<inserted> scribenick: kaz
Sebastian: makes report from TF-TD breakout
Johannes: makes report from TF-AP
breakout
... architecture model
... technology landscape
... lifecycle states
... abstract resource model
... complete and transfer Tech Landscape
kaz: we did great discussion and
got a basic consensus yesterday (and probably today as
well)
... but given not all the IG participants could attend this
meeting, we'll bring all the results to the telco, etc., and
let the other participants as well know about the result.
Right?
johannes: right
joerg: makes report from the
TF-DI
... sketch of landscape
... relationship with TD
... discussion on requirements
... discovery should be independent of the communication
technologies
... communication technology should be visible in the
metadata
... things should be capable to automatically register
themselves
... interaction patterns of discovery categories
... evaluation criteria for discovery tech landscape
... next steps: complete evaluation criteria, conduct
evaluation of discovery tech
oliver: makes report from TF-S&P
johannes: will have discussions on interaction, security model, etc., during the upcoming calls
joerg: what's the best to discuss
security&privacy?
... atomic use cases on security and privacy
... mapping and deep understanding
... how the different TFs started their contributions are
different with each other
... wondering about the best way
... initial contributions are made on the wiki
dsr: don't have strong opinion at
the moment
... GitHub is accessible as well
... issue tracking through pull request is available
johannes: just took a
template
... looked into the wiki to see tech landscape
... got pull request from Jonathan
... GitHub is a possibility
... as a resource control system
... can continue to use wiki
... and make a decision when to transfer the content
... it's just copy&paste
joerg: working draft of
deliveralbles
... format:
... continue the wiki until structure is confirmed
... for finalization benefit for tracking in GitHub
... structure of the documet has been proposed
johannes: have some
contribution
... valuable to keep them
sebastian: overview landscape on
the wiki
... can put it on GitHub
joerg: initial contributors provide support to the document structure
sebastian: yeah
johannes: three TF moderators should work with each other
joerg: review of TF of the
document structure
... evaluations supported by contributors
... next step: ask for support in evaluation by
controbutors
... sync in cases, where technologies are studied in several
TFs
<dsr> scribenick: dsr
Jerry introduces himself. Delta Electronics was formed in 1971. We have a broad business areas focusing on power electronics, etc.
We have sites all over the world. I come from Delta Research Center.
We are like an incubator for new ideas.
<JonathanJ2> Delta - http://www.deltaww.com/default.aspx?hl=en-US
IDC says the IoT market will reach $7.1 trillion by 2020. We all want a place in this market, but it isn’t easy.
There are many niche solutions from a long tail, and a fragmented market
Low popularity and difficulties in crossing domains.
We need to adapt dynamically to the client’s requirements. They may not know what they want, but do know what they don’t want
A common platform would increase economies of scale and reduce the costs.. We need a loosely coupled architecture.
We want to build commonalities on the IoT ecosystem.
Our current focus is on smart manufacturing, smart life and smart service
We plan to combine existing Delta business and needs to create IoT solutions.
We are working in an IoT common programming model. This currently uses Java but we want to also support JavaScript. This supports event driven, parameter driven, dynamic binding and rule based approaches.
We use an ontology editor that is web based and supports multiple views
We have a common component library and a universal kit (multisensory, flexible customisation and edge computing)
Thanks for listening.
Questions?
Joerg: you showed this long tail perspective, however, you also have first movers. Would you be interested in helping us to examine your use cases and the atomic use cases they involve?
Jerry: yes I will look into that
Note that Ravi asked us not to minute this session.
See: http://openinterconnect.org
“The Open Interconnect Consortium is focused on delivering a specification, an open source implementation, and a certification program for wirelessly connecting devices.”
