W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > July 2021

[wot-usecases] minutes - 11 May 2021

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 13:44:36 +0900
Message-ID: <87czro3zuz.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-ig@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2021/05/11-wot-uc-minutes.html


also as text below.

Thanks,

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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


                             íV DRAFT íV
                             WoT Use Cases

11 May 2021

   [2]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2021/05/11-wot-uc-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool,
          Sebastian_Kaebisch, Soumya_Kanti_Datta,
          Tomoaki_Mizushima

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          Lagally

   Scribe
          kaz

Contents

    1. [3]Publication preparation
    2. [4]Previous minutes
    3. [5]wot-security issue 168
    4. [6]Issue 45
    5. [7]ITU-T liaison
    6. [8]Use Case proposal from Soumya

Meeting minutes

  Publication preparation

   McCool: we should create a branch to fix the current content
   for publication

   Kaz: +1

   Lagally: ok
   íK let's do that offline

  Previous minutes

   Kaz: 3 minutes to be reviewed

   [9]Mar-9

      [9] https://www.w3.org/2021/03/09-wot-uc-minutes.html


   [10]Apr-13

     [10] https://www.w3.org/2021/04/13-wot-uc-minutes.html


   [11]May-4

     [11] https://www.w3.org/2021/05/04-wot-uc-minutes.html


   Lagally: any problems with Mar-9 ones?

   (none)

   Lagally: what about Apr-13?
   íK discussion on the ITU-T liaison
   íK any concerns?

   (none)

   Lagally: then May-4
   íK anything to be changed?

   (none)

   [all the three minutes approved]

  wot-security issue 168

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

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


   McCool: I should set a standard for this purpose
   íK for the security/privacy questions

   [13]Security/Privacy questions

     [13] https://github.com/w3c/wot-security/issues/168#issuecomment-836667052


   Lagally: seems some of the questions are kind of abstract
   íK what should the Editors consider?

   McCool: depends on the use cases

   Lagally: we should clarify our expectations for the guideline

   McCool: yes, and the next step should be generating a concrete
   PR for the text

   [14]related issue 84 on the wot-usecases side

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


   Lagally: (adds a comment to Issue 84)

   [15]Lagally's comment

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/84#issuecomment-838389145


  Issue 45

   [16]Issue 45 - Review EdgeX Architecture

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


   McCool: what do they need is a question
   íK for the possible hub section within the WoT Architecture spec

   [17]related wot-architecture issue 585 - Architectural
   patterns: Introduce star(hub) vs. p2p section

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/585


   (Sebastian leaves)

   Lagally: (adds comments to wot-usecases issue 45)

   [18]Lagally's comments

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/45#issuecomment-838396050


  ITU-T liaison

   McCool: we sent a liaison statement suggesting we have a
   dedicated meeting with their experts
   íK they'll have their meeting on May 17-27
   íK to discuss our proposal

   [19]Kaz's liaison letter

     [19] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2021May/0012.html


   McCool: note that there is another discussion on a potential
   group for JSON-LD Signature

   Lagally: a W3C group?

   McCool: yes

   [20]Linked Data Signature Charter proposal

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/262


   McCool: do we want to have a TD signature?

   Lagally: (shows the draft proposed Charter)

   [21]Proposed Linked Data Signatures Working Group Charter

     [21] https://w3c.github.io/lds-wg-charter/index.html


   <mlagally> [22]https://w3c.github.io/lds-wg-charter/index.html


     [22] https://w3c.github.io/lds-wg-charter/index.html


   Lagally: (skims the proposed Charter)
   íK we should look at their expected timeline as well

   McCool: absolutely
   íK the timing when they'll produce what would be related to our
   future work as well

  Use Case proposal from Soumya

   Kaz: are the slides publicly available?

   Soumya: yes, and will send them to you all
   íK [IntellioT - Concepts and Use cases]
   íK [EU Project Participants]
   íK [NG IoT Use Cases]
   íK [Concept]
   íK high-level concept here
   íK IoT applications on the left side
   íK computation, communication infrastructure on the right side
   íK using AR/VR technology for human interfaces
   íK Eurecom is providing 5G connection
   íK [Use case 1: Agriculture]
   íK [Use cas 2: Healthcare]
   íK most important use case for WoT, I think
   íK the patients are equipped with some wearable devices
   íK this use case is very important to WoT because it includes
   various aspects for WoT
   íK [Use case 3: Manufacturing]
   íK orchestration of multiple devices including robots
   íK robot may encounter a thing which it have never seen yet
   íK so human operator can add support
   íK would like to generate descriptions for WoT Use Cases
   íK any questions?

   Lagally: timeline?

   Soumya: shows a timeline
   íK [Planned Work]
   íK start in Oct 2020
   íK End-user workshop 1: Mar-Apr 2021
   íK open call 1: Oct 2021
   íK use case demos 1: Feb 2022
   íK end-user workshop 2: May-Jun 2022
   íK open call 2: Oct 2022

   McCool: there is an existing use case description for edge
   computing and smart cities, etc.
   íK please look into them
   íK learning from the actual situation is interesting
   íK web workers, etc., for edge computing might be also
   interesting to you
   íK low-latency with reliability for robot is important

   Lagally: we have existing use cases as McCool mentioned
   íK would be important for you to look into them and think about
   orthogonal proposals

   McCool: use cases are written from the users' view

   <Zakim> kaz, you wanted to mention the upcoming smart cities
   workshop

   [23]cfp

     [23] https://www.w3.org/2021/06/smartcities-workshop/index.html


   Kaz: agree with McCool and Lagally. you can generate several
   possible use cases from the viewpoints of users and industries
   first, and then generate some more horizontal/technical use
   cases and requirements based on those initial use cases.
   possibly a good topic for the upcoming Smart Cities Workshop as
   well.

   Lagally: let's talk about the horizontal use cases and
   requirements
   íK please put down what are in your mind
   íK AOB?

   (none)

   Lagally: thanks a lot for your proposals, Soumya!
   íK the next Use Cases call will be held in 2 weeks on May 25
   íK btw, due to the holiday in Germany, the Architecture call on
   May 13 will be cancelled
   íK will send a notice about that

   [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 04:44:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 12 July 2021 04:44:45 UTC