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

[PlugFest] minutes - 17 January 2018

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 18:15:27 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9XLpDs1Cnw5FOkz2SWgtGbex7+5J4iD6pnsGSuE9gYbOg@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 a lot for taking these minutes, Michael Koster!




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

                               - DRAFT -

                              WoT PlugFest

17 Jan 2018


          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Kunihiko_Toumura,
          Toru_Kawaguchi, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Michael_McCool,
          Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima


          Matsukura, Koster

          mjkoster, kaz


     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]PF preparation status
     * [4]Summary of Action Items
     * [5]Summary of Resolutions

   <kaz> scribenick: mjkoster

PF preparation status


      [6] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/plugfest/2018-prague/docs/PlugfestPrague180117.pdf

   matsukura: slides are aligned with Koster slides on PF goals
   ... review of goals on the first slide
   ... differences in NAT traversal
   ... we need to develop detailed specifications around each goal
   ... (2nd slide)

   mccool: security requirement proposal for each use case
   scenario to include a security plan
   ... need a template to cover authentication, transport
   security, access control, etc

   <kaz> koster: we should do it

   mccool: even if the plan is no security, we should still
   require it

   <kaz> koster: mccool, do you want to generate some template?

   mlagally: is there a specification from last PF?

   <mlagally_> is this all info on last PF?

      [7] https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/plugfest/2017-burlingame

   <kaz> [8]f2f wiki (participation and requirements)

      [8] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_4-10_November_2017,_Burlingame,_CA,_USA#Participation

   koster: look at the PF wiki for the information, everything
   should be linked there

   <kaz> [9]Matsukura-san's consolidated information

      [9] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/plugfest/2017-burlingame/preparation.md

   <kaz> kaz: I thought Matsukura-san was working on the above
   consolidated page, and generating a report page as well

   koster: we should require a detailed description of how each PF
   scenario will address the focus areas
   ... like the template proposed by mccooll for security

   <mlagally_> consider a user scenario description containing
   preconditions, post condition, flows, exceptions

   mccool: are there documents from the last PF that we can look

   checklist rather than a form perhaps

   <kaz> kaz: agree with you

   <kaz> ... in that case, you, Koster, can start initial work for
   the Prague plugfest

   mccool will start the security part, koster will start the new
   checklist, matsukura-san will fill in the information from the
   burlingame PF


     [10] http://w3c.github.io/wot/current-practices/wot-practices.html

   <mkovatsc> Current Practice document was changed to define
   PlugFest scope, but nobody really cared...


     [11] https://github.com/mjkoster/wot-protocol-binding/blob/master/plugfest-prague.pdf

   <scribe> scribenick: kaz

   Koster's slides above (Plugfest@Prague)

   mccool: we discussed accessibility for WoT during the main call

   koster: semantic annotation for that purpose?
   ... (adds "security" and "accessibility" to the goals)
   ... makes sense
   ... to get a couple of initial ideas
   ... and start to look at it
   ... [TD Annotation: Capability, Interaction, and Data Item]
   ... example code here
   ... semantic model
   ... not horizontal but rather vertical
   ... semantic annotation on 3 levels
   ... capability, interaction and data
   ... this is how those 3 levels work together
   ... maybe further discussion during the LD call and/or the TD

   mccool: regarding ontology, any update/improvement?

   koster: keep going with iot.schema
   ... external semantic information
   ... now is good time to prototype something
   ... would try to use iot.schema for a while

   mccool: wondering about the freeze date

   koster: we should have a deadline
   ... how it works with different vertical industries?

   mccool: new ontologies
   ... interoperability is required
   ... what about the base ontology?
   ... e.g., Celsius

   koster: depending on what's available

   mccool: ideally, somebody who's working on ontology should
   attend this PlugFest call

   koster: for the base ontology
   ... Maria is working on ontology
   ... we can ask her to attend
   ... Victor also

   mccool: we should resolve issues on the base ontology asap

   koster: we cover everything from people and fix it
   ... worrying about the freeze day for the base ontology

   mccool: right

   koster: good input
   ... need to set it up
   ... towards the upcoming plugfest
   ... also freeze day for TD, etc., as well
   ... we make a catalog for verticals
   ... [Protocol Bindings]
   ... next level of Protocol Bindings
   ... device specific protocol adaptations like OCF, LWM2M
   ... we didn't really automated it
   ... need to start to work shortly
   ... first priority for more automation
   ... (adds "automation" to Priorities section)
   ... for exposing proxy devices: HTTP, WebSockets, MQTT
   ... how we do expose things?
   ... let me flesh out this
   ... consumer expose architecture/style...
   ... [add topics to "For exposing proxy devices" section]
   ... consume/expose style, architecture
   ... how to constructexposed things with different protocol vs.
   consumed things
   ... need to see that for proxies
   ... (and then goes through the "Priorities" section)
   ... TD vocabulary changes and adds
   ... aligned examples
   ... diverse examples
   ... observe property using CoAP, MQTT and WebSockets

   kaz: question about how to use WebSocket here
   ... WebSocket itself doesn't specify any concrete procedure for

   koster: good question
   ... it's just a transport and need some sub protocol on that
   ... (adds "develop transfer layer for WebSockets" to the "for
   exposing proxy devices" section)
   ... maybe WebSockets for events and notifications?
   ... data push
   ... there are 2 levels
   ... we need a standard way to sync up
   ... next level is WebSocket connection for NAT traversal
   ... (change the text to "develop transfer layer for websockets
   for general proxy connection")
   ... there are many different ways already
   ... any other comments?

   mlagally: question on proxy devices

   koster: if you have 2 different protocols you can sync
   ... current example has multiple protocols
   ... the other problem on value type/range
   ... e.g., integer and string

   mccool: we should elaborate this

   koster: local TD and remote TD

   mccool: have to rewrite the URL (depending on the location)

   koster: proxy doesn't have caching capability?

   mlagally: is it a servient's functionality?
   ... or need another entity?

   koster: proxy is also one of the servients

   mlagally: so it's a special kind of servient

   (discussion on "shadow")

   koster: caching should be made based on system request

   mlagally: agree. that's implementation-dependent
   ... would make various assumptions to the system

   koster: [Thing Directories]
   ... application, proxy and Thing go to thing directory to
   discover/register the Thing
   ... go back to [WoT Proxies]


Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [12]scribe.perl version
    1.147 ([13]CVS log)
    $Date: 2018/01/19 09:14:44 $

     [12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 19 January 2018 09:16:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:49 UTC