks

   [24]WoT vF2F meeting table

     [24] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_October_2020#Timetable_for_WoT_PlugFest_and_vF2F_during_TPAC

   Ege: what would be the agenda for PUB?

   McCool: media in general as well as published media

   [25]Agenda for the PUB joint meeting

     [25] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/935

   Kaz: please see the agenda issue above

   McCool: yes
   ... and we need session managers for those meetings
   ... (shows the agenda issues on wot repo)

   [26]agenda issues

     [26] https://github.com/w3c/wot/labels/agenda

   McCool: will record all the session organizers to the issues
   above
   ... any volunteers?
   ... e.g., who is interested in the APA meeting
   ... anything else on logistics?

   (none)

Agenda for today

   [27]agenda for Oct 7

     [27] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_October_2020#Oct_7

Arch TF part 2

   <scribe> scribenick: McCool

   Lagally: behind schedule, full agenda; overflow from monday to
   deal with to close FPWD
   ... for both Arch and Profile
   ... may need to modify parts of later agenda to make time

   Gyu_Myoung: I may have to leave before the end of the meeting

   Lagally: ok, may have to shift things around

   Gyu_Myoung: correction: need to leave, will be back in 1.5h

* Issues and PRs

   Lagally: review issues, tagged some with "FPWD" label in
   wot-architecture repo
   ... some PRs that deal with some of these
   ... PR 539
   ... add device lifecycle section
   ... see you were having some rebase problems, marked as WIP

   <kaz> [28]PR 539

     [28] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/539

   Lagally: is it valid to say we can merge even though imperfect,
   as a baseline?

   Zoltan: tried many ways to resolve conflicts... had to rebuild
   ... PR shows long information, but merge should be fine

   McCool: may break other PRs, but...

   Lagally: well, let's merge anyway, and then deal with it as
   necessary
   ... (merged PR 539)

   <inserted> [29]PR 559

     [29] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/559

   Lagally: next, PR 559, TM definition
   ... no merge conflicts
   ... now takes comments and discussion into account

   <inserted> [30]PR 560

     [30] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/560

   Lagally: next, PR 560
   ... no merge conflicts
   ... suggest merging; any objections?
   ... no objections, merging
   ... no let's look at issues

   <inserted> [31]Issue 547

     [31] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/547

   Lagally: closes issue 547, TM
   ... also issue 476, lifecycle; related to device

   <inserted> [32]Issue 476

     [32] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/476

   McCool: think we should look through this closed issue and
   create smaller ones for things that are not addressed
   ... need smaller, more specific issues

   Lagally: there are some editorial issues

   McCool: maybe could label the editorial issues with a github
   label...

   <Ege> I will be back in ~10 minutes

   Lagally: issue 548, cleanup of usage of "Use Case" term

   <kaz> [33]Issue 548

     [33] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/548

   Lagally: (marked as editorial)

   <kaz> [34]Issue 551

     [34] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/551

   Lagally: issue 551, need a few lines to open section and
   summarize
   ... there are a few other places that are missing opening
   sections

   McCool: I think these are not technically required, and unless
   we write the text right now there is no way to review in time

   Lagally: right, so let's just accept it as it is, then deal
   with these sections after FPWD

   Zoltan: do think we need to discuss whether we want three
   separate lifecycles or one
   ... and the introductory text should state the plan

   McCool: suggest we just say in the ednote that "reorganization
   is under discussion" and maybe link to the issue
   ... detailed discussion can then take place in the issue

   Lagally: sure

   Zoltan: sure

   Lagally: (does a direct edit...)
   ... need to create an issue, zk can you do so?

   <kaz> [35]Issue 561

     [35] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/561

   <zkis> [36]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/561

     [36] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/561

   Gyu_Myoung: will be back in an hour

   <mlagally> proposal: Accept the current editor's draft as the
   FPWD version with the fixes discussed in the call on Oct 7th.
   and including the editorial fixes marked with fpwd in the issue
   tracker.

