W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > July 2021

[wot-usecases] minutes - 4 May 2021

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 13:35:25 +0900
Message-ID: <87eec440aa.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-ig@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.




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

                             íV DRAFT íV
                WoT Use Cases - publication status check

04 May 2021

   [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

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

      [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/05/04-wot-uc-irc


          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool,





    1. [4]Recent editorial updates
         1. [5]PR 126
         2. [6]PR 128
         3. [7]PR 129
         4. [8]PR 117
    2. [9]Issues
         1. [10]Issue 84
         2. [11]Issue 70
         3. [12]Issue 45
    3. [13]AOB

Meeting minutes

  Recent editorial updates

    PR 126

   [14]PR 126 - Editorial fixes for issue 119

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/126

   Lagally: just fixed typos

    PR 128

   [15]PR 128 - list contributors and respective companies in
   acknowledgement section

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/128

   Lagally: updates for the acknowledgement section

   McCool: maybe should have the list in alphabetical order?

   Lagally: yes, it's already so


   Kaz: as confirmed the other day, we should not include
   non-Member companies' names for each Use Case entry

   [16]2.3.3 Automated Smart Building Management

     [16] https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/index.html#smart-building-things

   McCool: or rather we can simply remove all the companies' names
   from each Use Case description to be consistent

   Lagally: right

   McCool: we can list multiple authors concatenated with ", "
   (=A, B, C)

    PR 129

   [17]PR 129 - cleanup references

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/129

   Lagally: updated the reference section

   McCool: ok

    PR 117

   [18]PR 117 - WIP: Add liaisons

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/117

   Lagally: let's leave it out at the moment

   McCool: ok


   [19]remaining issues

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

    Issue 84

   [20]Issue 84 - Security and requirements questionnaire

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/84

   McCool: we did look into it
   íK may have cross-TF issues

   Lagally: asking for a table indicating which concrete
   implementations (eg OAuth2) satisfy which requirements (eg

   McCool: yes
   íK we talked about this
   íK most to be included in the Security Best Practice document
   íK and Use Case document should have more generic description
   íK and possibly link to the Best Practices document
   íK would be nice to have detailed description at one place
   íK question 4 here is more related to Web questionnaire
   íK probably should look at the long list on security

   Kaz: McCool, could you please respond to this issue 84?

   McCool: (adds comments)
   íK adding a cross-reference

   Lagally: think we need to extend the Use Case template with
   some more detailed security and privacy questions

   McCool: yeah
   íK just added a cross-referencing with wot-security issue 168

   [21]wot-security issue 168 - Add "Security and Privacy
   Considerations" to all use cases (or requirements)

     [21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-security/issues/168

   Lagally: (also updates the wot-usecases issue 84)
   íK McCool will discuss this in the Security TF and come back
   with a list of candidate questions

   McCool: ok
   íK 3 sub steps
   íK starting with brainstorming
   íK look at the CR questions we got

    Issue 70

   [22]Issue 70 - Fix reference section

     [22] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/70

   Lagally: PR 129 already available


    Issue 45

   [23]Issue 45 - Review EdgeX Architecture

     [23] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/45

   Lagally: what would be the use case description for this

   McCool: maybe we need some more generic use case description
   íK also a hub-based architecture proposal for the Architecture
   íK we could think about adding a section for hub-based

   Kaz: from our viewpoint, hub-based structure is one the
   possible connection patters, and we already have a section
   about that which could include hub-based structure as well
   íK also we should have some concrete use case scenario for EdgeX
   architecture if we want to have a use description for it within
   the Use Cases document.


   Lagally: will update the shortname to "wot-usecases"

   Kaz: as I mentioned, we've got transition approval, so let'
   move forward :)


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [24]scribe.perl version 131 (Sat Apr 24 15:23:43 2021 UTC).

     [24] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html

Received on Monday, 12 July 2021 04:35:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 12 July 2021 04:35:31 UTC