- 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