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

[wot-ig/wg] minutes - 24 January 2018

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 01:52:22 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9UPLKVKq6bRnfUaHcRTa_k_fuq9WTcn-PRTLMsZ2etqvA@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, Graeme!




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

                               - DRAFT -

                               WoT IG/WG

24 Jan 2018


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


          Kaz_Ashimura, Zoltan_Kis, GraemeColeman, Darko_Anicic,
          Michael_Lagally, Kunihiko_Toumura, DarkoAnicic,
          Daniel_Peintner, Toru_Kawaguchi, Michael_McCool,
          Michael_Koster, Matthias_Kovatsch, Sebastian_Kaebisch,
          Soumya_Kanti_Datta, Tomoaki_Mizushima, soumya, dsr,
          Ben_Francis, Dave_Raggett, Yongjing_Zhang,


          Matthias, McCool, Yongjing



     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Quick updates
         2. [5]Tooling and practices for W3C web data
         3. [6]face-to-face meeting in Prague
         4. [7]Task force reports
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     * [9]Summary of Resolutions


     [10] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Agenda

   <kaz> scribenick: GraemeColeman

Quick updates

   mkovatsc: Dave was to present something on the agenda, but he
   is not yet on the call
   ... Any updates?

   Soumya: Has circulated a call for papers - if anyone wants to
   write a white paper describing the current status, that would
   be highly welcome.

   mkovatsc: We need someone in the group to sketch some concrete
   ideas as to what a submission could look like - paper, book,
   demo. This should go on the agenda.

   <mkovatsc> IoT Week, Bilbao, 4-7 June 2018

   mccool: Thinking about writing up some of the work on security.

   <kaz> [11]Call for Papers - workshop on semantic

     [11] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2018Jan/0000.html

   mccool: Suggest talking offline about writing one large paper
   other than many smaller ones.

   mjkoster: Asked if a submission can be submitted if published
   somewhere else?

   Soumya: No, that is not possible.

   mccool: Still possible to publish in the journal later even if
   published in a previous venue.

   Soumya: To mjkoster - you can expand the conference paper and
   submit it to a journal. This is standard for IEEE.

   mjkoster: Putting together a paper on design patterns for
   interoperability, which will cover WoT as well as general web
   media. Currently thinking about whether to write this up as a
   single paper or multiple separate papers.

   mccool: Worth throwing around a bunch of ideas and seeing what
   works together well. If there's more than one paper, that's
   fine, but if they fit together well, then a single paper would
   do. But IP protection issues, and timeline, also need to be
   ... Let's follow this up on the Thing Description TF meeting,
   as that's where this discussion is relevant.

   <dsr> Here link to iotweek [12]http://iotweek.org/

     [12] http://iotweek.org/

   <kaz> [13]Soumya's message on the workshop

     [13] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2018Jan/0000.html

   dsr: I was asked if we were interested in doing a workshop
   (0.5/1 day) on IoT on the WoT on challenges and opportunities
   within this field and in the web of data. Would involve panel
   sessions, demos, etc. Audience would be from a broad range, but
   would include people from European research projects.
   ... Has been involved last week.
   ... last year.
   ... It would be a good opportunity to make a clear description
   of what we've achieved in this group, to disseminate our
   results, and to perhaps receive more support from people in the
   ... The topic of marketplaces keeps coming up in EU research
   projects - so how do you enable open markets in IoT? We could
   cover this in our workshop, as to how this fits into the web of

   mkovatsc: Other projects involving marketplaces are going, so
   (as there are many academic partners) they may also be
   interested in getting involved in the workshop.
   ... This should be a sticky for the main call (as to whether
   main contacts would be interested in getting involved).

Tooling and practices for W3C web data standardisation

   <dsr> [14]https://www.w3.org/2013/data/ and

     [14] https://www.w3.org/2013/data/
     [15] https://www.w3.org/2017/12/odi-study/

   dsr: Has taken over as the activity lead for the Web of Data.
   Has conducted a survey of tooling and practices funded by the
   UK government.
   ... Created a lengthy questionnaire to get a broad range of
   feedback from a wide range of responders. Received around 75
   responses. Questionnaire took about an hour to fill in.
   ... Wanted to understand what people from different backgrounds
   were interested in - e.g. sustainability and governance (e.g.
   best practices on how to proceed), scaling (translating
   overlapping categories and what the practices are), tools and
   practices (what can be used to support those practices), links
   between communities.
   ... "How successful are standards"? What is the level of
   interest, and what is the adoption level? Logs taken from the
   W3C website - there is still considerable interest in JSON-LD.
   ... A lot of interest from US and China.
   ... How are we going to measure what the WoT is?
   ... Please look at the report, and we can discuss in a future
   meeting when people have had a chance to review it.
   ... Companies are looking at IoT platforms and
   platforms-as-a-service, but not necessarily looking at open
   markets for services. Yet, based on Google/Apple app stores,
   there is potential for linked standards for marketing.
   ... What changes do we need to make at the W3C? How could they
   fund and support standardisation? This needs to be discussed
   with stakeholders and W3C members. Does it make sense to change
   the funding model for community-based standards?

   mkovatsc: Are you planning to provide publicly available
   metrics for the W3C? Or do we need to develop tools ourselves?

   dsr: A bit of both. If we can get the support from the members,
   we could look at interest over time in a particular standard.
   We need support of the systems team for that, but they are
   fairly stretched. Beyond that, how do we gather the
   information? How many people are implementing the standards?
   Can we find ways of helping people registering their interest
   in using those standards?

   mkovatsc: Did you identify the most popular specifications for
   open data - e.g. most popular formats for providing/describing
   open data?

