- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 04:24:24 +0900
- To: public-wot-ig@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/10/07-wot-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Michael McCool and Michael Lagally!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WoT-IG/WG vF2F Meeting - Day 2
07 Oct 2020
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_October_2020#Oct_7
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Endo_Hiroki, Gyu_Myoung_Lee, Takuya_Handa,
Takuji_Kiura, Shinya_Abe, Michael_McCool,
Michael_Lagally, Takio_Yamaoka, Kunihiko_Toumura,
Ege_Korkan, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Rob_Smith,
Hiroshi_Fujisawa, Zoltan_Kis, Dave_Raggett,
Ryuichi_Matsukura, Daniel_Peintner, David_Ezell,
Hiroshi_Ota, Ken_Ogiso, Sebastian_Kaebisch
Regrets
Chair
McCool, Sebastian
Scribe
kaz, McCool, mlagally
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Scribes
2. [5]Opening
3. [6]Agenda for today
4. [7]Arch TF part 2
1. [8]Issues and PRs
2. [9]Profile
5. [10]Use cases
1. [11]WoT IG Use Case TF
2. [12]PRs for the latest draft
6. [13]Collaboration with other W3C groups
1. [14]Agriculture - Kiura-san
2. [15]NHK - Endo-san
3. [16]AR use cases - Rob Smith
7. [17]Wrap-up for today
* [18]Summary of Action Items
* [19]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<McCool> presentations will be here, including opening decks:
[20]https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/PRESENTATIONS/2020-1
0-online-f2f
[20] https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/PRESENTATIONS/2020-10-online-f2f
<inserted> scribenick: kaz
Scribes
<kaz> McCool, Kaz, Lagally
Opening
McCool: logistics
... call agenda
[21]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_October_2020
[21] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_October_2020
McCool: IRC available
[22]http://irc.w3.org/?channels=#wot
[22] http://irc.w3.org/?channels=#wot
McCool: Guests?
Kaz: Gyu Myoung from ITU-T again
Gyu_Myoung: I'm aware of the W3C Patent Policy
McCool: the other guests from W3C Membership?
Kaz: please confirm all the other observers are also aware of
the W3C Patent Policy :)
all: OK
McCool: Schedule
... Oct 7: use cases, requirements, liaisons
... Oct 13: joint with DID and PUB
... Oct 14: joint with APA
... etc.
... Cancellations of the group calls
... see the main wot wiki
[23]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Cancellatio
ns
[23] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Cancellations
McCool: would like to confirm the rest
... architecture on Oct 8?
Lagally: cancelled
McCool: scriptin on Oct 12?
Daniel: planning to have it
McCool: security on Oct 12
... cancelled
... discovery on Oct 12
... will be held
... TD on Oct 14
... cancelled
... architecture on Oct 15?
Lagally: should have the call
... though could be shorter
McCool: main call on Oct 14
... will be held
... mainly logistics and organizations
... Joint calls
... JSON-LD
... 3 possible slots
... Oct 12, 9am EDT
... Oct 13, 9am EDT
... Oct 13, 10am EDT
... my 2 cents is 10am would be better
... any thoughts?
Sebastian: sounds good
RESOLUTION: we'll go for Oct 13, 10m EDT for the JSON-LD joint
meeting
Sebastian: will let them know
McCool: Sebastian to confirm with the JSON-LD WG; McCool to
handle the GitHub issue agenda and outlook invite
... APA
... Oct 14, 9am EDT
... agenda updated and Zoom allocated
... Other meetings: DID, PUB, Web&Networks
[24]WoT vF2F meeting table
[24] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_October_2020#Timetable_for_WoT_PlugFest_and_vF2F_during_TPAC
Ege: what would be the agenda for PUB?
McCool: media in general as well as published media
[25]Agenda for the PUB joint meeting
[25] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/935
Kaz: please see the agenda issue above
McCool: yes
... and we need session managers for those meetings
... (shows the agenda issues on wot repo)
[26]agenda issues
[26] https://github.com/w3c/wot/labels/agenda
McCool: will record all the session organizers to the issues
above
... any volunteers?
... e.g., who is interested in the APA meeting
... anything else on logistics?
