Web of Things Interest Group Teleconference

17 Mar 2015

See also: IRC log


DanhLePhuoc, Edoardo_Pignotti, Johannes_Hund, Dave_Raggett, Kirby_Shabaga, Ari_Keranen, Daniel_Peintner, Taki_Kamiya, Matthias_Kovatsch
Joerg Heuer
Dave Raggett


<trackbot> Date: 17 March 2015

<jhund> Hi there. is someone vounteering to scribe?

<scribe> scribenick: dsr

<scribe> scribe: Dave Raggett

We will set up a scribe list to ensure that the duty is passed around fairly.

Joerg: points to use case wiki page


We’re trying to refine the taxonomy as a basis for categorising use cases. There are a number of ways in which the taxonomy could be organised.

Do we miss certain categories, and how should we improve the taxonomy. The former is more important though.

Joerg asks for suggestions for missing categories

Missing categories include agricultural applicatons.

Dave: I know we’re missing categories for what the IERC study call’s smart industry.

see http://www.internet-of-things-research.eu/pdf/IERC_Cluster_Book_2014_Ch.3_SRIA_WEB.pdf

Dave: how about intensive brain storming at the face to face?

Joerg: I am hoping for people to volunteer …

What about the people at DFKI who have contacts for Industry 4.0?

Dave: I was expecting to hear from them yesterday and will ping them.

Joerg: any further comments right now?

[none heard]

Use case writing style

see https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Use_cases_across_application_domains#Use_case_writing_style

some key questions for each use case to address:

What is the user motivation for the use case

How does this translate to a technical Description

What application domains are related (e.g. referring to the taxonomy)

What interaction pattern with or btw things can be observed

Which Aspects are not considered

Joerg: the IERC report (see above link) has some nice ideas on use cases and their structure, any comments?

Dave: the IERC report has very brief descriptions and it would be valuable to take these and write them up as full use cases.

Johannes: we should clarify what is the benefit of contributing use cases, it looks like this isn’t clear to most people right now

Dave: asks Ari for his comments on the role of use cases for the web of things IG?

Ari: this is a very broad area so it is hard to determine whether a given use case is relevant.

… is there something that should be out of scope?

Johannes: I can’t think of specific areas where we can decide should be out of scope. However, it is more about the areas are connected, and we should have some examples, perhaps the more exotic that you would not usually think of

Kirby: I kind of agree with that. Orchestration of events across domains with one leading into another

<Ari_Keranen> Some "exotic" but existing use cases: http://iotlist.co/

Joerg: any suggestions for how to characterise these cross domain use cases?

Kirby: I don’t have any right now, but the idea is to show where some value is added.

danicic: there are many interest groups for the IoT with their own use cases, we need to see essentially what this web of things IG is specifically about and then to pick the appropriate use cases.

Ari: it makes sense to look at use cases from other groups.

Dave: we have links to the iotlist and others on the use cases page in the wiki, and now we need volunteers to go through them and expand them and say what the benefits are for the end user, the service provider and so forth.

Johannes: we are looking for patterns across use cases that will motivate the requirements for web standards

Dan: We should start with use cases in relation to architectures

… do we need to tie our selves into the web architecture or not?

Dave: there are many IoT communication technologies and these are not generally suited to web scale markets of services.

… this is where we need to study a broad range of use cases to identity what the requirements are for such web scale services.

Dan mentions CoAP and sensor networks etc. We can work in bridging those with the web

Joerg: we need a sufficient set of use cases across domains where we have or can find the expertise.

We need to enable services that can bridge domains.

An example is smart homes and energy management

Matthias: right now it feels too abstract

As we get use cases we can see different requirements that may be hard to realise with the same technology

Joerg: so far we have been thinking about common patterns, so you’re saying we should also look at the differences

Dave: interested in identifying varying requirements, e.g. discrete events vs continuuous ly changing values, and latency vs robustness.

Johannes: if we recognise particular requirements then we can look for use cases that illustrate them

Dave: that’s where use cases are valuable as it allows you to ground technical discussions in something tanglible that everyone can understand

Joerg: we should look for commonalities and for conflicting requirements. We also need to be clearer in the scope and how the web of things differs from those use cases from the IoT domain.
... we should perhaps start from the patterns and then provide the use cases

Logistics and first face to fac

see https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting:_20-22_April_2015_in_Munich

Joerg: we need a registration process

Dave: I can create a questionnaire and will talk with Joerg as to the questions it needs to cover

dietary requirements, accessibiity requirements, demos, break out session suggestions.

any others?

<jhund> we'd need firstname, surname and country of residence for legal purposes

Joerg: we are looking for agenda suggestions for the face to face. The wiki has some broad topics.

We are also interested in areas where you have specific expertise to share

<dsr_> We are also interested in areas where you have specific expertise to share

<dsr_> Joerg asks Ari for his suggestions, e.g. for experts we can invite on specific domains, or each participant in the IG could talk about his own area

<dsr_> Ari: it would be good to go through the existing reports and see what domains emerge from there

<dsr_> Joerg: I was asked recently whether we should consider real (existing) or made up use cases, however, to be forward looking you need to be imaginative

<dsr_> Ari: once the taxonomy stablises we can then ask for more input from our own organizations. Next week there is the IETF meeting and we may get some ideas from meeting people there.

<dsr_> Dan: I am sure that people here have some prototypes and ideas they could look at to come up with ideas for discussion in the Interest Group

Johannes: to avoid a misunderstanding, it would be really informative to have some presentations on applications, perhaps from research projects. We don’t need a lot of technical detail, but rather what problems were addressed.

Joerg: to spend next 2 weeks on looking at these patterns and seeing whether they are common or conflicting across domains. Please also suggest agenda topics for the fac to face. Let’s also try to look at the benefits possible in application domains, and volunteer to present on that.

We can then follow this up in the next call.

… end of call …

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015-03-17 18:04:04 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/XXX/Johannes/
Succeeded: s/YYY/danicic/
Succeeded: s/briding/bridging/
Found ScribeNick: dsr
Found Scribe: Dave Raggett
Present: DanhLePhuoc Edoardo_Pignotti Johannes_Hund Dave_Raggett Kirby_Shabaga Ari_Keranen Daniel_Peintner Taki_Kamiya Matthias_Kovatsch
Found Date: 17 Mar 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/03/17-wot-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]