- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 18:13:35 +0900
- To: public-wot-ig@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/01/20-wot-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Michael McCool!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
WoT-IG/WG
20 January 2021
[2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#20_January_2021
[3] https://www.w3.org/2021/01/20-wot-irc
Attendees
Present
Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Kaz_Ashimura,
Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Koster, Michael_Lagally,
Michael_McCool, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Sebastian_Kaebisch,
Tetsushi_Matsuda, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Sebastian
Scribe
kaz, McCool
Contents
1. [4]invited experts
2. [5]minutes review
3. [6]SDW/AR use cases/
4. [7]APA meeting
5. [8]planning additional joint meeting
6. [9]vF2F planning
7. [10]Liaisons
8. [11]Task Force Reports
9. [12]Summary of action items
Meeting minutes
invited experts
Sebastian: Christine Perey, SDWIG, as invited expert in WoT;
approved by chairs
... expect her to join the use case calls
... we have some other candidates that are in process
minutes review
[13]Jan-13
[13] https://www.w3.org/2021/01/13-wot-minutes.html
Sebastian: SDW, APA, Liaisons, TF reports...
(approved)
SDW/AR use cases/
[14]meeting agenda
[14] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/955
<McCool> Jan 19 was joint call with SDW/AR
McCool: more introductory discussions there
… presentation from the Open AR Cloud guys
… also pending use cases from Rob Smith
… next steps includes follow-up discussions during the use
cases calls
… possible proposals on spatial data for discovery
… also tracking references
[15]comments on next steps
[15] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/955#issuecomment-762978602
Lagally: expecting to have geolocation experts from them?
McCool: yes
… note that Christine Perey from their side will make
contributions as an IE
McCool: before moving forward to actual spec features, we'll
clearly define our requirements
… e.g., for geospatial query
Lagally: tx for your clarification
McCool: I gave some tutorial on how to use GitHub PRs to
Christine
McCool: also expect SD experts, including Christine Perey, to
contribute to use cases and requirements
APA meeting
<kaz> [16]meeting agenda
[16] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/953
see github issue for agenda; make issues and label them with
"Accessibility"
Lagally: we do have an accessibility section in use cases...
would be useful to review
planning additional joint meeting
Sebastian: Microsoft DTDL; Michael Lagally trying to organize
… unfortunately use case call is inconvenient, have proposed
having him join Architecture call
vF2F planning
Sebastian: dates and times have been proposed
… doodles are in agenda
… plugfest proposed for March 1-5
McCool: I have marked existing WoT meetings as yellow conflicts
during plugfest week
… although we might cancel them, to discuss
Daniel: was there an email for the doodles?
Kaz: not yet, I will do
Action: kaz to send an announcement on the doodle
Sebastian: proposal for actual vF2F, propose some times from
March 15 - 26.
McCool: I propose that we try to schedule a total of 15h over
those two weeks
… let's use the doodle to figure out the best slots to use
Sebastian: note also that these two weeks are when the daylight
savings time is changing, so be careful when checking times
McCool: once we decide on times I can send out calendar invites
which will hopefully show the times correctly in everyone's
local timezone
Liaisons
McCool: have not heard about any plans for a T2TRG meeting
… but normally they do have one prior to IETF, which is in five
weeks
Koster: will contact Ari and see
McCool: I think a joint call would be helpful to get updates on
IETF activities, ASDF, etc...
… also REST api for iot, edge computing (Eve Schooler contact)
McCool: for IETF, need to go through calendar and see what's
scheduled
… some relevant activities around JSON, etc.
Sebastian: for OPC-UA, we have been talking to validation group
… but it seems it was not quite the right group for a OPC-UA
binding for WoT
… so since there does not seem to be an appropriate group,
proposing to make a "companion group"
… to create a binding
Sebastian: so now propose working on a joint charter; also need
to understand what companies would be interested
Sebastian: Siemens will definitely support this activity
Sebastian: need to define mostly vocabulary for OPC-UA binding
Kaz: wondering if expected relationship would be included in
current liaison
… may have to talk to W3C management again to see if we need a
stronger liaison
… especially if a spec is being created
Kaz: for example, SDW group worked with OGC on joint specs
Sebastian: probably first need to sketch the charter, then can
share with W3M to get feedback
Koster: does this *have* to be done under OPC-UA? Are IP
policies consistent with W3C?
Sebastian: if we do it as a joint charter, we can include W3C
members that don't have to be OPC-UA members
Koster: we should also look at certification requirements
Lagally: what mjk said is important, so we need to fix policies
around IP, goals, etc.
Lagally: some clear use cases and scenarios that bring value to
industry; what is benefit of integration?
Lagally: need some draft terms of reference
Lagally: in general this also applies to integration with other
standards, e.g. MQTT
<kaz> +1
Sebastian: yes, this is something we have to do anyway as part
of the charter
Lagally: does it make sense to write a use case?
Kaz: before create a draft charter, perhaps we should have
expected deliverables
<mjk> I would like to understand if a WoT TD binding for OPC UA
will create an open user community, like the web
Sebastian: we would benefit if other standards can use WoT
<mjk> So a zigbee binding, if only useful to zigbee members?
McCool: we could add OPC-UA to existing use cases (eg factory,
smart city, building, etc) but perhaps another "horizontal" use
case for "cross-standard mashups" would be useful to document
this application of WoT (which includes OPC-UA but also other
standards)
Kaz: suggest we should see how to use our existing W3C liaison
McCool: and we should clarify if OPC-UA joint group is needed
Sebastian: next steps, we should look at alternatives
McCool: don't think anyone is against it, we just need to go
through the process
Sebastian: perhaps should start with sketching a use case, then
we can discuss
Lagally: makes sense; is there a template?
<McCool> s/charter and use case/
<kaz> a/sketching a use case/sketching a charter and use cases/
McCool: there are a few other topics of future interest from
ISO and IEC (Common Data Directory)
Kaz: had discussion with a guy working on the IEC CDD standard;
maybe invite to use case call
… and also it might be interesting to refer to their ontologies
Sebastian: kaz, will you invite to use case call then?
Kaz: yes
Task Force Reports
Daniel: how to identify version
McCool: security worked on PRs for apikey and psk, and uri
templates
McCool: for discovery, talked about vocabulary and
alternativeResponses
McCool: all of the above will be discussed in TD call today
Sebastian: for marketing, looked at videos and web pages
… for web page content, looked at tutorials
McCool: plugfest, worked on logistics and got started in
organizing repo, scenarios, etc.
Sebastian: several prs that need input from ml
Lagally: unfortunately hard for me to attend td call
Kaz: had a report last week on this
Lagally: consolidated repos, walked some new members through
process
Lagally: architecture, terminology definitions for partial TDs,
TD fragments, etc. to get consistent use of these terms
… also some FPWD feedback from Ben, pushed out to next call
… on profiles
<kaz> [main call adjourned; PF call in 7 mins]
Summary of action items
1. [17]kaz to send an announcement on the doodle
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[18]scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).
[18] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2021 09:13:41 UTC