(none)
Agenda for today
[27]agenda for Oct 7
[27] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_October_2020#Oct_7
Arch TF part 2
<scribe> scribenick: McCool
Lagally: behind schedule, full agenda; overflow from monday to
deal with to close FPWD
... for both Arch and Profile
... may need to modify parts of later agenda to make time
Gyu_Myoung: I may have to leave before the end of the meeting
Lagally: ok, may have to shift things around
Gyu_Myoung: correction: need to leave, will be back in 1.5h
* Issues and PRs
Lagally: review issues, tagged some with "FPWD" label in
wot-architecture repo
... some PRs that deal with some of these
... PR 539
... add device lifecycle section
... see you were having some rebase problems, marked as WIP
<kaz> [28]PR 539
[28] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/539
Lagally: is it valid to say we can merge even though imperfect,
as a baseline?
Zoltan: tried many ways to resolve conflicts... had to rebuild
... PR shows long information, but merge should be fine
McCool: may break other PRs, but...
Lagally: well, let's merge anyway, and then deal with it as
necessary
... (merged PR 539)
<inserted> [29]PR 559
[29] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/559
Lagally: next, PR 559, TM definition
... no merge conflicts
... now takes comments and discussion into account
<inserted> [30]PR 560
[30] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/560
Lagally: next, PR 560
... no merge conflicts
... suggest merging; any objections?
... no objections, merging
... no let's look at issues
<inserted> [31]Issue 547
[31] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/547
Lagally: closes issue 547, TM
... also issue 476, lifecycle; related to device
<inserted> [32]Issue 476
[32] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/476
McCool: think we should look through this closed issue and
create smaller ones for things that are not addressed
... need smaller, more specific issues
Lagally: there are some editorial issues
McCool: maybe could label the editorial issues with a github
label...
<Ege> I will be back in ~10 minutes
Lagally: issue 548, cleanup of usage of "Use Case" term
<kaz> [33]Issue 548
[33] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/548
Lagally: (marked as editorial)
<kaz> [34]Issue 551
[34] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/551
Lagally: issue 551, need a few lines to open section and
summarize
... there are a few other places that are missing opening
sections
McCool: I think these are not technically required, and unless
we write the text right now there is no way to review in time
Lagally: right, so let's just accept it as it is, then deal
with these sections after FPWD
Zoltan: do think we need to discuss whether we want three
separate lifecycles or one
... and the introductory text should state the plan
McCool: suggest we just say in the ednote that "reorganization
is under discussion" and maybe link to the issue
... detailed discussion can then take place in the issue
Lagally: sure
Zoltan: sure
Lagally: (does a direct edit...)
... need to create an issue, zk can you do so?
<kaz> [35]Issue 561
[35] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/561
<zkis> [36]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/561
[36] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/561
Gyu_Myoung: will be back in an hour
<mlagally> proposal: Accept the current editor's draft as the
FPWD version with the fixes discussed in the call on Oct 7th.
and including the editorial fixes marked with fpwd in the issue
tracker.
<mlagally> proposal: Accept the current editor's draft as the
FPWD version with the fixes discussed in the call on Oct 7th.
and including the editorial fixes marked with fpwd and
editorial in the issue tracker.
RESOLUTION: Accept the current editor's draft as the FPWD
version with the fixes discussed in the call on Oct 7th. and
including the editorial fixes marked with fpwd and editorial in
the issue tracker.
Lagally: 5 min break
<kaz> [5min break]
McCool: seems there is still a lot of feedback we should take
into account, perhaps we should defer FPWD?
Lagally: let's look at some PRs I developed first and then
discuss
* Profile
<kaz> scribenick: kaz
[37]Issue 42
[37] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/42
Lagally: current events section is too loose
... Ege mentions "No experience at all with both of them from
the plugfests."
... and that's true
McCool: Mozilla was working on WebSocket
... but WebSocket itself is not a complete spec yet
Ege: client/server bind
McCool: let's say longpoll at the moment
... need one mechanism for event handling
Ege: advantages and disadvantages with each approach
... would be over engineering unless we have protocols over it
... this may cause with high speed eventing
McCool: we could align with Moilla's work later but at the
moment need to live with one method which is already available
Zoltan: given this discussion, wondering if we should explore
the WoT WebSocket protocols work
Lagally: should be out of scope
<McCool> mm: note also that primary goal of profiles is OOTBI,
secondary (future) objective could be supporting performance
(in which case, yes, WS makes sense... but we need more
constraints to get OOTBI)\
[38]Lagally's comment added
[38] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/42#issuecomment-704928470
[39]PR 44
[39] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/44
Lagally: next PR 44
[40]5.1.6 Event Affordances
[40] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-profile/44/2b8cf9f...f6de591.html#events
Lagally: Editors not on event handling there
McCool: ok with accept this asis
... assuming change to longpolling and SSE
... we can defer protocol-specific reorg, really this comment
should be in HTTP-specific section
... consistently for all affordances
[41]https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/43 Issue 43
[41] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/43 Issue 43
Lagally: tx for feedback
... (goes through the comments)
Daniel: data schema should be defined
[42]PR 46
[42] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/46
Lagally: (goes through the changes)
McCool: we need to look into use cases to see if it's
reasonable
Kaz: +1
Lagally: let's address use cases which are relevant
McCool: ok
Lagally: hope this change will improve what we have so far
<McCool> mm: although if we are targetting new devices vs
brownfield devices this is not as much of an issue
Lagally: should we merge this PR?
