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

[wot-architecture] minutes - 13 February 2020

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 13:04:03 +0900
Message-ID: <874kvkmvrg.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2020/02/13-wot-arch-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks,

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                            WoT-Architecture

13 Feb 2020

Attendees

   Present
          Call 1: Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Kunihiko_Toumura,
          Zoltan_Kis
          Call 2: Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, David_Ezell,
          Michael_Koster

   Regrets

   Chair
          Lagally

   Scribe
          kaz

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Call 1
              1. [4]Previous minutes
              2. [5]Issues
              3. [6]PRs
         2. [7]Call 2
              1. [8]Previous minutes
              2. [9]Issues
              3. [10]PRs
              4. [11]AOB
     * [12]Summary of Action Items
     * [13]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

Call 1

   <scribe> scribenick: kaz

Previous minutes

   [14]Feb-6 minutes

     [14] https://www.w3.org/2020/02/06-wot-arch-minutes.html

   Lagally: (goes through the minutes)
   ... Zoltan, have uploaded your slides yet?

   Zoltan: yes, created a Pullrequest

   Lagally: (continues to look into the minutes)

   Kaz: URL for Zoltan's slides?

   Lagally: let's merge the PR to fix the URL

   [15]PR 434

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/434

   Lagally: merged
   ... and the minutes are approved

   [16]Zoltan's slides

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/master/proposals/Device-lifecycle-comparisons.pdf

   <scribe> ACTION: kaz to add the URL for Zoltan's slides to the
   minutes

Issues

   [17]Issue 435

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/435

   Lagally: Fleet management use cases

   [18]Issue 436

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/436

   Lagally: requirements for home network scenarios
   ... based on the old use case descriptions by the Web&TV IG's
   Home Network TF

   [19]Home network use cases

     [19] https://www.w3.org/TR/hnreq/

   Lagally: we should discuss the detail when Chris Needham is
   available
   ... need to use more time for the discussion expected next week

   [20]Issue 433

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/433

   Lagally: Michael McCool will describe this maybe the second
   call

   [21]Issue 432

     [21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/432

   Lagally: I'm working on this

   [22]other issues

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

   Lagally: we still have other issues and need volunteers
   ... e.g., data streaming (issue 387)
   ... possibly could get comments/ideas from NHK and the MEIG
   guys

   [23]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/25

     [23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/25

   Lagally: WoT in the Web browser
   ... how to involve browser vendors?

   Zoltan: many discussions about that so far
   ... possible JavaScript library which uses Fetch, etc.

   Lagally: (adds comments to Issue 25)

   Zoltan: got discussion with browser vendors but it seems
   generic API-based approach would not be promising for WoT
   ... there is no browser vendors who want to implement our ideas
   like extensions based on the fetch API or the WebAssembly
   solution
   ... so at the moment, we might want to generate polyfill
   implementations

   Toumura: browser is a consumer of devices?

   Zoltan: primarily a consumer but could be a producer

   Toumura: ok

   Lagally: so nobody is implementing WoT natively within the
   browsers
   ... but do we have any concrete use cases for browser
   integration?

   Zoltan: browsers included in sensor fusion
   ... myself don't have a use case which include a Web browser as
   a producer

   Lagally: no concrete use case for exposing things yet
   ... can consider sensor fusion/mashup at the moment
   ... this use case is already covered, however,
   WebAssembly/WebWorkers would be a different way to implement

   Kaz: when we say "web browsers", we should think about use
   cases for both their hardware side (when empbedded within a
   device) and the software side (when installed on a
   PC/smartphone)
   ... and then think about what kind of features to be used for
   which use cases
   ... like digital TV set as a device and speech interface on a
   smartphone

   <zkis> Example for using node-wot from browser:
   [24]https://github.com/eclipse/thingweb.node-wot#as-a-browser-l
   ibrary

