- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:29:01 +0900
- To: public-wot-ig@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at: https://www.w3.org/2020/07/09-wot-uc-minutes.html also as text below. Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Michael McCool! Kazuyuki --- [1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ - DRAFT - WoT Use Cases 09 Jul 2020 Attendees Present Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Cristiano_Aguzzi Regrets Chair Lagally Scribe McCool, kaz Contents * [2]Topics 1. [3]agenda 2. [4]issues and PRs 3. [5]F2F recap 4. [6]PRs * [7]Summary of Action Items * [8]Summary of Resolutions __________________________________________________________ <kaz> scribenick: McCool agenda Lagally: would like to recap F2F, then look at PRs ... should also review minutes <kaz> [9]May-14 [9] https://www.w3.org/2020/05/14-wot-uc-minutes.html <kaz> [10]May-28 [10] https://www.w3.org/2020/05/28-wot-uc-minutes.html <kaz> old minutes to be reviewed above issues and PRs <kaz> [11]Use Case Issues [11] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues F2F recap shared summary slide yesterday in main call, is archived under wot/PRESENTATIONS <kaz> [12]summary slides [12] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/PRESENTATIONS/2020-06-online-f2f/2020-06-26-Architecture-Use Cases-Wrapup-Lagally.pdf Lagally: includes a table of prioritization based on the questionairre ... 15 respondents, categorized horz/vert use cases ... as well as some new use case proposals ... in terms of roadmap, want to make a proposal ... we are in July, and have two streams ... WG note, and New use cases ... we do have a draft index.html file for the Note ... in comments inside that are links to the corresponding md files ... for information, domains from original architecture document <kaz> [13]Draft use cases Note [13] https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/ Lagally: and a placeholder for requirements (in comments); probably should not be here through, if we want to do this in architecture instead ... but since requirements will take a long time, suggest we leave that out (for now at least) and focus on use cases Kaz: "new use cases" are the ones in the slide? Lagally: no, I mean the ones where we don't yet have writeups ... we can only include ones that we have writeups for in the current note McCool: agree we should take the writeups we have and get them into a note Kaz: may want to improve the names, call it first and second iteration McCool: do you want to include all the writeups, or those above a certain priority ... I note that all use cases currently all have at least "2" under business critical Lagally: accessibility is special... McCool: probably can review after we get the data into note form ... and it may end up being a horizontal item in each use case ... while we *might* still want to make a special-purpose use case Lagally: highest priority is just to have a starting document <kaz> kaz: btw, I can ask the Voice Interaction CG guys to review the MMI/Accessibility use cases McCool: I think we should start by just pulling in the existing content and translating it to HTML Lagally: do we have a volunteer? Matsukura: so we just need to translate into HTML format? ... I will volunteer Lagally: ok, then after we have that we will have things in content, then we can shuffle things around McCool: the PR that updates the index file should also archive the md files so it is clear they are no longer the masters ... move to a subdirectory Lagally: (creates a "processed" subdirectory) <mlagally_> [14]https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/tree/master/USE-CASES/p rocessed [14] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/tree/master/USE-CASES/processed Lagally: (based on Cristiano's suggestion, adds an explanation to the README) PRs <kaz> [15]PR 27 [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/27 <inserted> scribenick: kaz McCool: dug into some standards on geolocation ... including accuracy for geolocation ... this is a clear geolocation thing ... web apis for heading and speed, etc. ... accuracy includes confidence interval, etc. ... there are references including SSN and geolocation api ... 2 kinds of geolocation apis ... 1. W3C Geolocation API: [16]https://www.w3.org/TR/geolocation-API/ ... 2. updated proposal as part of the Generic Sensor API: [17]https://w3c.github.io/geolocation-sensor/#geolocationsensor -interface ... also timestamps ... and ISO standards ... this is a good starting point ... possibly 3 separate requirements ... 1. geolocation information itself ... 2. accuracy ... 3. timestamps ... at least one citing point for timestamps as well here [16] https://www.w3.org/TR/geolocation-API/ [17] https://w3c.github.io/geolocation-sensor/#geolocationsensor-interface Lagally: let's put those 3 issues for the wot-architecture ... agree timestamps and accuracy are generic issues ... (generates a new issue on accuracy for wot-architecture) [18]Issue 526 - wot-architecture [18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/526 Lagally: (then generates another new issue on timestamps) [19]Issue 527 - wot-architecture [19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/527 McCool: kind of related issue with timestamps is time series Lagally: maybe could be merged as time requirements McCool: yeah Lagally: very important to have this McCool: right Lagally: need to discuss data formats for timestamps McCool: also time intervals ... feel free to add comments Cristiano: ok <inserted> scribenick: McCool McCool: I did not do much digging into time standards, so please add additional references <inserted> scribenick: kaz Lagally: regarding security considerations ... high-resolution timestamps can be used in conjunction with cache manipulation <inserted> scribenick: McCool McCool: not reviewed yet by Security TF, but a start ... also, the geolocation review of the web api in particular surfaced some issues that I think we do need to discuss with DAS <kaz> [20]PR 27 has been merged [20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/27 <inserted> scribenick: kaz Lagally: next, PR 28 [21]PR 28 [21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/28 McCool: discussed it during the security call Cristiano: still a draft Lagally: will you continue to work on it? Cristiano: yes ... added a link to RFC8628 > See OAuth 2.0 security considerations in [RFC6749]([22]https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-10). See also [RFC 8628 section 5]([23]https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8628#section-5) for `device` flow. [22] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-10). [23] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8628#section-5) Lagally: people's reviews are welcome <inserted> scribenick: McCool McCool: this is still a draft, still more work to do, but making good progress ... would be great to get a draft we can review in the security call on Monday Cristiano: will do my best <kaz> [24]PR 25 [24] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/25 McCool: so... let Cristiano do a PR for his use case separately, then later on we can create a combined use case Lagally: noticed a flaw in the template, have no email, no way to contact McCool: generally can't include emails in github, spam issues ... but researchers will have a web page with a way to contact them, so... Summary of Action Items Summary of Resolutions [End of minutes] __________________________________________________________ Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's [25]scribe.perl version ([26]CVS log) $Date: 2020/08/06 11:11:48 $ [25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm [26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 10 August 2020 06:29:06 UTC