[wot-usecases] minutes - 4 May 2021

available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2021/05/04-wot-uc-minutes.html


also as text below.

Thanks,

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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


                             – DRAFT –
                WoT Use Cases - publication status check

04 May 2021

   [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

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

      [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/05/04-wot-uc-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool,
          Tomoaki_Mizushima

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          Lagally

   Scribe
          kaz

Contents

    1. [4]Recent editorial updates
         1. [5]PR 126
         2. [6]PR 128
         3. [7]PR 129
         4. [8]PR 117
    2. [9]Issues
         1. [10]Issue 84
         2. [11]Issue 70
         3. [12]Issue 45
    3. [13]AOB

Meeting minutes

  Recent editorial updates

    PR 126

   [14]PR 126 - Editorial fixes for issue 119

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/126


   Lagally: just fixed typos

    PR 128

   [15]PR 128 - list contributors and respective companies in
   acknowledgement section

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/128


   Lagally: updates for the acknowledgement section

   McCool: maybe should have the list in alphabetical order?

   Lagally: yes, it's already so

   ack

   Kaz: as confirmed the other day, we should not include
   non-Member companies' names for each Use Case entry

   [16]2.3.3 Automated Smart Building Management

     [16] https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/index.html#smart-building-things


   McCool: or rather we can simply remove all the companies' names
   from each Use Case description to be consistent

   Lagally: right

   McCool: we can list multiple authors concatenated with ", "
   (=A, B, C)

    PR 129

   [17]PR 129 - cleanup references

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/129

   Lagally: updated the reference section

   McCool: ok

    PR 117

   [18]PR 117 - WIP: Add liaisons

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/117

   Lagally: let's leave it out at the moment

   McCool: ok

  Issues

   [19]remaining issues

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


    Issue 84

   [20]Issue 84 - Security and requirements questionnaire

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/84


   McCool: we did look into it
   … may have cross-TF issues

   Lagally: asking for a table indicating which concrete
   implementations (eg OAuth2) satisfy which requirements (eg
   "scopes").

   McCool: yes
   … we talked about this
   … most to be included in the Security Best Practice document
   … and Use Case document should have more generic description
   … and possibly link to the Best Practices document
   … would be nice to have detailed description at one place
   … question 4 here is more related to Web questionnaire
   … probably should look at the long list on security

   Kaz: McCool, could you please respond to this issue 84?

   McCool: (adds comments)
   … adding a cross-reference

   Lagally: think we need to extend the Use Case template with
   some more detailed security and privacy questions

   McCool: yeah
   … just added a cross-referencing with wot-security issue 168

   [21]wot-security issue 168 - Add "Security and Privacy
   Considerations" to all use cases (or requirements)

     [21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-security/issues/168


   Lagally: (also updates the wot-usecases issue 84)
   … McCool will discuss this in the Security TF and come back
   with a list of candidate questions

   McCool: ok
   … 3 sub steps
   … starting with brainstorming
   … look at the CR questions we got

    Issue 70

   [22]Issue 70 - Fix reference section

     [22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/70


   Lagally: PR 129 already available

   (closed)

    Issue 45

   [23]Issue 45 - Review EdgeX Architecture

     [23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/45


   Lagally: what would be the use case description for this
   proposal?

   McCool: maybe we need some more generic use case description
   … also a hub-based architecture proposal for the Architecture
   document
   … we could think about adding a section for hub-based
   architecture

   Kaz: from our viewpoint, hub-based structure is one the
   possible connection patters, and we already have a section
   about that which could include hub-based structure as well
   … also we should have some concrete use case scenario for EdgeX
   architecture if we want to have a use description for it within
   the Use Cases document.

  AOB

   Lagally: will update the shortname to "wot-usecases"

   Kaz: as I mentioned, we've got transition approval, so let'
   move forward :)

   [adjourned]


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [24]scribe.perl version 131 (Sat Apr 24 15:23:43 2021 UTC).

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

Received on Monday, 12 July 2021 04:35:31 UTC