W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > August 2020

[wot-usecases] minutes - 14 May 2020

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:19:47 +0900
Message-ID: <87sgcv10qk.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-ig@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2020/05/14-wot-uc-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks,

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                             WoT Use Cases

14 May 2020

Attendees

   Present
          Kaz_Ashimura, Christian_Glomb, Dmitrij_Lagutin,
          Hazel_Kuok, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool,
          Kunihiko_Toumura, Clerley_Silveira, Anna_Nikander,
          Daniel_Peintner, David_Ezell, Ben_Francis,
          Ryuichi_Matsukura, Sebastian_Kaebisch

   Regrets

   Chair
          Lagally

   Scribe
          kaz

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Background
         2. [4]Introduction
         3. [5]Quick outline
     * [6]Summary of Action Items
     * [7]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <mlagally> Proposed Agenda:

   <mlagally> - introductions

   <mlagally> - WoT Architecture Use Cases: Status / Next steps

Background

   Lagally: having the use case discussion based on the requests
   from the non-WG participants
   ... (give summaries on the background)
   ... would give the current status first

   McCool: at some point, we should see the discovery use cases as
   well

   Lagally: yes
   ... anything else?

   (none)

Introduction

   Michael Lagally, Oracle

   David Ezell, Conexxus

   Clerley Silveira, Conexxus

   Anna Nikander, Aalto Univ.

   Ben Francis, Invited Expert

   Christian Glomb, Siemens

   Dmitrij Lagutin, Arlto Univ.

   Hazel Kuok, Invited Expert

   Kunihiko Toumura, Hitachi

   Michael McCool, Intel also co-Chair of the WoT WG/IG

   Ryuihi Matsukura, Fujitsu

   Tomoaki Mizushima, IRI

   Kaz Ashimura, W3C Team Contact

Quick outline

   @@ slides tbd

   Lagally: architecture tf work items
   ... requirements, use cases, vocabulary
   ... architecture discussion proces
   ... 2 phases
   ... 1. collecting use cases and put them on the table
   ... then filtering for sanity check
   ... 2. based on the short list from the phase 1

   <McCool> (please add discovery to right hand side in third
   slide...)

   <McCool> (also, you have security twice ;)

   Lagally: various points come including gaps, new building
   blocks, system configuration, etc.
   ... and clarify our requirements
   ... use cases
   ... 20 new use cases are in the pipeline
   ... active contributions from the group participants
   ... target domains include smart cities, industrial ,
   transpportation, manufacturing, logistics, ...
   ... categories
   ... retail, audio/vido, agriculture, smart city, health,
   manufacturing, multi-vendor system integration, accessibility,
   automotive, energy/smart grid, fleet management, data
   streaming, discovery

   McCool: "discovery" is not a category but we should look into
   all the use cases from that viewpoint as well

   Lagally: point taking
   ... the current description is kind of mixture

   David: typo within Conexxus' name

   Lagally: (fixes it)

   Ben: might be useful to think about the granularity of the use
   case descriptions

   Kaz: +1

   Lagally: that's a good point

   <mlagally> [8]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture

      [8] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture

   Lagally: (visits the use case directory on the wot-architecture
   repo)

   [9]uc template

      [9] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/master/USE-CASES/use-case-template.md

   McCool: having a concrete example use case would be good for
   improvement
   ... the template should include example section as well

   Lagally: would encourage people to include examples withing
   their proposed use cases
   ... think the template itself is good enough
   ... so would like to continue the discussion using the current
   template
   ... (shows digital twin use case)

   [10]digital twin use case

     [10] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/master/USE-CASES/digital-twin.md

   McCool: maybe it would be better to use a more concrete use
   case as an example for today

   <mlagally>
   [11]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/master/USE-CAS
   ES/smartcity-geolocation.md

     [11] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/master/USE-CASES/smartcity-geolocation.md