IoTivity is an open source software framework enabling seamless device-to-device connectivity to address the emerging needs of the Internet of Things, see https://www.iotivity.org
<kaz> scribenick: kaz
dsr: we're an IG
... we're developing use cases and requirements
... would talk about possible WG
[ From the Web of Pages to the Web of Things ]
[ Web of Things ]
dsr: clarifying the idea of proxy
[ The Web as the Global Data Bus ]
[ Horizontal & Vertical Metadata ]
[ Focus of W3C Contribution ]
[ Role of WoT Interest Group ]
dsr: collecting use cases
... studying requirements
... reachout other groups and share vision
<scribe> ... ongoing role to support work
[ Web of Things Working Group ]
dsr: proposed scope and work
items
... define a core vocabulary for describing thing data
models
... define a serialization to JSON-LD
... define bindings to common Internet protocols in
collaboration with external groups
... define a vocabulary for servers...
[ Some Considerations ]
dsr: need to check WG's decisions
are appropriate for a range of stakeholders
... also horizontal reviews
[ Data Models - Objectives ]
dsr: standard vocabulary for thig
data models will enable servers to construct virtual
objects
... enabling developers to interact
[ Data Models - Details ]
dsr: what kind of data
type?
... building atomic use cases
... complex types including lists and maps from names to
values
... analogous to "typedef" of C language
[ JSON-LD ]
dsr: RDF, JSON-based serialization of RDF, need for JSON-LD
[ JSON-LD and Data Types ]
dsr: RDF re-uses many of the XML
Schema built-in datatypes
... JSON-LD context would allow "boolean"
... application/tdl MIME type
... additional terms: events, properties and actions
... stream data type
... "writable"
[ Bindings to Protocols ]
dsr: standard for how to signal
events, property updates, action invocations, action results,
metadata updates, etc.
... need to define this for common protocols: HTTP, Web
Sockets, CoAP, MQTT, etc.
[ Compact Encoding ]
dsr: limited memory/packet
sizes
... very high throughput
... data model of a thing
... compact encoding of JSON/JSONLD
johannes: why would this require us to form a new WG?
dsr: not sufficient this group to
do standardization
... possible to joint work of the proposed WG and this IG
johannes: some thing special on
WoT?
... there are already WGs on this work
... what is the real difference?
dsr: IG can't do
standardization
... need to talk with WGs
... what is the expected relationship with other groups can be
clarified in the Charter
johannes: horizontal technology like JSON-LD
dsr: a WG is needed for actual standardization
johannes: any specific WGs who are already working on our topics?
dsr: WoT datamodel could be a topic for the new WG
[ Out of Scope ]
dsr: vocabularies for specific
application domains
... work related to security, assurance, prvacy and
resilience
... could be added to future versions of the WG Charter,
though
ravi: won't do fundamental work on security, but some security-related discussion possible?
dsr: narrow enough description is expected for the new WG's Charter
[ Opportunities ]
dsr: where there is a clear need based on agreed use cases, the WG could standardize vocabularies
[ What Next? ]
dsr: W3C staff contacts to
prepare draft charter
... use GitHub for review and update it based on feedback
... identify candidates for the role of the Chair
... seek approval from the W3M
... AC review comments
... lanch the new WG
... first f2f
sebastian: WG vs IG?
dsr: IG does pre-standardization work
sebastian: not clear to me...
dsr: WG could do vocabularies, etc.
sebastian: doesn't make sense to simply stop the IG?
dsr: WG need to have a narrow
scope
... IG can have broader scope
johannes: regarding the narrow
scope...
... you mentioned some points in your presentation
... but didn't quite understand it
dsr: (proposed scope and work
items)
... core vocabulary
johannes: negotiation for
protocol mapping?
... make sense to have a bit more tight scope
dsr: two set of vocabularies
joerg: might want to identify our
need
... IG started 3-4 months ago
... we're still on a transition state
... wonder if this is a trigger
... one of the points is that this IG is expected to identify
requirements
... should we try to trigger new work for the WG?
... not sure if we already shared our understanding
... collecting tech landscape
... how to process compiling our deliverables?
