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

[wot-arhitecture][DRAFT] minutes - 24 September 2020

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 00:46:52 +0900
Message-ID: <87pn64fuvn.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the notes, Matsukura-san!



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

                               - DRAFT -

                            WoT Architecture

24 Sep 2020


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


          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool,
          Ryuichi_Matsukura, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Michael_Koster,



          ryuichi, kaz


     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Agenda
         2. [5]Prev minutes
         3. [6]Pull requests
         4. [7]Issue 538
         5. [8]Issue 534
         6. [9]Issue 530
         7. [10]Issue 527
         8. [11]Issue 526
         9. [12]Issue 523
        10. [13]PR 539
        11. [14]AOB
     * [15]Summary of Action Items
     * [16]Summary of Resolutions

   <kaz> scribenick: ryuichi


   Lagally: logistics
   ... Architecture 1.1 contributions and new requirements
   ... Issues
   ... Profiles
   ... any more agenda for today?
   ... none

Prev minutes

   <kaz> [17]Sep-17

     [17] https://www.w3.org/2020/09/17-wot-arch-minutes.html

   Lagally: any objection?
   ... approved.

Pull requests

   <kaz> scribenick: kaz

   [18]wot-architecture PRs

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

   [19]PR 539

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/539

   Lagally: let's defer this one since we don't have Zoltan now

   [20]PR 540

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/540

   Lagally: not ready

   McCool: we had discussion on Thing Model during the TD call
   ... use cases for Thing Model needed
   ... to see Digital Twin and Developer support
   ... for digital twin, protocols don't matter
   ... but for developer support protocols matter and would see
   security information as well
   ... would see whether protocols and security information to be
   mandated or not

   Lagally: also would see the big data use case

   [21]big data use case MD

     [21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/master/USE-CASES/processed/big-data.md

   McCool: for developer support, you need protocols and security

   Koster: when you have things which are not online
   ... not sure if the developer support use case is so different
   from digital twin
   ... to me interaction has to be there
   ... could be at different stages

   McCool: would avoid duplicate names

   Koster: what we call workflow

   McCool: fill in the details on the interaction

   Koster: helpful to show what is considered by IoT Schema, etc.

   McCool: we should have some general statement
   ... as for developer time, there are two kinds
   ... those using scripting API
   ... vs doing all myself

   Lagally: would be nice to use the queue :)
   ... we want to have Thing Model
   ... but need to clearly state that
   ... precise definition
   ... when we have a formal relation type
   ... need structured data type

   Kaz: would suggest we start with the use cases themselves
   ... and elaborate the requirements based on them

   McCool: agree
   ... also we should think about minimum requirements as well
   ... some use cases might be more desirable

   Lagally: we already have a requirements description on "thing

   [22]thing template requirements

     [22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/master/REQUIREMENTS/thing-templates.md

   Lagally: should be renamed (to "thing-models.md")

   McCool: maybe we can add "variants"
   ... also minimum requirements?

   Koster: please continue

   Lagally: requirements section includes...

   Koster: if you look at the overlap with oneDM and IoT Schema...
   ... think Sebastian would like to have a mechanism so that TD
   can do what oneDM can do
   ... some of the use cases have schema and some don't
   ... it's an orthogonal thing
   ... if I have a thermostat, I have two levels
   ... the last one is TD which has the address and device type
   ... do we want to make TD have the whole lifecycle capability,
   etc., like oneDM has?
   ... basically it's part of the discussion

   Lagally: why don't we start with what we currently have?
   ... based on our own use cases

   McCool: we should clarify the Thing Model
   ... interaction and schema first
   ... and could add modularity, etc., later on

   <McCool> ... once we have modularity, we can perhaps add a
   "Thing Capability" which is like a Thing Model, but perhaps
   with just affordances (and no data schemas for instance)

   Kaz: maybe we might want to have an additional section of "what
   we want" right before the "requirements" section to clarify our
   background on the need for requirements
   ... for example, Michael McCool wants to think about security
   ... and Michael Koster is interested in the compatibility with
   oneDM, IoT Schema, etc.