Kaz: should we add an Editor's note on relevant use cases?
McCool: let's assume pre-scriptive cases here
Lagally: objections for merging PR 46?
(none)
(merged)
McCool: at the very least, supporting brownfield devices can be
under "secondary goals" (and OOTBI is still primary!)
[43]PR 47
[43] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/47
Lagally: Sebastian's comment
Sebastian: we've been holding discussions about this point
Lagally: I have some ideas
Kaz: would suggest we defer this PR and discuss it after FPWD
publication
Sebastian: would like to discuss this before FPWD...
Lagally: let's see if there could be some compromise
... Editor's Note within the Abstract section
EDITOR'S NOTE
The name WoT Core Profile is still under discussion in the
group and is used as a working title. It is subject to change
after the profile specification has reached a certain level of
maturity.
]]
Sebastian: Core profile would have impacts to all the other
profiles...
McCool: "Core" is common
... would suggest we stick to "Core" at the moment with an
Editor's Note
Lagally: at least the Note addresses the concern
Sebastian: saying "Core" implies it's already there
McCool: need to understand what Sebastian expects for Profiles
Kaz: unfortunately, it seems to me that we still need further
discussion to get the conclusion
... so we should defer the discussion on this point and move
ahead for the use cases discussion today
Lagally: would not like to defer the publication of Profiles...
Kaz: in that case we should have a dedicated additional
Profiles call
... but we should have discussion on use cases as planned
during this call
... given we have many invited guests for that purpose
Lagally: Sebastian, could you raise any concrete alternative
proposal?
Sebastian: share the same goal with Lagally for the publication
itself
... would like to provide clarifications
Kaz: in that case, we need to have an additional call for
Profiles. right?
Lagally: let's have an additional discussion during the
Architecture call on 15th
Kaz: need not to have that tomorrow?
Lagally: since can't make it tomorrow
... we can close PR 47 itself, and then continue the discussion
RESOLUTION: we'll continue the profile discussion during the
Architecture on Oct 15
[5min break; then Use Cases]
Use cases
Lagally: various guests for the discussion
... would like to skip the detailed discussion on requirements
... and would start with the ITU-T collaboration
... then new use cases the WoT TFs
... and then Agriculture, Media&Entertainment
* WoT IG Use Case TF
slides @@@
Lagally: objectives
... identify and describe new relevant use cases
... collect use cases from the other W3C groups and also the
other relevant stakeholders
... publication of "WoT Use Cases" document
... work split
... architecture vs use case work
... use cases are handled by the WoT IG's Use Cases TF at
wot-usecases repo
... process
... use cases => shortlisting => requirements => spec work by
the other TFs
... requirements analysis
... requirements draft
* PRs for the latest draft
<mlagally> [44]https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases
[44] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases
Lagally: use cases repo above
[45]rendered draft
[45] http://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/
Lagally: Mizushima-san has been working on clean-up
... there are still issues on the document, though
[46]PR 60
[46] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/60
Lagally: merged
[47]PR 60
[47] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/60
Lagally: ITU-T summary
... Gyu Myoung will give updates
... there will be ITU-T meeting in Nov
... we've started to look into their work
... hope we could work collaboratively
(Gyu Myoung joins again)
[48]OLS - DRAFT.md Proposed liaison statement
[48] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/master/CONTRIBUTIONS/ITU-T-SG-20
Lagally: should add references to the published specs
... align terminology to avoid fragmentation
... would like to establish open conversation channel
... as a starting point, we should provide our use case
document to them
Kaz: given we need some more time to finalize this proposal,
probably we should work on this during the use cases call next
week :)
... we should think about the scope like reviewing the specs
with each other
... providing use cases with each other, etc.
Lagally: right
... we should continue the discussion during the use cases
calls
... also we should clarify the expectations from the ITU-T side
... Gyu Myoung, please let us know about your need too
Gyu_Myoung: maybe starting with simply exchange share our
current work?