     [24] https://github.com/eclipse/thingweb.node-wot#as-a-browser-library

   Zoltan: the above is the link for using node-wot on a browser

PRs

   [25]PR 428

     [25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/428

   Lagally: Digital twin use cases
   ... seems it's mixed up and need some cleaning
   ... let's concentrate on the digital-twin-use-case.md for now

   [26]digital-twin-use-case.md

     [26] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/428/files#diff-28a786469d3456b28e0e345541c9d866

   Lagally: (goes through the "Motivation" section)
   ... terminology for "digital twin"
   ... also called as "twin" or "shadow"
   ... (goes through the "Expected Devices" section)
   ... (Expected Data)
   ... (Dependencies)
   ... WoT Architecture, TD, Profile, and possibly Scripting?
   ... need to have a way to extract the data model
   ... though digital twin itself uses abstract-level data
   ... (Description)
   ... better visibility, accurate prediction, what-if analysis,
   documentation and communication, integration of disparate
   systems
   ... (Variants)
   ... * virtual twin
   ... ** intermittent connectivity, protocol abstraction,
   business rules
   ... ** and examples
   ... * predictive twin
   ... * twin projections
   ... that was quick run-through of the digital twin use case
   ... regarding the "Gaps"
   ... we have ranges for values and units already
   ... but we don't currently have a way to describe simulated
   behavior
   ... also templating mechanism
   ... and data model separation from the binding
   ... we still have 10 more minutes, so let's see another use
   case

   [27]PR 431

     [27] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/431

   Lagally: there is only one use case description here

   [28]X-Protocol Interworking.md

     [28] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/431/files#diff-912132dcd97d0282ba66431f9bdeea92

   Lagally: Cross protocol interworking
   ... (Motivation)
   ... bridge more than one protocol
   ... for interoperability accross protocols
   ... possible limitation based on the capability of each
   protocol
   ... if we want to think about interoperability, we need to
   consider that point
   ... (Description)
   ... a couple of examples here
   ... smart home environment
   ... industrial environment
   ... smart city environment

   Zoltan: wondering who would really use multiple protocols at
   once
   ... we have a specific/concrete use case already
   ... and do we want to have this kind of generic use case as
   well?

   Lagally: would think about a device which exposes its
   capability in multiple ways

   Zoltan: we could use native bridges between WoT and native
   connection
   ... if this approach is successful, it would be great
   ... but a good homework

   Lagally: I see a big value
   ... we could have wide variety of devices
   ... and a lot of implementation complexity

   Kaz: think we should clarify the concrete descriptions about
   each example use case a bit more
   ... and then we could think about (1) a category of use cases
   which includes "cross-protocol interworking" or (2)
   requirements for "cross-protocol interworking" based on the use
   cases later

   Lagally: ok
   ... (adds comments to PR 431 about that point)

   [29]Lagally's comments

     [29] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/431#issuecomment-585601403

   Toumura: in that case, probably we should think about some
   concrete use case like smart home for Discovery purposes as
   well?

   Lagally: right

   [Call1 adjourned]
     __________________________________________________________

Call 2

   <scribe> scribenick: kaz

Previous minutes

   [30]Feb-6 minutes

     [30] https://www.w3.org/2020/02/06-wot-arch-minutes.html

   Lagally: (goes through the minutes)
   ... discussion on the state diagram
   ... onboarding/discovery and additional things
   ... and device lifecycle
   ... Zoltan did great job for the survey
   ... end-to-end security by McCool
   ... Zoltan's slides now available
   ... PRs for use cases
   ... can approve the minutes?

   Koster+David: fine

   Lagally: minutes approved

   [31]Zoltan's slides

     [31] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/master/proposals/Device-lifecycle-comparisons.pdf

Issues

   [32]Issue 436

     [32] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/436

   Lagally: use cases/Requirements from the Web&TV IG's Home
   Network TF
   ... which of those could be still relevant?