   dsr: Don't have a specific answer - but there is a lot of
   interest in comma-separated values, whereas others are using
   e.g. JSON-LD. These results pose the question how do we deal
   with this?

   mkovatsc: So there is no specific information as to which is
   the most popular?

   dsr: We did ask which standards were being used, and whether
   they were interested more in stability or agility, and the
   problems around interoperability/different licenses. Second
   phase will dig deeper into these results.

   mkovatsc: It would be interesting to find out the most popular
   formats, and how they do the description so that we can compare
   it to what we do.

   dsr: Next stage will be to find out the priorities for a second
   phase, and to secure funding to do this.

face-to-face meeting in Prague

   mkovatsc: Offer from Sheraton Hotel to do the meeting. 85 Euros
   per person per day. Assuming an average of 40 people, cost will
   be around 20,000 Euros. Combined with not having a specific
   host. Looking for sponsor - internally, this was felt to be a
   bit expensive, so possibility of looking for a second sponsor,
   or setting up participant fees. Or, just find a different host.
   ... Another approach is to look out for other hotels - a
   smaller hotel might be possible because we don't need big
   meeting rooms.
   ... Please ask around if you would be willing to host/co-host
   this event. Costs expect to be 20,000 Euros, but we hope to
   reduce this depending on whether or not we can find a co-host.
   We want to avoid registration hassles.

   mccool: What days are being used to calculate these costs?

   mkovatsc: Saturday to Thursday. Average of 40 people, as there
   will be fewer people at the Plugfest. But, it highly depends on
   the location and how many people will show up. It's a rough
   ... The day rate is per person, per day. Includes the meeting
   room in the service costs per person. We can go back to them
   and ask about a fixed price for the numbers who actually show

   mccool: I'm assuming the Friday meeting will be paid for by OCF
   - but we will need to figure this out.

   mkovatsc: I was expecting that we would join the co-meeting
   with OCF, so it wouldn't be on us, but we would use their
   meeting rooms.

   mccool: We would need to check this.

   mkovatsc: Any other opinions on what we should do? Should we
   look for another host - or end up with a meeting fee for

   mlagally: Maybe we should have a Doodle poll to find out how
   many people can come?

   kaz: I will create a questionnaire to find out how many people
   will go.

   <kaz> ACTION: kaz to create a WBS questionnaire for Prague f2f

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-126 - Create a wbs questionnaire for
   prague f2f [on Kazuyuki Ashimura - due 2018-01-31].


     [16] http://www.meetings-conventions.com/Meeting-Facilities/Prague/Hotels

   dsr: Potential for self-hosting in Prague - look for cheaper,
   "tourist" hotels with meeting rooms.
   ... There are some websites and places (such as the above)
   which may help find some initial candidate hotels.
   ... Firstly we need to find out people will attend.

   kaz: Let's have more discussion about this on the Chairs list.

Task force reports

   mkovatsc: When do they plan to release the next working draft?

   <kaz> [TD]

   Sebastian: Thing description TF - we had some discussion about
   simplified things description proposal submitted before
   Christmas. We discussed about interaction patterns,
   property/interaction events, are there enough. Matthias and
   myself held a separate call with Carsten Bormann about his
   concerns regarding property/action events.
   ... We discussed what a property means, what an interaction
   means and so on - we need a more concrete definition, and
   examples, for each. This will help overcome Carsten's concerns.
   ... Plan for next meeting - we will concentrate on mkoster's
   proposal on new vocabularies. Also giving a status report on
   the TD.

   mkovatsc: It appears that the interaction model is not commonly
   understood in the same way by everyone. Possibly because
   properties, actions and events are quite fuzzy, as they are
   similar terms to elsewhere. People therefore need guidance for
   modeling new system. So it's not specifically giving
   definitions, but about giving a description about how the
   interaction works and the data action model works, what the
   idea behind it is and so on.
   ... With the simplified TD, the different ideas are not well
   documented, or are included in a big PR thread which has now
   been merged, so very difficult to follow.

   BenFrancis: By having the defaults, is it possible that all of
   the semantic markup (JSON-LD tags, etc.) could be optional?
   e.g. similar to OpenGraph data which is added to plain HTML.
   You have HTML and then you add the extra data. So, could you
   have a plain JSON description, and then the semantic
   information is optional.

   mkovatsc: Biggest problem is that LD doesn't support defaults
   or optional information.
   ... Whatever is encoded in the TD must be machine
   understandable and readable. So, we decided to take an existing
   spec (JSON-LD), but this obviously has some limitations. Let's
   discuss this in the TD call.

   DarkoAnicic: Question about defaults - even if we find away to
   dismiss them in the TD, they still need to be implemented. This
   means that every client needs to implement these rules to be
   aware of the defaults. So I'm not sure if omitting them would
   be of benefit, because clients still need to be aware of the
   default values.

   BenFrancis: These defaults can be separated out. Problem is
   that if it's too complex for humans to read, we have a problem
   of adoption. Doesn't matter how good machines can read it.

   mkovatsc: That said, it's quite easy to hard code defaults in
   some piece of software.

   BenFrancis: Look at web app descriptions. These are quite
   widely adopted and understood.

   <kaz> [17]Web App Manifest

     [17] https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/

   <kaz> [Scripting]

   zkis: We discussed agreed Scripting API to be used at the

   <kaz> [Binding]

   (Koster had to leave due to a meeting conflict. also we were
   out of time)


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: kaz to create a WBS questionnaire for Prague f2f

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [18]scribe.perl version
    1.152 ([19]CVS log)
    $Date: 2018/01/24 16:49:25 $

     [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2018 16:53:31 UTC

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