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

[wot-usecases] minutes - 9 July 2020

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:29:01 +0900
Message-ID: <87pn7z10b6.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-ig@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Michael McCool!



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

                               - DRAFT -

                             WoT Use Cases

09 Jul 2020


          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool,
          Tomoaki_Mizushima, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Cristiano_Aguzzi



          McCool, kaz


     * [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


   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

   <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
   ... 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
   ... for information, domains from original architecture

   <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

   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
   ... and it may end up being a horizontal item in each use case
   ... while we *might* still want to make a special-purpose use

   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)


     [14] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/tree/master/USE-CASES/processed

   Lagally: (based on Cristiano's suggestion, adds an explanation
   to the README)


   <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:
   ... 2. updated proposal as part of the Generic Sensor API:
   ... 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

   <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
   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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 10 August 2020 06:29:07 UTC