Web of Things Interest Group Teleconference

03 Mar 2015

See also: IRC log


Lam Tran, Daniel Peintner, Johannes Hund, Dave Raggett, Edoardo Pignotti, Milan Patel, Ari Keränen


<trackbot> Date: 03 March 2015

<scribe> scribenick: dsr

<scribe> scribe: Dave

Joerg: welcome to the call especially for the GMT+ folks

Let’s start with a short roll call today by voice, but next time only by IRC (see present+ examples)

Joerg: I am working for Siemens and one of the co-chairs for this IG

Johannes: I also work for Siemens in Munich

Dave: I am from the W3C staff and based in the UK.

Joerg: as this is the second group, and the first call for this slot, I would like to look back at how this group was formed.

We had a W3C workshop last year in Berlin, and got agreement on value for W3C to work on this area. Security, semantics, runtime issues discussed. Current practices, and other related organizations already working on the IoT.

<Ari> Ari Keränen (calling in)

A broad range of views on different aspects. We now need to find a common ground, and as you can see in the Interest Group charter, it was based upon the understanding from the workshop.

We want to discuss what can be done with existing technologies and to identify gaps where new standards are needed. I would like to welcome you to the IG. I would like to start today with a brief discussion on logistics, and then go into the section on interest group contributions and to look at the first two we’ve received. We will postpone the agenda item on domain reports until the next call.

Are there any suggestions for changes for today’s agenda?

[none heard]


Joerg: we are preparing the first face to face meetng in April. Siemens volunteered to host this meeting in Munich for the week starting Monday April 20 with at least 2 days for the face to face, preceded by an open day to attract further people to present their use cases, solutions and challenges.

Dave gives a brief account of the role of the open day.

Joerg: we discovered that the W3C automotive meeting is at the end of the week in Stutgart, so we chose to have the web of things meeting at the start of the week. Any feedback on the dates?

[none heard]

Joerg: as we start to have online presentations at teleconferences, we are considering switching from the W3C Zakim bridge to WebEx, probably starting next week. This will allow us to support screen sharing.

We should also organize a rota for scribing the calls. My thanks to Dave for scribing today. The idea is to give everyone the chance to scribe in turn.

Someone noted that this slot conflicts with a W3C Social group meeting. Would it be okay to start this call one hour earlier (5pm UTC)?

<Ari> OK for me

<smnmyr> OK for me

<Edoardo_Pignotti> +1 5pm UTC

<Souleiman_Hasan> Ok for me- Souleiman from Ireland

<scribe> ACTION: Dave to change slot to 5pm UTC and update the wiki to match [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/03/03-wot-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1 - Change slot to 5pm utc and update the wiki to match [on Dave Raggett - due 2015-03-10].

IG contributions

We want to have some discussion of application domains, use cases, and requirements.

So we’re looking for volunteers to present your perspectives on application domains!

Joerg: suggests short presentation perhaps 2 or 3 slides. What are your suggestions?

From Siemens, we could look into the smart grid domain.

Dave points to wiki page https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Use_cases_across_application_domains

Joerg: we had some discussions by email on use case documents, e.g. from ETSI/M2M, and Libelium’s top 50 sensor use cases. We also have contributions from ETRI and Siemens and are looking for your impressions on all of these.

Dave: perhaps we can stimulate discussion by actively reviewing the use cases on the call and following up in email.

<jhund> http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/102800_102899/102857/01.01.01_60/tr_102857v010101p.pdf

Dave notes that these documents are all linked from the above wiki page,

danicic: these use cases have different structures and we could discuss what structure best fit our needs.

<smnmyr> ETSI/M2M structure use cases like this: 1. Stakeholders; 2. Scenario; 3. Information Exchanges; 4. Potential new requirements

Danicic: I like the way the use cases are accompanied by an explanation of the requirements they imply.

We could perhaps use a similar approach.

Dave: we need to avoid biasing the study by too much focus on the technologies. I suggest we start with simple stories from the user perspective, then decide which of these to analyse, and then to identify what requirements emerge

Joerg: we need to find what aspects are in common across the use cases.

Dave: I agree. This is important for identifying a minimal set of standards that would be of broad applicability.

<smnmyr> All this (use case explanations + cross-cutting requirements) sounds very much like the document danicic mentioned: http://dret.github.io/W3C/WoTIG/WoT-UCR.html

<smnmyr> +1 for patterns!

Dave: would like to encourage people to submit use cases via email or on the wiki and then to pull these into a use cases document.
... want to see what challenges/issues each use case raises.

Joerg: and the set of stakeholders involved and their perspectives for each use case.
... as a second example for structure we could look at the oneM2M use cases collection.

<dape> http://www.onem2m.org/images/files/deliverables/oneM2M-TR-0001-UseCase-V0_0_5.doc

They have a formal approach with actors, preconditions, triggers, normal/atternative flows, postconditions and so forth.

Joerg notes that he has looked at the energy related use case, and found it quite effective.

jhund: it would be interesting to look at several of these and to look for recurring patterns. The gathering of use cases is quite comprehensive, but what’s missing is how to dissect them.

<jhund> s/YY/Johannes_Hund/

Joerg: it may be difficult for us to pick the structure right now, but perhaps we could pick some use cases and see if we can map them into the same structure as in the oneM2M document.

Looking for volunteers to help with this.


This includes links to use case documents, and a tentative structure of the application domains. Are there other such attempts to create a taxonomy of IoT application domains we can look at?

Dave: we could link to contributions in the email archive, on the wiki or on github where I’ve seet up a repository for this IG.

Joerg: we will eventually need to pull these into a common document with the analysis of recurring patterns.

Dave: the charter calls for the survey to be publised as a W3C technical report by Summer or soon after.

Joerg: I want to encourage you to look through the documents we’ve mentioned today and if you have others of interest please post a link on the email list.

We also want your thoughts on what we should be looking for in the use cases.

Any further points for today?

Joerg: please don’t hessitate to volunteer and send email to keep the discussion going.


Any further points for today?

If you have some insights from your business/research in relation to domain reports please let us know.

Dave will notify you with a confirmation on the details for upcoming calls with clarification particularly with America and Europe changing to Summer time on different dates.

Joerg: have a pleasant rest of the day and talk to you again in 2 weeks time.

[end of meeting]

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Dave to change slot to 5pm UTC and update the wiki to match [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/03/03-wot-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]