... comments?
jonathan: how many deriverables?
dsr: 4 (plus optional one)
... after lunch we'll have discussion on implementation
Simon: would agree with Johannes that we (IG) could work with other WG
@@2: interested to see the relationship with OIC
scribe: duplication with their work?
ravi: see some complementary
aspects
... semantic information independent of tech domains
... internet protocols
... resource modeling aspect
... potential conflict
dsr: possible collaboration with this group
ravi: just for answer to the previous question
Arnaud: WG is chartered for
specification
... that is the biggest difference between WG and IG
dsr: W3C don't have to define
concrete mapping for websocket, etc.
... can work with IETF
johannes: need
clarification
... your opinion cover APIs?
dsr: bigger questions
... maybe standardized or maybe not
johhannes: protocol binding?
dsr: how to express it?
... there is a need for collaboration
joerg: based on the discussion so
far, what would be the realistic way for us?
... would take this as a trigger to start discussion
... on scope, relationship with this IG/other groups, etc.
[ Lunch ]
<yo> quit
<dsr> we resume after lunch.
<dsr> scribenick: dsr
Joerg summarises his expectations in regards to collecting input for the working group charter.
(see his slide)
In respect to teleconferences, we’ve been rotating task forces through time slots. Some people are asking for fixed timeslots saying that this will be more convenient in practice.
The proposal is to have APIs and Protocols on Wednesday and Thing descriptions and Security and Privacy on Thursday.
Any other proposals?
The idea is to have calls at 4pm CEST on Wednesday.
Kaz: I agree that it is better to have calls at fixed slots, but I personally couldn’t make the 4pm CEST call.
Joerg asks for a show hands for keeping the rotation (none) or fixed times (around 6 people)
Joerg: we need to find the fixed timeslot according to the people interested in a particular task force.
Kaz: 3pm CEST would be 10pm in Japan and 6am in California
Joerg: we may make the call up to 90 mins.
In respect to face to face meetings, we have TPAC in Japan in October this year.
<inserted> TPAC 2015 in Sapporo: 26-30 October
He proposes Europe in January, and wonders if we could co-locate with the W3C AC meeting at MIT in March.
Dave: I can check to see if that is logistically feasible
Joerg: this would be followed by a meeting in July in Asia.
Joerg asks for people to check if they companies could host the January and July meetings.
Joerg: I would now like to discuss opportunities for joint meetings e.g. with the IETF
He asks for a show of hands in respect to the Yokohama IETF (1-6 Nov. 2015) the week following TPAC.
About 6 people put their hands up.
Question: would the joint meeting take place between TPAC (26-30 Oct. 2015) and IETF meeting (1-6 Nov. 2015) or during the IETF meeting?
Joerg: we propose the Saturday (31 Oct. 2015) and Sunday (1 Nov. 2015) in between.
Osamu offers to help with meeting rooms in Tokyo.
The focus would be on joint discussions with WoT TF AP / T2T Beyond REST, as well as privacy and security.
Joerg asks for volunteers to help with preparing slides for addressing the IoT vertical perspective.
Dave: the W3C staff contacts and Business Development staff could help.
Joerg: at TPAC we can have a demo session and should start to plan for that.
Joerg: can we aim to support demo sessions and a plugfest at TPAC?
Can we agree on some guidance on this and possible links to the IETF Thing to Thing activities.
<kaz> Announcement on demo area during TPAC 2015 (Member-only)
Joerg: at the IETF T2T session, the approach involved agreement on a restricted scenario, and to explore how REST can be applied.
Johannes: We have the idea that three people will create implementations of entities that can communicate with each other and then see how well they interoperate.
This involves setting out some minimal set of ground rules.
Johannes: who is interested in participating in such a plugfest?
Vlad: we have had some experience with this at EVRYTHNG
Simon: we’re doing an implementation with Andrea of T2T.
Johannes: Michael is also working on an implementation.
So we have the potential for several implementations, and need to agree on the ground rules.
Simon: agreeing on a TDL data model vocabulary should be easy enough.
Johannes: we would need to agree on the protocol bindings.
Simon: T2T is focusing purely on REST, which is perhaps oversimplifying the set up
(Dave worries about details of protocol bindings and encodings)
Johanes: I will set up a page on GitHub for us to work on the ground rules for the plugfest.
Dave: we would need to avoid developing servers without any protocols in common.
