- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 13:33:25 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/07/16-wot-arch-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks,
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WoT-Architecture
16 Jul 2020
Attendees
Present
Call 1: Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally,
Tomoaki_Mizushima, Ryuichi_Matsukura
Call 2: Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
Michael_McCool
Chair
Lagally
Scribe
kaz
Contents
* [2]Topics
1. [3]Call 1
1. [4]Logistics
2. [5]Prev minutes
3. [6]vF2F minutes
4. [7]MRs
5. [8]Profiles
2. [9]Call 2
* [10]Summary of Action Items
* [11]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribenick: kaz
Logistics
Lagally: think we might want to change the time of the WoT
Architecture call to get wider attendance
... opt1: 1 or 2 hours later
... opt2: merge with the 2nd call
Kaz: can create a doodle poll
Lagally: tx
Prev minutes
[12]July-9
[12] https://www.w3.org/2020/07/09-wot-arch-minutes.html
Lagally: talked about profile
... would talk about it today as well
... will put the information on the summary slides to the MD
files as well
... btw, Matsukura-san, we were discussing how to manage the
Architecture call slot
... we'll create a doodle poll to see people's availability
- Reschedule 1st architecture call (1-2 hours later)
- Merge 1st call into 2nd one
Matsukura: 1-2 hours later is OK but midnight would be too
late...
Lagally: ok
... go back to the minutes review
... any concerns?
(none)
approved
vF2F minutes
[13]vF2F minutes
[13] https://www.w3.org/2020/06/22-26-wot-vf2f-minutes.html#day3
Lagally: (goes through the minutes)
... discussed profiles during the previous call as well
... was also nice to have Ben there during the vF2F
... had discussion use case importance and contributors
... any concerns?
(none)
Kaz: so we've confirmed the vF2F minutes are OK :)
MRs
[14]MR 505
[14] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/505
[15]changes
[15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/505/files
Matsukura: requirements for the agriculture use case
Enable to respond to the requests from consumers instead of the
original corresponding to the virtual device and being offline
]]
Matsukura: same content with the actual device with a different
IP address
... the idea is a shadow device
Lagally: having the same property?
Matsukura: right
Lagally: what is the expected behavior?
Matsukura: this function would be useful for sensor
... the proxy always responds to the users for the actual
sensors
... since the actual devices might be suspended sometimes
Lagally: ok
... so this is related to digital twin idea
Matsukura: yes
Kaz: maybe we should add notes on related ideas (like digital
twin and device shadow) and basic need for energy consumption
saving so that we can identify this use case is related to
which category (horizontal use cases and vertical use cases)
Lagally: ok
... and we should think about security portion as well
Kaz: right
Lagally: (adds comments on that)
... next states for things
Matsukura: proxy has the information on the "actual state"
Lagally: digital twin to handle the state automatically for the
edge devices
Matsukura: yes
Kaz: based on the discussion so far, I think all these
requirements assume a proxy who manages all the edge devices,
sensors and actuators
... so we should mention that assumption here as well
Lagally: ok
... (adds a comment on that)
Matsukura: "intermediary" is defined in the WoT Architecture
... and that point (=proxy manager) would describe the concrete
function for that
Kaz: yeah, for the spec we intentionally used the abstract term
"intermediary"
... and "proxy device which manages multiple edge devices" is a
good use case for that
... regarding the definition on units
... the Automotive WG used to refer to the GENIVI resource
... but they're looking at new ontology definition
... also McCool was working on surveys about unit definitions
Lagally: (adds comments)
Profiles
[16]MR 16
[16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/16
Lagally: would like to have volunteers :)
[17]preview
[17] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/16.html
Lagally: section 4 (section 4.2 specifically) needs further
discussion
... but would like to make the draft an initial starting point
Kaz: yes, we always need something as the basis of the
discussion :)
<mlagally_> proposal: Use the current strawman document as the
baseline for the Profile specification
Lagally: any concerns?
(none)
all: agree
RESOLUTION: Use the current strawman document as the baseline
for the Profile specification
[18]requirements for profiles
[18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/blob/master/REQUIREMENTS/requirements.md
<mlagally_> proposal: Accepting the following requirements for
the FPWD: Interoperability, Limit and reduce complexity,
Eliminate ambiguities, Limit resource consumption, finite set
of features and capabilities, follow security and privacy best
practices subject to group feedback
Kaz: do you mean we'll include the requirements description
into the index.html?
Lagally: no
Kaz: so we'd like to consider the requirements.md as the basis
of the index.html?
Lagally: restricted topics within requirements.md to be the
basis
Kaz: ok
... so we'll consider the restricted list of requirements as
the basis of the FPWD of the WoT Profiles document
Lagally: right
Matsukura: the WoT Profiles document would be very useful for
PlugFest, etc.
Lagally: ok with the proposal?
all: ok
RESOLUTION: Accepting the following requirements for the FPWD:
Interoperability, Limit and reduce complexity, Eliminate
ambiguities, Limit resource consumption, finite set of features
and capabilities, follow security and privacy best practices
subject to group feedback
Lagally: will check with people during the 2nd call as well
... (shows wot-profile/issues)
... please review the issues
[19]wot-profile/issues
[19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues
Lagally: aob?
(none)
Lagally: btw, wondering about the progress of the use case
description conversion
Kaz: all the MD files of the use cases are already converted
into HTML
... so we can review the resulted HTMLs during the use case
call next week
Lagally: ok
[call 1 adjourned]
__________________________________________________________
Call 2
Lagally: initial description on the abstract system
architecture
... including system components, lifecycle and thing templates
Kaz: will you create a MD file based on the description?
Lagally: actually, planning to generate an HTML file instead :)
... also would like to move the information on the summary
table of use cases/volunteers to MD
... btw, regarding this call itself, let's adjourn it due to
small participation today
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [20]Use the current strawman document as the baseline for
the Profile specification
2. [21]Accepting the following requirements for the FPWD:
Interoperability, Limit and reduce complexity, Eliminate
ambiguities, Limit resource consumption, finite set of
features and capabilities, follow security and privacy best
practices subject to group feedback
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version ([23]CVS log)
$Date: 2020/07/23 15:24:16 $
[22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 27 July 2020 04:33:30 UTC