   McCool: yeah, that would make sense

   Lagally: (adds a subsection of "what do we want for different
   use cases?")
   ... (and adds subsections of "Digital Twin" and "IoT

   (some more discussion on "what we want" from various

   Lagally: (captures the summary)

   McCool: would compare "Digital Twin Modeling" and "IoT
   Orchestration Modeling"

   Lagally: would like to see "Big Data" use case as well here

   Kaz: we might want to have some concrete scenario for each use
   ... those three use cases are horizontal ones and could be
   applied to various vertical use cases
   ... but we could identify some typical scenario like gas plant
   which mentioned in the use case section of the v1 Architecture

   McCool: would see the description on the abstract level now
   ... could revisit concrete cases later
   ... minimum quirements for common elements are interactions and
   data schemas

   Lagally: inheritance of multiple classes would be too

   McCool: as a starting point, could focus on single inheritance

   Lagally: (adds constraints)
   ... Thing Model constraints must appear in the Thing
   Description with possible additional details
   ... wondering if we could have some description on possible
   alignment between oneDM and Thing Model

   Koster: that would make sense

   Lagally: would suggest we allocate a slot for that, e.g., next

   Koster: ok

   McCool: maybe semantically annotated TD would be useful?
   ... btw, next week will be PlugFest

   Koster: yeah
   ... will busy as well
   ... related to the use case on generating TD from SDF
   ... workflow you could take things

   Lagally: (adds an agenda item on the discussion to the
   Architecture call agenda)

   Koster: when to do that?

   Lagally: Oct 1?
   ... Thing Models and OneDM

   McCool: would include SDF explicitly

   Lagally: yeah, SDF is a separate IETF WG now
   ... more technical discussion there

   McCool: also requirements and enhanced use cases for Thing
   ... would have Sebastian as well

   Lagally: (puts Sebastian's name there with a note of "TBD")

   Kaz: thanks a lot for the discussion
   ... and I think it would be even nicer to have some more
   supplementary description on why we want this mechanism
   ... based on today's discussion
   ... e.g., need a flexible mechanism to automatically generate
   TDs for these horizontal use cases

   Lagally: (adds supplementary description on that)

   McCool: open issues on modularity, etc.

   Lagally: (adds that to "Open issues" section)

   <mlagally> [23]updated Thing Models Requirements

     [23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/master/REQUIREMENTS/thing-models.md

Issue 538

   [24]Issue 538

     [24] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/538

   Lagally: who could generate an updated diagram?

   McCool: maybe Toumura-san?

   Lagally: (adds a comment to Issue 538)
   ... could you ask Toumura-san about this?

   McCool: will do

Issue 534

   [25]Issue 534

     [25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/534

   Lagally: who could work on this?

   McCool: can work on that

Issue 530

   [26]Issue 530

     [26] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/530

   Lagally: McCool, can you work on this?

   McCool: ok

Issue 527

   [27]Issue 527

     [27] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/527

   Lagally: somebody to generate requirements for time stamps/time
   ... related to media use cases?

   Kaz: can ping the MEIG guys about the pre-meeting on Oct 1
   ... also the joint discussion on Oct 7
   ... could ask NHK guys as well

   Lagally: ok. let's defer this then

Issue 526

   [28]Issue 526

     [28] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/526

   Lagally: requirements on accuracy

   Koster: can look into this

   Lagally: if we could have a starting point, would be able to
   accelerate the discussion

Issue 523

   [29]Issue 526

     [29] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/526

   Lagally: not ready today

PR 539

   [30]PR 539

     [30] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/539

   (GitHub Preview doesn't show the diagram, Statically requires
   account. so Kaz shows the index.html and the diagram which have
   been locally cloned)

   Zoltan: maybe need to update the transitions
   ... it's complex

   Lagally: would illustrate what happen for lookup, etc.

   McCool: this is device lifecycle
   ... would see how to upgrade the system too
   ... resource needed for access control

   Zoltan: commissioning for WoT?

   Lagally: McCool, could you add a comment to PR 539?

   Zoltan: please leave comments

   Lagally: need some label for "resume" etc., to come back to the
   "Operational" state from "Maintenance"?

   Zoltan: wondering about what would be the good name
   ... I'm open for suggestions

   Lagally: ok
   ... this is work in progress

   Zoltan: what else do you need?

   McCool: why don't we have a quick review round?
   ... would prefer merge this and review the changes
   ... having an acronym of "TD" is confusing

   Lagally: we're out of time
   ... why don't we keep this open, and continue the discussion
   next week?


   McCool: two editorial PRs for small changes

   [31]wot-architecture PR 541

     [31] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/541

   [32]wot-usecases PR 53

     [32] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/53


Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [33]scribe.perl version
    1.152 ([34]CVS log)
    $Date: 2020/09/29 15:44:13 $

     [33] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [34] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2020 15:46:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 29 September 2020 15:47:01 UTC