   <mlagally> proposal: Accept the current editor's draft as the
   FPWD version with the fixes discussed in the call on Oct 7th.
   and including the editorial fixes marked with fpwd and
   editorial in the issue tracker.

   RESOLUTION: Accept the current editor's draft as the FPWD
   version with the fixes discussed in the call on Oct 7th. and
   including the editorial fixes marked with fpwd and editorial in
   the issue tracker.

   Lagally: 5 min break

   <kaz> [5min break]

   McCool: seems there is still a lot of feedback we should take
   into account, perhaps we should defer FPWD?

   Lagally: let's look at some PRs I developed first and then
   discuss

* Profile

   <kaz> scribenick: kaz

   [37]Issue 42

     [37] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/42

   Lagally: current events section is too loose
   ... Ege mentions "No experience at all with both of them from
   the plugfests."
   ... and that's true

   McCool: Mozilla was working on WebSocket
   ... but WebSocket itself is not a complete spec yet

   Ege: client/server bind

   McCool: let's say longpoll at the moment
   ... need one mechanism for event handling

   Ege: advantages and disadvantages with each approach
   ... would be over engineering unless we have protocols over it
   ... this may cause with high speed eventing

   McCool: we could align with Moilla's work later but at the
   moment need to live with one method which is already available

   Zoltan: given this discussion, wondering if we should explore
   the WoT WebSocket protocols work

   Lagally: should be out of scope

   <McCool> mm: note also that primary goal of profiles is OOTBI,
   secondary (future) objective could be supporting performance
   (in which case, yes, WS makes sense... but we need more
   constraints to get OOTBI)\

   [38]Lagally's comment added

     [38] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/42#issuecomment-704928470

   [39]PR 44

     [39] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/44

   Lagally: next PR 44

   [40]5.1.6 Event Affordances

     [40] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-profile/44/2b8cf9f...f6de591.html#events

   Lagally: Editors not on event handling there

   McCool: ok with accept this asis
   ... assuming change to longpolling and SSE
   ... we can defer protocol-specific reorg, really this comment
   should be in HTTP-specific section
   ... consistently for all affordances

   [41]https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/43 Issue 43

     [41] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/43 Issue 43

   Lagally: tx for feedback
   ... (goes through the comments)

   Daniel: data schema should be defined

   [42]PR 46

     [42] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/46

   Lagally: (goes through the changes)

   McCool: we need to look into use cases to see if it's
   reasonable

   Kaz: +1

   Lagally: let's address use cases which are relevant

   McCool: ok

   Lagally: hope this change will improve what we have so far

   <McCool> mm: although if we are targetting new devices vs
   brownfield devices this is not as much of an issue

   Lagally: should we merge this PR?

   Kaz: should we add an Editor's note on relevant use cases?

   McCool: let's assume pre-scriptive cases here

   Lagally: objections for merging PR 46?

   (none)

   (merged)

   McCool: at the very least, supporting brownfield devices can be
   under "secondary goals" (and OOTBI is still primary!)

   [43]PR 47

     [43] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/47

   Lagally: Sebastian's comment

   Sebastian: we've been holding discussions about this point

   Lagally: I have some ideas

   Kaz: would suggest we defer this PR and discuss it after FPWD
   publication

   Sebastian: would like to discuss this before FPWD...

   Lagally: let's see if there could be some compromise
   ... Editor's Note within the Abstract section

   
   EDITOR'S NOTE
   The name WoT Core Profile is still under discussion in the
   group and is used as a working title. It is subject to change
   after the profile specification has reached a certain level of
   maturity.
   ]]

   Sebastian: Core profile would have impacts to all the other
   profiles...

   McCool: "Core" is common
   ... would suggest we stick to "Core" at the moment with an
   Editor's Note

   Lagally: at least the Note addresses the concern

   Sebastian: saying "Core" implies it's already there

   McCool: need to understand what Sebastian expects for Profiles

   Kaz: unfortunately, it seems to me that we still need further
   discussion to get the conclusion
   ... so we should defer the discussion on this point and move
   ahead for the use cases discussion today

   Lagally: would not like to defer the publication of Profiles...

