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

[wot-usecases] minutes - 31 August 2021

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 21:44:00 +0900
Message-ID: <877df2kx2n.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-ig@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.




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

                             WoT Use Cases

31 August 2021

   [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/IG_UseCase_WebConf#Agenda_31.8.
      [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/08/31-wot-uc-irc


          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool Tetsushi_Matsuda,





    1. [4]ECHONET review/updates/translations

Meeting minutes

  ECHONET review/updates/translations

   [5]echonet use case

      [5] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/main/USE-CASES/wot-usecase-echonet.md

   Matsuda: a use case consists of ECHONET devices

   McCool: for people at home and outside home?

   Matsuda: yes, people going out of the home

   McCool: fyi, OGC is working on Geofencing to identify the

   Matsuda: ok
   … but please note this use case itself doesn't use Geofencing

   McCool: ok
   … the smartphone is the UI
   … going to talk with the cloud service
   … so not directly talk with the devices

   Matsuda: right

   McCool: would assume the connections is HTTP-based

   Matsuda: yes, that's my assumption

   McCool: ECHONET consolidated Things and other parties' devices
   included here
   … what is a bit confusing is
   … having two hubs
   … 1. ECHONET Lite Controller at the home
   … and 2. Device manufacturer's server on the cloud

   Matsuda: some devices can be directly connected to the device
   manufacturer's server
   … but wanted to avoid confusion

   McCool: it's common to have multiple paths to the cloud, e.g.,
   SmartThings in addition to ECHONET

   Matsuda: ECHONET itself doesn't specify the protocol between
   the ECHONET controller and the device manufacturer's server

   McCool: ok
   … btw, the latest template has an additional section of
   … to describe possible variants of the proposed use case
   … if applicable

   [6]latest template

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

   Matsuda: need to check with the ECHONET HQ if need to add it

   McCool: that's not mandate
   … our main target is the Web interface
   … i.e., Smartphone-Service provider's serer A-Device
   manufacturer's server

   Kaz: so the Service provider's server A and B would handle the
   possible binding between the ECHONET Lite Web API and the WoT

   Matsuda: yes

   McCool: possibly a 1:1 mapping

   Matsuda: it depends on the level of coverage of the ECHONET Lit
   Web API capability by WoT

   Kaz: maybe we might want to have an ECHONET Profile for WoT at
   some point to clarify the coverage

   McCool: the smartphone might talk with all the devices one by
   … or the Service provider's server A may provide a virtual
   device including those devices

   Kaz: yeah
   … as Matsuda-san described in March, ECHONET Lite Web API has
   device grouping capability
   … but probably for this use case and the upcoming Plugfest,
   they would like to start with one-by-one connection

   McCool: ok
   … I got the use case itself
   … and would like to think about some more possible settings as
   useful subsets (if possible)
   … (goes through the ECHONET Lite Web API Dev Specs v.1.3.0)

   [7]ECHONET Lite Web API Dev Specs v.1.3.0

      [7] https://echonet.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/pdf/General/Download/web_API/ECHONET_Lite_Web_API_Dev_Specs_v1.3.0.pdf

   (Their "Device Description" is described P32 and the following

   McCool: the next step is whether we merge this proposed use
   cases into the main Use Cases document or not
   … would have a prototype implementation as well

   Kaz: yes, that's why I'm asking them to join the Plugfest
   during TPAC

   McCool: would see which device can be mapped to TD how
   … I think this interface, e.g., for battery, is quite similar
   to TD

   Kaz: can we ask Matsuda-san to start generating the HTML?

   McCool: would see Geofencing mentioned as a possible variant
   … but if Matsuda-san can wait, would be better to talk with
   Lagally next Tuesday
   … and then make decision

   Matsuda: the next official meeting on the ECHONET side will be
   held Wednesday next week
   … so can't guarantee we can add additional variants

   Kaz: I think Geofencing itself is rather a horizontal feature
   which could be applied various vertical use cases
   … so don't have to describe it within this use case description
   … we can think about combination of Geofencing and other
   vertical use cases later

   McCool: that's true


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [8]scribe.perl version 136 (Thu May 27 13:50:24 2021 UTC).

      [8] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Monday, 27 September 2021 12:44:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 27 September 2021 12:44:09 UTC