- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 21:45:06 +0900
- To: public-wot-ig@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/09/07-wot-uc-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks,
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
WoT Use Cases
07 September 2021
[2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/IG_UseCase_WebConf#Agenda_7.9.
[3] https://www.w3.org/2021/09/07-wot-uc-irc
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool,
Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tetsushi_Matsuda, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Lagally
Scribe
kaz
Contents
1. [4]Minutes
2. [5]ECHONET use case
3. [6]AOB
4. [7]Summary of resolutions
Meeting minutes
Minutes
[8]Aug-3
[8] https://www.w3.org/2021/08/03-wot-uc-minutes.html
Lagally: (goes through the minutes)
… will follow up Conexxus
McCool: btw, there was some information on industry cases of
WoT during the Marketing call
Lagally: minutes approved
[9]Aug-31
[9] https://www.w3.org/2021/08/31-wot-uc-minutes.html
McCool: (gives summary)
Lagally: this use case itself is quite simple on smart homes
Kaz: right
… we should handle geofencing, etc., separately from this use
case
… and can generate another separate use case about that as a
horizontal use case
Lagally: ok
… btw, what's the status on the liaison with OGC?
McCool: talking with Christine
… it seems there is an IEEE WG on geospatial data as well
Kaz: we should have a joint session with them during TPAC
McCool: yeah
… another question is how to manage the geolocation data
… along with time-series data
Kaz: we can start with some basic discussion based on use cases
McCool: yeah
Lagally: for concrete extensions, we should be careful about
our Charter
… current Charter or the next one
… e.g., clustering things
McCool: thinking about orchestration
… are we just concern about grouping the status?
… or what do we want to achieve?
Lagally: seems various topics there
… including permission management
McCool: we have things like OAuth now
… but no standard to manage orchestration
… e.g., a visitor visiting my home would like to get connected
with the network at my home
Kaz: let's approve the minutes first :)
McCool: yes, the minutes are fine :)
… regarding the next steps, we have several advanced use cases
in the pipe
Lagally: so we added "gaps" to the use case template to clarify
the gaps
… what was the conclusion about ECHONET use case description
itself?
<sebastian> sorry I have to go
Kaz: was quickly skimming it again today with Michael Lagally
;)
Lagally: ok. the minutes themselves are approved
ECHONET use case
[10]ECHONET use case
[10] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/main/USE-CASES/wot-usecase-echonet.md
(discussion on the "Gaps" section specifically)
controlling multiple devices in an orchestrated manner is
dependent on the implementation of a client application in the
current WoT specification
]]
McCool: so there is a gap for multi-vendor orchestration
Lagally: what level of orchestration is expected?
… how the ECHONET spec handles orchestration?
Matsuda: ECHONET Lite Web API spec itself doesn't have
orchestration capability
Kaz: ECHONET doesn't have multi-vendor/multi-standard
orchestration capability, and so they would like to use WoT for
that purpose
Matsuda: right. we just wanted to show you that there is a use
case which can't be implemented with existing standards
Lagally: what kind of "orchestration" is expected here?
Matsuda: multiple devices which use multiple data models
McCool: "orchestration" here is not just operation
… but also include data
… so need to maintain the data somewhere
… btw, ECHONET Lite Web API spec has the device spec and the
device description
… more than one access point may be involved
Kaz: I'm OK with accepting this use case description itself,
but we should clarify our expectation for "orchestration"
… based on some concrete scenario, e.g., the conductor work
with the pianist, violinist, drummer, etc. :)
McCool: right. and "orchestration" should include
"configuration management"
Matsuda: for the moment, we can avoid using the term of
"orchestration" within our use case
Kaz: ECHONET is planning to join the Plugfest during TPAC
… so we can think about actual "orchestration" during the
Plugfest and its planning
… note that their spec document is written in Japanese
… but the most important definition is done by tables which
include English as well as Japanese
… so we can refer to part of their spec document
McCool: right
Lagally: ok
… Matsuda-san, what kind of features for "orchestration" or
"grouping" do you want in addition to your own grouping
capability?
Matsuda: things like where to store data, how to handle
different data from various vendors, etc.
McCool: we could put them on the document
Lagally: can we have some more detailed description about the
gaps?
… grouping and sequence of actions?
McCool: note that it would take a few more weeks for them to
add requirements description
… since they need to discuss the changes internally
Lagally: ok
McCool: wondering about the schedule
Lagally: let's go for weekly meeting
McCool: will send an updated invite
Kaz: can we move ahead with the ECHONET use case itself?
… can we ask Matsuda-san to generate the HTML description for
the use case document?
<mlagally> Proposal: Include ECHONET use case into use cases
document
Resolution: Include ECHONET use case into use cases document
AOB
Lagally: wondering about outreach
McCool: could have joint meetings during TPAC
[11]https://built.itmedia.co.jp/bt/articles/2108/31/
news030.html
[11] https://built.itmedia.co.jp/bt/articles/2108/31/news030.html
Kaz: fyi, as I mentioned during the Marketing call today, big
companies like Takenaka from Japan have started to use WoT as
the basis for their IoT systems :)
Lagally: great!
[adjoured]
Summary of resolutions
1. [12]Include ECHONET use case into use cases document
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[13]scribe.perl version 136 (Thu May 27 13:50:24 2021 UTC).
[13] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Monday, 27 September 2021 12:45:13 UTC