   Kaz: in that case we should have a dedicated additional
   Profiles call
   ... but we should have discussion on use cases as planned
   during this call
   ... given we have many invited guests for that purpose

   Lagally: Sebastian, could you raise any concrete alternative
   proposal?

   Sebastian: share the same goal with Lagally for the publication
   itself
   ... would like to provide clarifications

   Kaz: in that case, we need to have an additional call for
   Profiles. right?

   Lagally: let's have an additional discussion during the
   Architecture call on 15th

   Kaz: need not to have that tomorrow?

   Lagally: since can't make it tomorrow
   ... we can close PR 47 itself, and then continue the discussion

   RESOLUTION: we'll continue the profile discussion during the
   Architecture on Oct 15

   [5min break; then Use Cases]

Use cases

   Lagally: various guests for the discussion
   ... would like to skip the detailed discussion on requirements
   ... and would start with the ITU-T collaboration
   ... then new use cases the WoT TFs
   ... and then Agriculture, Media&Entertainment

* WoT IG Use Case TF

   slides @@@

   Lagally: objectives
   ... identify and describe new relevant use cases
   ... collect use cases from the other W3C groups and also the
   other relevant stakeholders
   ... publication of "WoT Use Cases" document
   ... work split
   ... architecture vs use case work
   ... use cases are handled by the WoT IG's Use Cases TF at
   wot-usecases repo
   ... process
   ... use cases => shortlisting => requirements => spec work by
   the other TFs
   ... requirements analysis
   ... requirements draft

* PRs for the latest draft

   <mlagally> [44]https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases

     [44] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases

   Lagally: use cases repo above

   [45]rendered draft

     [45] http://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/

   Lagally: Mizushima-san has been working on clean-up
   ... there are still issues on the document, though

   [46]PR 60

     [46] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/60

   Lagally: merged

   [47]PR 60

     [47] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/60

   Lagally: ITU-T summary
   ... Gyu Myoung will give updates
   ... there will be ITU-T meeting in Nov
   ... we've started to look into their work
   ... hope we could work collaboratively

   (Gyu Myoung joins again)

   [48]OLS - DRAFT.md Proposed liaison statement

     [48] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/master/CONTRIBUTIONS/ITU-T-SG-20

   Lagally: should add references to the published specs
   ... align terminology to avoid fragmentation
   ... would like to establish open conversation channel
   ... as a starting point, we should provide our use case
   document to them

   Kaz: given we need some more time to finalize this proposal,
   probably we should work on this during the use cases call next
   week :)
   ... we should think about the scope like reviewing the specs
   with each other
   ... providing use cases with each other, etc.

   Lagally: right
   ... we should continue the discussion during the use cases
   calls
   ... also we should clarify the expectations from the ITU-T side
   ... Gyu Myoung, please let us know about your need too

   Gyu_Myoung: maybe starting with simply exchange share our
   current work?
   ... to see what the other side has been doing
   ... something related to energy environment management, etc.
   ... ITU-T work on use cases and then architecture
   ... then provide ideas to related SDOs working on protocols,
   etc.
   ... if we have clear views between ITU-T and W3C WoT, could
   work on certain document

   Lagally: ok
   ... McCool, could you help us generate some text for that?

   McCool: we're interested in ongoing work

   Lagally: note this is a liaison letter to be sent to ITU-T SG20

   McCool: ok
   ... we should include alignment of standards
   ... terminology alignment would be helpful
   ... should not define different terminology for the same idea
   ... opportunity to align our work efforts, e.g., jointly
   developing common documents
   ... would say "seek to align"

   Lagally: ok
   ... this could be an initial draft

   Kaz: we need to copy to team-liaisons when we send this to
   ITU-T
   ... also should talk with them beforehand as well

   Lagally: ok
   ... commit the proposal as an initial draft

Collaboration with other W3C groups

   <mlagally> scribenick: mlagally

Agriculture - Kiura-san

   <kaz> slides tbd@@@

   Kiura Takuji - presentation - Agriculture CG

   Rural hybridization

   Since 2020 Prototype of Agricultural WoT?

