- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:58:24 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/09/03-wot-arch-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks,
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WoT Architecture
03 Sep 2020
[2]Agenda
[2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#Agenda
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Ryuichi_Matsukura,
Tomoaki_Mizushima, Michael_McCool, Sebastian_Kaebisch
Regrets
Chair
Lagally
Scribe
kaz
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Prev minutes
2. [5]Issues
3. [6]MR 528
4. [7]MR 505
5. [8]Remaining issues
6. [9]Issue 533
7. [10]Issue 530
8. [11]Remaining issues
* [12]Summary of Action Items
* [13]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribenick: kaz
Prev minutes
[14]Aug-27
[14] https://www.w3.org/2020/08/27-wot-arch-minutes.html
<mlagally_>
[15]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/master/proposa
ls/Architecture%201.1%20FPWD.pdf
[15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/master/proposals/Architecture 1.1 FPWD.pdf
(the above URL for the slides has been added to the Aug-27
minutes)
McCool: note that "Edge Computing" is a horizontal category of
use case
Matsukura: use case are usually vertical ones
... maybe "horizontal" is rather a requirement, isn't it?
McCool: had same discussion already
<mlagally_>
[16]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/532
[16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/532
Lagally: there is a merge request (532)
Kaz: as McCool mentioned we had related discussions already,
and I'm OK with putting "horizontal/vertical" kind of labels to
the existing use cases as the basis of further discussion
... we can reorganize the use case description and the
requirements description later during the second round
... from my viewpoint, a bigger question at the moment is how
to deal with the possible requirements descriptions
... usually requirements are included in "Use Cases and
Requirements" documents which are usually group Notes
McCool: yeah, usually requirements are also informative. right?
Kaz: yeah
Lagally: (look into MR 532)
Kaz: ok
... let's approve the minutes themselves first, and then look
into the detail about that point later
("Zontan" fixed as "Zoltan")
Lagally: let's approve the minutes then
(no objections and approved)
Issues
<McCool> [17]https://github.com/w3c/wot-security/issues/169
[17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-security/issues/169
<McCool> review of lifecycle by Oliver Pfaff
McCool: who owns the data?
... also who is the actor?
... service provider role, user role, etc.
(Sebastian joins)
Lagally: we were talking about the new section of the
Architecture
... skeleton of the new lifecycle section
[18]PR 532 Preview diff - 8.4 Lifecycle
[18] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-architecture/532/a5b1e7b...d6902ea.html#lifecycle
Lagally: System lifecycle, Thing lifecycle and Information
lifecycle
Kaz: btw, what about the security issue 169 itself?
Lagally: need further detailed review
... and it's related to MR 532
Kaz: ok
Lagally: and let me clarify the relationship
... (create a new issue)
[19]Issue 533 which links wot-security issue 169 and Lifecycle
discussion
[19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/533
Lagally: (goes back to MR 532)
[20]MR 532
[20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/532
Sebastian: note that I've updated the TD spec with the new
terms
Lagally: very good
... (creates a new issue on terminology)
[21]Issue 534 on terminology
[21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/534
Lagally: (then goes back to MR 532)
[22]changes
[22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/532/files
Lagally: "Application Domains" would be good
... (and then shows the preview diff)
[23]preview diff
[23] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-architecture/532/a5b1e7b...d6902ea.html
Lagally: (goes through the new section "4. Application Domains
(Verticals)" and "5. System Topologies (Horizontals)"
McCool: "Edge Devices" might be confusing
... related to the horizontal use case of "Edge Computing"
... maybe better to call it "Edge Computing"
Lagally: ok
... please take a look
... (then goes through "6. System Integration")
... (and "7. Requirements")
... ("8. Abstract WoT System Architecture")
... ("8.2 Affordances")
... ("8.4 Lifecycle")
Kaz: what about the diagrams for Lifecycle?
Lagally: would include them at some point, but would have
improved ones
... maybe Toumura-san could help us again about this as well
Sebastian: I've been working on Thing Model pullrequest
... it's quite important and to be aligned with the
Architecture document
... will take care of that
McCool: also discovery section as well
("9.2 Thing Model" and "9.3 Discovery")
Lagally: only one question
... about the title of the document
... should we say "WoT Architecture 1.1"?
Sebastian: important to identify the spec
[24]SSML 1.1
[24] https://www.w3.org/TR/speech-synthesis11/
Kaz: we can say "Web of Things (WoT) Architecture Version 1.1"
like SSML 1.1 above
Lagally: let's go for it
... now can we merge this MR 532?
