[wot-architecture] minutes - 18 June 2020

availabl at:
  https://www.w3.org/2020/06/18-wot-arch-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 Architecture

18 Jun 2020

   [2]Agenda

      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf

Attendees

   Present
          Call 1: Michael_Lagally, Kaz_Ashimura, Cristiano_Aguzzi,
          Tomoaki_Mizushima
          Call 2: Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool,
          Cristiano_Aguzzi, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Zoltan_Kis

   Regrets

   Chair
          Lagally

   Scribe
          kaz, McCool

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Call 1
              1. [5]Prev minutes
              2. [6]vF2F planning
              3. [7]Profile
              4. [8]Roadmap
              5. [9]Prioritization
              6. [10]Pullrequests
              7. [11]Issues
         2. [12]Call 2
              1. [13]Agenda
              2. [14]Prev minutes
              3. [15]Virtual F2f
              4. [16]Recap from this morning
              5. [17]PRs and Issues
              6. [18]Open issues
     * [19]Summary of Action Items
     * [20]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

Call 1

   <kaz> scribenick: kaz

Prev minutes

   [21]May-28

     [21] https://www.w3.org/2020/05/28-wot-arch-minutes.html

   Lagally: (goes through the minutes)

   <mlagally>
   [22]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/tree/master/proposa
   ls/lifecycle

     [22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/tree/master/proposals/lifecycle

   Lagally: discussion on the lifecycle
   ... layered lifecycle diagram by Zoltan
   ... original one by Elena
   ... Device lifecycle by Lagally
   ... will have further discussion next week during the vF2F, so
   please join it
   ... we got contributions to the use cases

   Kaz: we could mention all the contributors within the use cases
   note once it's published as an IG note

   Lagally: ok
   ... we made a resolution to transfer the uc resources to
   wot-usecases repo
   ... the minutes approved

   Cristiano: topic: wot-usecases repository now on, contributions
   to the use cases discussion are to be done for the wot-usecases
   repo. right?

   Lagally: yes

   [23]wot-usecases repo

     [23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases

vF2F planning

   Lagally: regarding lifecycle
   ... expected contribution by Zoltan
   ... regarding use cases
   ... the wot-usecase repo is still a skeleton

   [24]wot-usecases repo

     [24] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases

   Lagally: concrete use case descriptions are to be transferred
   ... HTML version of the use case template also to be provided

Profile

   <mlagally> Lagally: a separate repo for the profile discussion:

   <mlagally> [25]wot-profile repo

     [25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile

   Lagally: also REQUIREMENTS area under the repo

   <mlagally> [26]REQUIREMENTS area

     [26] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/blob/master/REQUIREMENTS/requirements.md

   [27]strawman version draft for WoT Profile

     [27] https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/

   Lagally: using the RFC2119 keywords carefully
   ... (goes through the draft)
   ... profile would make things (easily) implementable

   [28]4.1.2.1 Mandatory fields (of Things)

     [28] https://w3c.github.io/wot-profile/#mandatory-fields-0

   Lagally: would make the "id" mandatory

   Kaz: regarding the uniqueness of "id", I think we should be
   careful how to handle it
   ... maybe we could say unique id withing the service during the
   service period

   Lagally: yeah
   ... something to be considered
   ... wondering about the expiration period of TDs as well

   Kaz: good point

   Lagally: will create an issue about this point

   Cristiano: this issue is related to the discovery purposes as
   well

   Kaz: right

   <cris> [29]wot-discovery issue 18

     [29] https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/18

   Lagally: tx
   ... I'll include that link to this issue for wot-architecture

Roadmap

   Lagally: initial document for the Use Cases

   [30]wot-usecases draft

     [30] https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/

Prioritization

   [31]questionnaire

     [31] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/wot-uc-priority-202005/?login

   Kaz: 4 responses so far

   Lagally: we can talk about the results during the wot main call

   Kaz: and the f2f slot next week :)

   Lagally: please visit the questionnaire and respond

Pullrequests

   [32]OAuth 2.0 use cases

     [32] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/517

   Lagally: do you want to include this into the initial use case
   draft?