   Early warning system, monitoring glacial lake in Himalaya

   Physical Hybridization in Rural Area, Open field smart
   agriculture use case is closely related

   Technologies include: AR, AI, Cloud/Edge Computing, High
   performance networks, 5G and beyond

   Various use cases

   Discussion at APAN50

   COVID-19 reveals vulnerabilities in rural area

   scribenick: kaz

   <kaz> [49]Use Case Template

     [49] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/master/USE-CASES/use-case-template.md

   Kaz: would like to suggest Kiura-san generate a concrete use
   case description using the template above. "Rural
   hybridization" is a big use case which could cover many topics.

   Lagally: interested in mitigation of natural disaster

   McCool: would like to see a general use case which covers
   possible issues
   ... power management, etc., as well
   ... decentralized management using solar, etc.
   ... a lot of interesting stuff here ... agriculture is part of
   this but many other topics too

   <McCool> sorry for taking extra time. I would like to mention
   the following link as being relevant to "rural hybridization":
   [50]https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-one
   -traffic-light-town-with-some-of-the-fastest-internet-in-the-us

     [50] https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-one-traffic-light-town-with-some-of-the-fastest-internet-in-the-us

NHK - Endo-san

   scribenick: mlagally

   demo is implemented using open source code available on github

   In plugfest we connected TV to 4 devices from other WoT members

   WoT enabled TV will enable new use cases by integrating with
   other devices

   scribenick: kaz

   <kaz> [51]NHK's original use case

     [51] https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/#nhk-device-tv-sync

   Kaz: related to the use case above
   ... please extend the one or provide an additional one for this
   work
   ... also this demo should be included in the demo during the
   breakouts later October

   Sebastian: context?
   ... your own ontology?
   ... can the video be shared?

   Kaz: let's continue the discussion based on the updated use
   case description from NHK :)

   Sebastian: ok

* AR use cases - Rob Smith

   Rob: WebVMT overview
   ... open web format for location sync with video
   ... sharing, indexing, map presentation
   ... W3C editor's draft by the CG available
   ... roadmap
   ... use cases
   ... golden tutorial use case: AR demo, proof of action, data
   capture format for AR debugging
   ... virtual guide: AR/VR guide, e.g., historic site, medical,
   control in general

   <McCool> (aside: closely related to geospatial use cases we can
   cover on Friday in the plugfest wrapup)

   Rob: visualize events and structures + narrative
   ... sync with annotated map or virtual space

   Kaz: we've generated initial draft use case descriptions as PRs

   <kaz> [52]PR 61 by Kaz

     [52] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/61

   <kaz> [53]PR 62 by Rob

     [53] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/62

Wrap-up for today

   <McCool> (I think we should determine, quickly another time for
   Rob to join us)

   Lagally: thanks a lot for contributions!

   Sebastian: and thanks a lot for your hard work, Lagally!

   Lagally: will continue discussion in next use case call (next
   week)

   <McCool> (I will note then that the Use Case call next week is
   NOT cancelled as well in the wiki, etc)

   McCool: note that there will be the WoT Use Case call on Oct
   15th at 7am EDT

   [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [54]we'll go for Oct 13, 10m EDT for the JSON-LD joint
       meeting
    2. [55]Accept the current editor's draft as the FPWD version
       with the fixes discussed in the call on Oct 7th. and
       including the editorial fixes marked with fpwd and
       editorial in the issue tracker.
    3. [56]we'll continue the profile discussion during the
       Architecture on Oct 15

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [57]scribe.perl version ([58]CVS log)
    $Date: 2020/10/13 18:54:30 $

     [57] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [58] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2020 19:24:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 13 October 2020 19:24:33 UTC