(no objections and merged)
MR 528
[25]MR 528
[25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/528
Lagally: connected buildings
[26]changes
[26] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/528/files
Lagally: wondering about Farshid's availability
McCool: on vacation now
Lagally: we should look into this next week then
MR 505
[27]MR 505
[27] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/505
Matsukura: have some problem with this MR
<ryuichi>
[28]https://github.com/mryuichi/wot-architecture/blob/master/RE
QUIREMENTS/agriculture.md
[28] https://github.com/mryuichi/wot-architecture/blob/master/REQUIREMENTS/agriculture.md
Matsukura: MR from my own repository
... this requirement is common and horizontal
... e.g., gateway
... virtual devices
... unit
Lagally: this "related standard" is very specific and from
Genivi
... similar discussion on unit last time
[29]wot-profile issue 29
[29] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/29
Lagally: (mentions Genivi's resource within the issue as well)
[30]Lagally's comment
[30] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/29#issuecomment-686550414
McCool: people on Automotive may use that kind of standard on
units
... it's a tricky issue
Kaz: my impression is that the agriculture requirements here
(=gateway, virtual devices and unit) are too generalized as the
requirements at this stage
... maybe we could think about some more agriculture-specific
requirements first
... and we could identify some more agriculture-specific
resources on units, etc., based on those agriculture-specific
requirements
Sebastian: unit ontology depends on which domain you're working
on
Kaz: right
Sebastian: would be misleading ot choose only one ontology at
this stage
McCool: issue basically arise with special units depending on
each domain
Lagally: another issue about the notation, e.g., KB and KIB
McCool: differences between fields as well
... core vocabulary vs selected one based on the need
... could take two approaches here
Lagally: what would require the least effort?
McCool: could define possible extensions for each profile
... the main point here is having some finite set
Lagally: (adds comments based on the discussion)
... finite set of unit extensions and a standardized prefix to
unambiguously identify the unit
... also require a way to specify a version and a fixed context
string that can be statically parsed
[31]additional comments
[31] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/29#issuecomment-686558578
Lagally: regarding the original MR 505, please regenerate a
fixed MR
Matsukura: ok
... note that I can't update MR 505 itself
Lagally: do you want to close MR 505?
Matsukura: yes
Lagally: (closes MR 505)
Remaining issues
McCool: we recently had discussion on timestamp vs time series
[32]Issue 527
[32] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/527
McCool: would create a separate issue on time series for longer
discussion
... should be collaborative with OneDM, etc.
[33]wot-usecases issue 48
[33] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/48
McCool: for time series, should be targeting some concrete API,
etc.
Kaz: I also mentioned some points during the Use Cases call
... joint discussion with the MEIG during TPAC would be helpful
McCool: API and/or data model
Lagally: maybe we should quickly talk about series of time
<sebastian> sorry, I have to go
[34]wot-architecture issue 527
[34] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/527
Lagally: specific type to handle time series?
... what if we have some device which generates time series of
data?
McCool: we should boil down the descriptions
Kaz: we should think about some concrete use cases for further
discussion
McCool: maybe a good topic for the MEIG joint meeting
... likewise
... geolocation as well
... lifecycle might be also
Lagally: there has been discussion on second screen
synchronization as well
McCool: media control on different channels was the original
topic
Issue 533
[35]Issue 533 on lifecycle
[35] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/533
McCool: good topic for the joint meeting with PING
[36]Lagally adds a comment
[36] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/533#issuecomment-686569103
Issue 530
[37]Issue 530 on discovery terminology
[37] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/530
Lagally: to be handled by McCool
McCool: definitely need review by PING
Lagally: what about TAG?
McCool: for security in general?
Kaz: yeah, also basic architecture design in general
... we can ask Wendy and Sam for help as well
Remaining issues
Lagally: we need volunteers for the remaining issues
... what about issue 522?
[38]Issue 522
[38] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/522
McCool: 3 more components to be defined
... Directory, Discovery and Gateway
... Gateway translates protocols
... Discovery finds devices
... want to define time series database, etc.
Lagally: anything for standardization?
McCool: pretty common things there
Lagally: there is "Intermediary" as well
McCool: not really a servient par se
... definitely there is a thing which is not a "Thing" (as part
of WoT)
Lagally: (adds comments to Issue 522)
... "Gateway" as defined by ITU-T?
... what would be the impact?
Matsukura: I had generated a standard at ITU-T about gateway
<ryuichi> [39]https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.2070-201501-I/en
[39] https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.2070-201501-I/en
Matsukura: concrete pattern on gateways
Lagally: what can we learn from this?
... can you talk about this next time?
Matsukura: yes
Kaz: I'm still wondering whether "Gateway" itself should be a
requirement for WoT or not, because I think WoT's target is the
application layer rather than the network layer.
... maybe the functionality of "conversion of protocols and IP
addresses" might be the requirement for WoT
McCool: we should be careful how to define "Gateway"
... for example, we can look into ITU-T standards and see if
their definition fits us
Kaz: yeah
Lagally: let's add that to the agenda for the next week
[40]Agenda
[40] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#Agenda
Lagally: we have issues on several diagrams as well
... some of them will go into the Lifecycle section
McCool: maybe the details should go to the Discovery document
... and the Architecture document should keep being abstract
Kaz: yeah
... technically, we could have a best practices or an
implementation guideline document and put the detailed sequence
diagrams into it
Lagally: right
... on the other hand, abstract diagrams could be included in
the Architecture
McCool: yeah
... high-level ones are possible
Lagally: something like my drawn sequence diagram about
lifecycle state transition
Kaz: yeah, that kind of high-level one should be ok
McCool: would be better to split each diagram into separate SVG
file
Lagally: right
... this kind of diagram (on lifecycle state transition) is
useful to clarify the terminology definition as well
Kaz: right
Lagally: note that we still have many issues lacking owners...
... please consider to take some of them
... AOB?
(none)
Lagally: for the next week, we've already put some agenda items
... we didn't talk about profile this week
... but would talk about that as well
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [41]scribe.perl version ([42]CVS log)
$Date: 2020/09/07 11:49:35 $
[41] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[42] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 14 September 2020 04:58:28 UTC