... to see what the other side has been doing
... something related to energy environment management, etc.
... ITU-T work on use cases and then architecture
... then provide ideas to related SDOs working on protocols,
etc.
... if we have clear views between ITU-T and W3C WoT, could
work on certain document
Lagally: ok
... McCool, could you help us generate some text for that?
McCool: we're interested in ongoing work
Lagally: note this is a liaison letter to be sent to ITU-T SG20
McCool: ok
... we should include alignment of standards
... terminology alignment would be helpful
... should not define different terminology for the same idea
... opportunity to align our work efforts, e.g., jointly
developing common documents
... would say "seek to align"
Lagally: ok
... this could be an initial draft
Kaz: we need to copy to team-liaisons when we send this to
ITU-T
... also should talk with them beforehand as well
Lagally: ok
... commit the proposal as an initial draft
Collaboration with other W3C groups
<mlagally> scribenick: mlagally
Agriculture - Kiura-san
<kaz> slides tbd@@@
Kiura Takuji - presentation - Agriculture CG
Rural hybridization
Since 2020 Prototype of Agricultural WoT?
Early warning system, monitoring glacial lake in Himalaya
Physical Hybridization in Rural Area, Open field smart
agriculture use case is closely related
Technologies include: AR, AI, Cloud/Edge Computing, High
performance networks, 5G and beyond
Various use cases
Discussion at APAN50
COVID-19 reveals vulnerabilities in rural area
scribenick: kaz
<kaz> [49]Use Case Template
[49] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/master/USE-CASES/use-case-template.md
Kaz: would like to suggest Kiura-san generate a concrete use
case description using the template above. "Rural
hybridization" is a big use case which could cover many topics.
Lagally: interested in mitigation of natural disaster
McCool: would like to see a general use case which covers
possible issues
... power management, etc., as well
... decentralized management using solar, etc.
... a lot of interesting stuff here ... agriculture is part of
this but many other topics too
<McCool> sorry for taking extra time. I would like to mention
the following link as being relevant to "rural hybridization":
[50]https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-one
-traffic-light-town-with-some-of-the-fastest-internet-in-the-us
[50] https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-one-traffic-light-town-with-some-of-the-fastest-internet-in-the-us
NHK - Endo-san
scribenick: mlagally
demo is implemented using open source code available on github
In plugfest we connected TV to 4 devices from other WoT members
WoT enabled TV will enable new use cases by integrating with
other devices
scribenick: kaz
<kaz> [51]NHK's original use case
[51] https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/#nhk-device-tv-sync
Kaz: related to the use case above
... please extend the one or provide an additional one for this
work
... also this demo should be included in the demo during the
breakouts later October
Sebastian: context?
... your own ontology?
... can the video be shared?
Kaz: let's continue the discussion based on the updated use
case description from NHK :)
Sebastian: ok
* AR use cases - Rob Smith
Rob: WebVMT overview
... open web format for location sync with video
... sharing, indexing, map presentation
... W3C editor's draft by the CG available
... roadmap
... use cases
... golden tutorial use case: AR demo, proof of action, data
capture format for AR debugging
... virtual guide: AR/VR guide, e.g., historic site, medical,
control in general
<McCool> (aside: closely related to geospatial use cases we can
cover on Friday in the plugfest wrapup)
Rob: visualize events and structures + narrative
... sync with annotated map or virtual space
Kaz: we've generated initial draft use case descriptions as PRs
<kaz> [52]PR 61 by Kaz
[52] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/61
<kaz> [53]PR 62 by Rob
[53] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/62
Wrap-up for today
<McCool> (I think we should determine, quickly another time for
Rob to join us)
Lagally: thanks a lot for contributions!
Sebastian: and thanks a lot for your hard work, Lagally!
Lagally: will continue discussion in next use case call (next
week)
<McCool> (I will note then that the Use Case call next week is
NOT cancelled as well in the wiki, etc)
McCool: note that there will be the WoT Use Case call on Oct
15th at 7am EDT
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [54]we'll go for Oct 13, 10m EDT for the JSON-LD joint
meeting
2. [55]Accept the current editor's draft as the FPWD version
with the fixes discussed in the call on Oct 7th. and
including the editorial fixes marked with fpwd and
editorial in the issue tracker.
3. [56]we'll continue the profile discussion during the
Architecture on Oct 15
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [57]scribe.perl version ([58]CVS log)
$Date: 2020/10/13 18:54:30 $
[57] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[58] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2020 19:24:30 UTC