W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > August 2018

[wot-ig/wg] minutes - 29 August 2018

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 04:00:53 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9WJLcn7-QnbytXhQrkmjU-n3np+1+qAooB3skKSXLLZ2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.

Thanks for taking these minutes, Dave!




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

                               - DRAFT -


30 Aug 2018


      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#29_Aug_2018


          DarkoAnicic, Kaz_Ashimura, Micael_McCool, Lindsay_Frost,
          Daniel_Peintner, Darko_Anicic, Dave_Raggett,
          Michael_Koster, Michael_Lagally, Taki_Kamiya,
          Zoltan_Kis, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Toru_Kawaguchi,
          Martin_Bauer, Graeme_Coleman, Barry_Leiba,



          dsr, kaz


     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Quick Updates
         2. [5]ETSI ISG CIM presentation
         3. [6]Task Force reports
               o [7]TD
               o [8]Binding
               o [9]Confirming publication schedule (TD, Binding)
               o [10]Security
               o [11]Testing
               o [12]Scripting
     * [13]Summary of Action Items
     * [14]Summary of Resolutions

   <kaz> scribenick: dsr

Quick Updates

   Paper submitted to permissions workshop in October

   <kaz> and accepted

   Request to restart architecture task force

   McCool: doodle poll to decide the telco slot?

   Kaz: we should ask who is interested first
   ... and then can poll for a time slot if needed
   ... but if there are just a few people, e.g., only the Editors,
   they can simply decide the slot

   McCool: We could use the editors call slot

   Toru: would like to start with initial discussion by the
   Editors of the Architecture draft

ETSI ISG CIM presentation

   <kaz> @@@ slides tbd

   Lindsay Frost presents.

   Trying to build a bridge between traditional IoT, database
   approaches and the semantic web

   We’re using property graphs

   and HTTP qwith JSON-LD

   We decided not to use SPARQL in order to guarantee performance
   over the web

   we instead designed our own API instead

   Our focus is on context information management

   Centralised vs distributed vs federated solutions

   Example involving police reporting a car accident

   Lindsay explains how this uses property graphs

   Next slide shows the JSON representation for the example

   Lindsay recaps relationship to Web of Things

   ETSI ISG CIM relates to descriptions of the context for things

   We haven’t considered actions and events as yet

   Slide with information model including geolocation information

   and temporal aspects (observedAt, createdAt, modifiedAt)

   We want to discuss how to bridge better to the web of things

   Kaz: thanks Lindsay
   ... there are several possibilities for the next step
   ... first, we can add this liaison to the [15]W3C Liaison table
   by specifying the liaison contact from your side (e.g.,
   Lindsay, yourself) and the liaison contact from the W3C side
   (e.g., myself and Dave)
   ... also we can discuss how to support interchange of
   ... e.g. participation in plugfest during TPAC in Lyon in late

     [15] https://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison

   Lindsay: that’s very nice but too ambitious given the timescale

   We wouldn’t have a certified ETSI implementation, but one of us
   could show what we have

   Martin confirms this

   Lindsay: I will take this back as a request to the FIWARE
   ... small terms would be to agree on terminology

   We’re not sure of the TD @context is directly compatible though

   WoT has been focusing on services, whilst ETSI ISG CIM has been
   focusing on the information models

   <inserted> scribenick: kaz

   dsr: this is related to property graphs
   ... I'm organizing a workshop on data
   ... in Feb in Europe
   ... how we can bridge the gap with RDF graphs
   ... opportunity for ETSI and FIWARE

   <inserted> scribenick: dsr

   Dave mentions upcoming W3C workshop (Feb 2019) on RDF next and
   inviting Lindsay and colleagues to participate in respect to
   property graphs and query languages

   McCool: We are working with iot.schema.org on vocabularies for
   IoT semantics

   mjkoster: I would like to find out more about using sub class
   of RDF resources

   In iot.schema.org we’re defining terms for describing common
   IoT devices

   we’re focusing more on service interaction models rather than
   describing the world

   Our plugfests are experimental and we don’t have to nail
   everything down

   It would be interesting to look at the complementary roles

   McCool: we also have work on modelling message payloads for
   protocol descriptions
   ... finds the link to the editor’s draft

   We’re trying to be consistent with JSON schema

   McCool: let’s try to identify follow up actions

   DarkoAnicic: I see that in iot.schema.org, we’ve looked at the
   SAREF ontology

   and it would be interesting to consider how ETSI could use the
   iot.schema.org where appropriate

   Lindsay: we are agnostic especially for domain vocabularies
   ... if there is no collision with our information model, we
   should be able to integrate with the iot.schema.org terms

   McCool: mentions the WISHI activity

   and part of the IRTF

   mjkoster: a narrow set of categories and associated properties

   Lindsay: our members have also considered terms like near-to,
   and the open question is where to make something part of the
   API or as external vocabularies

   Kaz: would we like to invite Lindsay and Martin to our task
   force meetings when appropriate?

   McCool: we would need to clarify the IPR policy applicable

   mjkoster: the linked data task force is in the WoT IG and could
   be a good forum for liaison work

   <DarkoAnicic> LD-telco:

     [16] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/IG_Linked_Data_and_Semantic_Processing_WebConf

   The Linked Data TF is every 2 weeks on Friday at 4pm CET

   Kaz: perhaps Lindsay could join the WoT IG officially?

   Lindsay: I can look into that

Task Force reports

* TD

   Sebastian is on vacation

   Taki-san provides a summary on behalf of the TD task force.


     [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/166

   One issue we discussed is versioning

   McCool: I believe we closed that one


     [18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/204

   McCool: I provided a counter proposal to making CBOR as a
   default for JSON encoding

   I’ve also drafted a section on security considerations for

   <kaz> [19]https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/207

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/207

* Binding

   mjkoster: Binding Templates Task Force: 6 new patterns for

   We’re getting close to deciding on the spec freeze for TPAC

* Confirming publication schedule (TD, Binding)

   Kaz: TD draft is already frozen for publication. right?

   Some discussion on getting ready for updating the public WDs

   McCool: any objections to publish?

   no objections …

   ([20]https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/) on GH is
   ready for publication

     [20] https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/)

   RESOLUTION: corresponding draft of Binding Templates is also
   ready for publication

* Security

   McCool summarises progress on security task force

* Testing

   to be deferred …

* Scripting

   zkis summarise progress within scripting task force

   people should take a look at the current editor’s draft and we
   will decide on publishing next week

   scribe: end of meeting …

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [21]TD draft (https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/)
       on GH is ready for publication
    2. [22]corresponding draft of Binding Templates is also ready
       for publication

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version
    1.152 ([24]CVS log)
    $Date: 2018/08/30 17:19:22 $

     [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2018 19:01:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:51 UTC