   [33]Requirements for Home Networking Scenarios

     [33] https://www.w3.org/TR/hnreq/

   Lagally: 9 years old
   ... Opera, CableLabs, Ericsson, Telecom ParisTech, BBC, Samsung
   and Sony were involved

   Koster: might be able to contact the Editors

   Lagally: next week, Chris Needham, one of the MEIG Chairs, is
   expected to join the Architecture call
   ... let's revisit this issue then
   ... if you have time, please look into the document

   [34]Issue 25

     [34] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/25

   Lagally: WoT in the Web browser
   ... 2.5 years back
   ... had discussion with Zoltan during the first call today
   ... it seems browser-native implementation is currently out of
   scope
   ... there is a possibility of using a Web browser as a Thing
   exposer

   David: should keep this issue open
   ... someone should talk with TAG and browser vendors

   Lagally: what specific question should we ask them?

   David: would see McCool's advocacy on edge computing based on
   service worker
   ... wish his comments

   Kaz: we already have several pieces but I think we should think
   about both the device side and the software stack side of the
   Web browser (as I mentioned during the first call today)

   Lagally: (adds comments to Issue 25)
   ... this may be related to service workers. we should think
   about separating physical device (hardware) and Web browser
   (software stack)

   Koster: maybe embedded browsers use web socket protocol to
   interact with outside servients
   ... that is a possible use case
   ... e.g., TV could be a smart Things hub

   Lagally: would be good to generate a concrete use case
   description

   Koster: will do that

   Lagally: (assigns Issue 25 to Koster)
   ... the other issues on discovery (425), digital twin (426),
   edge device (427), etc.
   ... but let's see PRs

PRs

   [35]Digital Twin use case

     [35] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/428

   Lagally: (goes through the use case description)
   ... (Motivation)
   ... representative of a real Thing
   ... you can use it to collect data including time series of
   data
   ... scaling up to multiple devices
   ... can monitor everything
   ... can be called as "twin" or "shadow"

   Koster: we have an end-point app
   ... would be a same thing

   Lagally: cloud API as interface to the virtual thing?

   Koster: yes
   ... API for cloud input

   Lagally: ok
   ... there are several connection patterns
   ... can use the model for prediction
   ... and create a simulator
   ... can create a what-if analysis system
   ... also a combination of simulators
   ... also integration of simulators and physical devices
   ... (Virtual Twin)
   ... intermittent connectivity
   ... (Predictive Twin)
   ... you can use machine learning for precise prediction
   ... (Twin Projections)
   ... questions?

   (none)

   Lagally: can quickly talk about the "Gaps"
   ... managing multiple devices using the template mechanism
   ... various instances could be involved but we don't have a
   template mechanism for that situation
   ... (adds comments mentioning we reviewed this PR)
   ... (and merges PR 428)

   [36]PR 431

     [36] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/431

   Lagally: we need some more stakeholders like McCool for this
   discussion
   ... so would defer this to next week

AOB

   David: DID WG meeting in Schiphol
   ... suggested they coordinate with WoT

   <dezell>
   [37]https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-01-29-
   did#section4

     [37] https://www.w3.org/2019/did-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020-01-29-did#section4

   David: includes the link to the slides
   ... retail industry should be open
   ... that is very important
   ... many of the WoT use cases are applicable to retail industry
   ... encouraged Conexxus guys to generate TDs
   ... will also go to the Helsinki f2f

   Lagally: tx for the quick wrap-up
   ... should we create a specific retail use case?
   ... would work together to generate one

   David: (mentions some possible use case)
   ... this kind of control and safety

   Lagally: ok
   ... pretty concrete use case
   ... let's write it down based on the use case template

   David: happy to help

   <scribe> ACTION: Lagally and David to work on a use case for
   retail services

   Kaz: completely agree with you both that we should work with
   the DID WG, and should create concrete use cases starting with
   retail services

   Lagally: aob for today?

   (none)

   [Call 2 adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: kaz to add the URL for Zoltan's slides to the
   minutes
   [NEW] ACTION: Lagally and David to work on a use case for
   retail services

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [38]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([39]CVS log)
    $Date: 2020/02/17 08:58:42 $

     [38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 21 February 2020 04:04:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 21 February 2020 04:04:11 UTC