- 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