Johannes: we could create a register (table) listing implementations and the protocols they support.
Joerg asks Dave for his comments.
Dave: this sounds quite ambitious given the Summer break and other commitments. Another idea is to ask people to try to build IoT demos with other people’s Web of Things servers.
Kaz: what does plugfest mean? Maybe Japanese members are also interested in providing IoT demos
Dave notes that he is aiming for having servers ready for other people to use in 2016. October in 2015 is probably too ambitious.
Joerg: if people are just building on REST perhaps they don’t need to do so much coding from scratch.
Dave offers to show people the details of the code he has been working on the Arduino C++ and the NodeJS projects.
Johannes: the aim is to show case the building blocks we are working on.
He shows a slide describing the T2T framework scenario.
Kaz: very interesting idea. How about using some Japanese smart home devices for demo purposes.
kajimoto: Can we also have demos for the WoT principles?
Johannes: if we have some interesting use cases we could indeed feature them
Kaz: some of the Member companies
might want to provide their own demos.
... The W3C TPAC management team are currently seeking ideas
for the demo activities.
Joerg: how would we collect the proposals, using GitHub?
Kajimoto: we don’t have a concrete WoT specification as yet, so we can set up two kinds of demonstrations (plugtest and IoT demos)
Kaz: maybe Fujitsu, Toshiba, etc., also will have their own demo ideas, and anybody can put their ideas on the GitHub demo wiki
Dave: I am planning on some demos around the Arduino and some common sensors: DHT111, BMP180, HC-SR04 and the AD8232 ECG board.
Joerg: given the Summer vacation period, we need to have the plugfest ground rules in place within a week or two. Let’s say 8th August.
Kaz: so the demo proposals are needed by 15th September according to the W3C TPAC team.
<Kajimoto> <kaz>Demonstration of Application dead line is Sep. 15
Joerg: if there are no further agenda items, then I would very much thank Fujitsu for hosting is, it was really a pleasure and a nice environment.,
Joerg brings the meeting to a close.
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/TF-S&P/TF-DI/ Succeeded: s/TF/TFs/ Succeeded: s/[F/[ F/ Succeeded: s/... need/dsr: need/ Succeeded: s/propsed/proposed/ Succeeded: s/5/4 (plus optional one)/ Succeeded: s/we take this as a trigger to start new work?/would take this as a trigger to start discussion/ Succeeded: s/scope/on scope/ Succeeded: s/@@@:/Simon:/ Succeeded: s/@@@2:/Arnaud:/g Succeeded: s/Thing descriptions/Thing descriptions and Security and Privacy/ Succeeded: i/He proposes Europe/TPAC 2015 in Sapporo: 26-30 October Succeeded: s/Yokohama IETF/Yokohama IETF (1-6 Nov. 2015)/ Succeeded: s/TPAC/TPAC (26-30 Oct. 2015)/ Succeeded: s/Saturday/Saturday (31 Oct. 2015)/ Succeeded: s/Sunday/Sunday (1 Nov. 2015)/ Succeeded: s/rooms/rooms in Tokyo/ Succeeded: s/A{/AP/ Succeeded: i/Sebastian: makes/scribenick: kaz Succeeded: s/and IETF meeting/and IETF meeting (1-6 Nov. 2015)/ Succeeded: s/XX:/kajimoto:/ Succeeded: s/Toshiba/Fujitsu, Toshiba, etc., also/ Succeeded: s/ideas/ideas, and anybody can put their ideas on the GitHub demo wiki/ Found ScribeNick: kaz Found ScribeNick: dsr Found ScribeNick: kaz Found ScribeNick: dsr Inferring Scribes: kaz, dsr Scribes: kaz, dsr ScribeNicks: kaz, dsr WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Arnaud Arnaud1 Dave Jerry Johanes JonathanJ2 Karen Sebastian See Simon Vlad aizu dsr inserted joerg johannes johhannes jonathan kajimoto kaz oliver ravi ryuichi salam scribenick taki thor yo yuki zzz You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/07/31-wot-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]