   Cristiano: would like to ask McCool for opinion as well

   Lagally: ok
   ... let's check with him during the 2nd Architecture call today

   [33]Smart campus use case

     [33] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/516

   Lagally: (goes through the use case description)
   ... example topology put here

   [34]sample topology

     [34] https://drive.upm.es/index.php/s/ryXZAChj7VGbCCi/download

   [35]sample 2

     [35] https://drive.upm.es/index.php/s/cVPExnRNIFXJA0j/download

   Lagally: (adds comments to PR 516)
   ... do we want to merge it now?
   ... or later?
   ... would be better to have the image as SVG
   ... if you have any other comments, please add them too

   [36]Agriculture

     [36] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/505

   Lagally: let's talk about this next week
   ... we need Matsukura-san's participation as well

Issues

   Lagally: can we transfer use case issues from wot-architecture
   to wot-usecases?

   Kaz: yes, think so
   ... but it requires admin permission for both the repos

   [37]how to transfer issues

     [37] https://help.github.com/en/github/managing-your-work-on-github/transferring-an-issue-to-another-repository

   <mlagally> proposal: deadline for use case contributions and
   merge requests is EOD 18.6. After that all UC related work
   (issues, MRs, document) will be handled in the UC repo.

   <mlagally> proposal: deadline for use case contributions and
   merge requests in the architecture repo is EOD 18.6. After that
   all UC related work (issues, MRs, document) will be handled in
   the UC repo.

   RESOLUTION: deadline for use case contributions and merge
   requests in the architecture repo is EOD 18.6. After that all
   UC related work (issues, MRs, document) will be handled in the
   UC repo.

   <scribe> ACTION: kaz to transfer issues and pullrequests from
   wot-architecture to wot-usecases after the deadline

   [call 1 adjourned]
     __________________________________________________________

Call 2

   <scribe> scribenick: McCool

Agenda

   <scribe> agenda: F2F planning, lifecycle, profile requirements,
   use cases, issues, roadmap

   McCool: reviewing the schedule would also be useful

   agenda at
   [38]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf

     [38] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf

Prev minutes

   <kaz> [39]May-28 minutes

     [39] https://www.w3.org/2020/05/28-wot-arch-minutes.html

   Lagally: review minutes
   ... any concerns with approving and publishing these minutes?
   ... no objections -> minutes approved

Virtual F2f

   McCool: please take a look at the most recent F2F agenda

   <inserted> [40]vF2F agenda

     [40] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting_2020_2nd#WoT_F2F_Agenda

   McCool: lifecycle was reduced to 1h

   Lagally: basically have 3h on Wed and 3h on Thursday
   ... profiles, need to restart
   ... lifecycle, have a candidate spec chapter to review
   ... use cases, have set to review and prioritize, use case repo

   <kaz> [41]wot-usecases repo

     [41] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases

   Lagally: as well as a draft document
   ... although current still an outline

   <mlagally> [42]initial draft of WoT Use Cases

     [42] https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/

   McCool: should there be a requirements section?

   Lagally: may have IPR issues for requirements...

   McCool: we should figure out if there really is an IPR issue
   ... if is, just call this "Use Cases"

   Lagally: also, please make PR to fill in company info for
   editors, etc.

   McCool: Cross domain looks like it is at the wrong level
   ... but that seems like the place for the "horizontal" use
   cases

   Kaz: maybe use "vertical domains" and "horizontal domains" for
   the two categories

   McCool: should flesh out the list of horizontal domains, eg.
   digital twin

   Kaz: normally in W3C use cases and requirements are published
   at the same time
   ... if there are any problems with IPR for the requirements, we
   need to look into them

   McCool: I suspect use cases are more of an IPR risk than
   requirements
   ... we have to state requirements in general term, so that we
   do not end up requiring technologies that are covered by a
   patent in the spec

   Lagally: I suggest let's just do use cases first, since we
   don't have a lot of requirements content anyway

   McCool: +1 on just having a use case document first

   Kaz: also there is a complex relationship between use cases and
   requirements
   ... requirements can be driven by more than one use case, so
   also +1 to start with use case description first

