[wot-usecases] minutes - 13 April 2021

available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2021/04/13-wot-uc-minutes.html


also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, McCool!

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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


                             – DRAFT –
                             WoT Use Cases

13 April 2021

   [2]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2021/04/13-wot-uc-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Gyu_Myoung_Lee, Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally,
          Michael_McCool, Tomoaki_Mizushima

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          Lagally

   Scribe
          kaz, McCool

Contents

    1. [3]Summary of action items

Meeting minutes

   <kaz> [4]vF2F Day 4 discussion as the starting point

      [4] https://www.w3.org/2021/03/15-25-wot-minutes.html#d4-t03


   note there was a review document discussed in the last meeting

   <kaz> [5]McCool's summary on ITU-T use cases analysis

      [5] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/main/CONTRIBUTIONS/ITU-T-Use-case-summary.md


   Lagally: what we would like to do today is discuss our goals
   for collaboration
   … for example, when looking at your documents, we noticed some
   gaps in our own terminology
   … and we don't know about your future plans, and whether there
   is an opportunity to align ITU-T and W3C standards
   … at the very least we want to look for synergies, gaps, and
   collaboration opportunities
   … willingness on WoT side to define some new work items, as
   long as we can justify them
   … in the new charter, starting next year

   McCool: so we'd also like to understand the willingness of
   ITU-T to publish updates, collaborate, etc.

   McCool: as for a new WoT charter, we would write/submit it in
   the fall, then start it in Jan 2022 (probably)

   Lagally: I understand there is an upcoming ITU-T meeting
   coming?

   Gyu_Myoung: 17 May and 27 May plenary meetings
   … other days will have several other individual meetings on
   different topics
   … these are only for ITU-T members

   Lagally: we have been sketching out some ideas for working
   together
   … for example, would there be a willingness to adopt TDs?

   McCool: note there would technically be no problem with
   supporting both, and deprecating the less-used one over time

   Lagally: some technical questions; are these equivalent, can we
   express the same things? Can they be automatically translated?
   … is anyone in ITU-T interested in moving to more modern
   metadata description?

   McCool: and also, how many implementations are there?

   Gyu_Myoung: as far as I know, now specific activities
   … there is something going on with metadata; but as for WoT,
   although we have developed recommendations, and have an ongoing
   work item in health care
   … ITU-T also does not intend to develop any protocols
   … want to focus on architectural modelling and use cases;
   high-level concepts
   … to really collaborate, we would have to organize a meeting
   and focus on a list of specific gaps
   … and then work towards a harmonized solution

   Lagally: if we organized a meeting, can the health-care editor
   attend, and who should/could attend?

   Gyu_Myoung: next meeting we will be setting up a new
   organization structure
   … basically the period ended last year and new one starts this
   year
   … and there is a group for data management topics, which I
   think metadata fits into
   … will provide a link

   [6]Question 4/20

      [6] https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/2017-2020/20/Pages/q4.aspx


   Gyu_Myoung: is a "question/poll" posted to the group
   … on the data processing and management
   … and note that collaboration is called out in this page

   McCool: although would be useful to discuss linked data in
   general in this context

   Lagally: so, is it realistic to get to something like an
   endorsement of WoT?

   McCool: the current spec does use a W3C metadata standard, so
   there is precedent

   Lagally: it all depends on the stakeholders and business
   interests of the representatives

   Lagally: don't know enough about the process in ITU-T
   … I understand there is a 4-year study period; what is the
   publication process?

   Gyu_Myoung: in this case we plan to continue work into a new
   period

   Lagally: so it takes a couple of years to publish a document?

   Gyu_Myoung: if we start a new relevant work item, need at least
   2 years to publish

   Lagally: do you think we can get people from the DPM group into
   a call to work on a plan?
   … for example, to define a common goal or document

   Kaz: for Q4, what is the main use case or business area? I see
   smart city is mentioned...

   Gyu_Myoung: mainly consider 2; IoT in general; and smart cities
   and communities

   Lagally: we do have some smart cities use cases, we could
   discuss those and ask for feedback
   … and whether they would agree or support these use cases
   … there are also some health care use cases

   McCool: Kaz and I are involved in a W3C workshop on smart
   cities
   … to clarify use cases and stakeholders

   Lagally: and that would engage with a wider set of people from
   W3C

   Lagally: but we would also like feedback on the document we are
   about to publish

   McCool: some feedback on documents would indeed be very
   helpful, but we could make a list of other goals

   Kaz: two goals from the viewpoint of W3C as a whole
   … one would be input to the WoT UC document
   … and the other thing, which is separate, is the Smart Cities
   Workshop; but this is much broader
   … and for this call, we should focus on the WoT use cases
   document

   McCool: other goals could include studying the feasibility of
   adopting TDs in ITU-T, looking for feedback on other specs,
   etc.

   Lagally: I think we should be very focused
   ... we want to drive synergies and decrease fragmentation
   ... so we really want to seek adoption by TDs by other
   organizations
   ... that is the goal; the UC review is just a task
   ... so as the next step we should target a call with the right
   people, put together a presentation on WoT, etc.
   … and should look at the right format for working together
   … ideally the common goal should also be of sufficient interest
   to ITU-T that ITU-T members would be engaged in the work

   Lagally: who proposes the action items and tasks within the
   ITU-T?

   Gyu_Myoung: I think it would be helpful for WoT to send a
   liaison statement to ITU-T to state some specific requests
   … based on this document I can initiate discussion?

   McCool: is there a format for this document, and what should
   the goals be?

   Gyu_Myoung: just an email, and mention an interesting point for
   collaboration, including setting up a workshop

   McCool: so the request could just be a formal meeting request
   to discuss goals, not actual specific technical goals

   Gyu_Myoung: suggest that we send it to SG20, and then that will
   allow other subgroups to join besides DPM, for example

   Lagally: should we have an informal meeting with key
   stakeholders first? What is the most efficient/typical
   approach?

   Gyu_Myoung: we could also discuss with administrative groups in
   ITU-T

   Lagally: would you be willing to help us talk to the right
   people, and word the request appropriately

   Kaz: holding a joint "workshop" directly is complicated

   McCool: we could do an ITU-T workshop them join...

   Kaz: "workshop" has a specific meaning on the W3C side, so I'd
   suggest we start with another joint meeting including more
   participants from the ITU-T side (e.g., SG20's Question 4)

   McCool: I think the word "workshop" means different things in
   the two groups
   … so let's avoid this term in the email and just propose a
   joint call

   <McCool> ok, I think we reached a point we can close

   <McCool> we can follow up with email; a draft email

   Action: mmccool to draft an email requesting a call with SG20
   on WoT alignment; to send to mlagally and kaz for input, then
   Gyu Myoung Lee for feedback, then have a WoT/W3C/W3M
   resolution, finally to send to SG20

   [adjourned]

Summary of action items

    1. [7]mmccool to draft an email requesting a call with SG20 on
       WoT alignment; to send to mlagally and kaz for input, then
       Gyu Myoung Lee for feedback, then have a WoT/W3C/W3M
       resolution, finally to send to SG20


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [8]scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).

      [8] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html

Received on Monday, 12 July 2021 04:33:53 UTC