   Kaz: would suggest something for the next step though I should
   wait until Lagally finishes his slides

   Lagally: let's finish the slides
   ... use case shortlisting
   ... shortlist use cases to make sure the use cases address real
   market needs
   ... also make sure best use of limited human resources
   ... so prioritize use cases that glow the IoT market

   Sebastian Kaebisch, Siemens and another co-Chairs of the WoT
   groups

   Lagally: how to prioritize the use cases?
   ... should vote?
   ... could be done by doodle or W3C WBS
   ... holding this use case call to get input from broader people
   ... this prioritization would start another iteration
   ... next steps
   ... for each shortlisted use case, we need a requirement
   document on the GitHub
   ... and then
   ... proposal for the WoT IG Use Cases TF's activity
   ... objective
   ... collect input from wider IoT market audience
   ... the expected output is an IG Note

   McCool: having a separate repo
   ... from IP point of view, use case discussion has a bit
   different characteristics from the WG
   ... so creating a separate repo would make sense
   ... moving resources is a bit annoying, though

   Lagally: wondering about the process

   McCool: we could ask the contributors about if it's OK
   ... but moving over would make sense
   ... we can freeze the current one and then create a new one
   based on the current resources

   Lagally: btw, any additional stakeholders we want to be here?

   McCool: several new contributors, e.g., for discovery
   discussion
   ... also we could ask people here for opinions about new
   participants

   Ben: want to submit a use case on digital signage
   ... wondering about the relationship with the audio/visual one,
   though

   McCool: can categorize use cases based on the "Category" field

   Lagally: we can keep the category field empty and could use it
   for categorization

   McCool: anybody else is thinking about other use cases?

   Sebastian: would like to see some more previous slides

   Lagally: (goes back to the "use case categories" slide)

   <benfrancis> "Galaxywide Web of Things" 😀

   Sebastian: very basic use cases on smart home and building are
   missing here

   Ben: happy to contribute to smart home as well

   Lagally: hearing 3-4 new ones
   ... also still up to come

   Sebastian: one question is that there are several use cases
   within the current (v1) WoT Architecture document
   ... what would be the relationship with them?

   Lagally: great question

   McCool: the current ones on the Architecture document are
   rather domains
   ... could revisit them and make clarification

   Kaz: would suggest we quickly pick up items/features from the
   use cases within the current WoT Architecture spec and put them
   into the Use Case template so that ppeole can use them as the
   basis for possible extensions

   Lagally: we should concentrate on the new use cases, shouldn't
   we?

   Kaz: having concrete description for smart building and smart
   home as part of our target use cases would be useful for
   further discussion

   Sebastian: maybe we could copy the description from the WoT
   Architecture document and put it into the template
   ... my question is whether we should revive it or not

   David: some possible scenario could be related to the existing
   use case like smart home
   ... also would mention regulations
   ... and would think about surface of the platform

   Lagally: cross-domain use cases would make sense

   McCool: cross-domain use cases are similar to security/privacy
   ... product been developed would be also useful
   ... particular, Siemens already has a product
   ... would be OK to generalize the motivation, etc.?
   ... not tied with the product itself but for general
   requirements

   Kaz: we have only 3 mins for today. so wondering if we can make
   a resolution to create a new use case and transfer the use
   cases to there for further discussions?

   <dezell> +1

   Lagally: would propose that we check with the WoT Architecture
   TF
   ... and continue this discussion in 2 weeks on May 28

   all: ok

   RESOLUTION: we'll check with the WoT WG Architecture TF on May
   21, and continue this discussion by the WoT IG Use Cases TF in
   2 weeks on May 28

   [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [12]we'll check with the WoT WG Architecture TF on May 21,
       and continue this discussion by the WoT IG Use Cases TF in
       2 weeks on May 28

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [13]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([14]CVS log)
    $Date: 2020/08/10 06:17:52 $

     [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 10 August 2020 06:19:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 10 August 2020 06:19:53 UTC