   McCool: I think it would also be useful to assign unique ids to
   use cases
   ... that are stable; maybe after we decide on the high-priority
   UCs

Recap from this morning

   Lagally: similar discussion for F2F planning
   ... lifecycle has been reorganized; thanks zkis
   ... also did some issue clean up, including issue #520, which
   relates to lifecycle

   <mlagally>
   [43]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues?q=is%3Aissue
  https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues?q=is:issue+is:open+label:"use+case"

   +is%3Aopen+label%3A%22use+case%22

   Lagally: moving over use case issues to new uc repo

   <mlagally> proposal: deadline for use case contributions and
   merge requests in the architecture repo is EOD 18.6. After that
   all UC related work (issues, MRs, document) will be handled in
   the UC repo.

   RESOLUTION: deadline for use case contributions and merge
   requests in the architecture repo is EOD 18.6. After that all
   UC related work (issues, MRs, document) will be handled in the
   UC repo.

   <kaz> [we made the same resolution during the first call too]

PRs and Issues

   [44]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/520

     [44] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/520

   Lagally: for lifecycle, want to merge PR and close related
   issue

   zkis: mention "Fix: issue #" in commit, will close
   automatically

   Lagally: for now, will close manually

   smart campus use case:
   [45]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/516

     [45] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/516

   had a problem with images not being part of the PR

   Lagally: images now there, but references have not yet been
   updated
   ... images now there, but references have not yet been updated
   ... in interest of time, will merge, then manually fix; ml to
   fix
   ... (merges PR)

   OAuth use cases:
   [46]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/517

     [46] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/517

   McCool: suggest we go ahead and merge this, then add (or
   update) and then create an issue in the security repo to review
   (after move to uc repo)

   Lagally: we do know what the link will be though; just change
   wot-architecture to wot-usecases

Open issues

   <inserted> [47]Issue 459

     [47] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/459

   issue 459, healthcare

   Lagally: also can't add jennifer to the issue

   McCool: as for the use case content, can copy old text from
   original architecture document as a starting point

   Lagally: does not solve issue that we can't add jennifer as a
   reviewer

   McCool: I think jennifer needs to comment at least once on the
   repo

   Kaz: also will technically be easier once we are in the new
   usecases repo

   Lagally: so let's try to resolve this after the move, then

   McCool: also once we put a use case into the HTML format, we
   need to archive the md version to avoid confusion
   ... when we do that, should create empty security/privacy
   considerations sections for each use case

   Lagally: also have some input from accessibility
   ... also have to look at ITU-T SG20 use cases; there are 20
   documents, so due diligence will take time

   McCool: we also need to have a liaison agreement in place
   before importing material from another standards org

   Kaz: have been talking to W3M, need to figure out needs from
   ITU-T side, then establish liaison, THEN look at these
   documents

   McCool: but certainly someone could read these documents, make
   list of possible use cases... but we can't put anything in our
   repo until we sort out relationship
   ... definitely I feel we should work to align our definitions
   and architecture

   Kaz: plan is to have a chairs call to make progress

   Lagally: maybe a combined editors/chairs

   McCool: I concur that inviting ML to this call makes sense
   ... as for future work... I think we should put in the
   "horizontal" use cases

   <kaz> [48]use case prioritization questionnaire results so far
   (Member-only)

     [48] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/wot-uc-priority-202005/results

   <kaz> [call 2 adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: kaz to transfer issues and pullrequests from
   wot-architecture to wot-usecases after the deadline

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [49]deadline for use case contributions and merge requests
       in the architecture repo is EOD 18.6. After that all UC
       related work (issues, MRs, document) will be handled in the
       UC repo.
    2. [50]deadline for use case contributions and merge requests
       in the architecture repo is EOD 18.6. After that all UC
       related work (issues, MRs, document) will be handled in the
       UC repo.

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [51]scribe.perl version ([52]CVS log)
    $Date: 2020/06/22 05:43:52 $

     [51] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [52] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 9 July 2020 19:33:33 UTC