WoT IG f2f meeting in Beijing - Day 2 -- 14 Jul 2016

<scribe> scribenick: kaz

-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_July_2016,_China,_Beijing#Thursday.2C_14th_of_July.2C_WoT_IG_Meeting agenda

Review of today's agenda

joerg: discussion on WG deliverables. we have a draft Charter document
... next breakouts: Scripting API and Home App Vocabulary

Home App Vocabulary

dsr: shows his slides
... (Web of Things - Web Scale Interoperability)
... semantic based interoperability
... (Scott Jenson's comments on 16 June 2016)
... work on smart homes
... (Francois' list)
... (Summary)

kajimoto: it's out of scope of this group, isn't it?
... there are so many industry areas
... and why do you pick up only home appliances?

dsr: we need practical example
... and home appliance is a good area
... a lot of interest in this area

kajimoto: there are many proposals already
... we have already done some survey
... as a case study, it's ok
... however, our WG scope is a horizontal framework

dsr: that is an open question

kajimoto: if it's just a case study or an example, it's ok
... but if some standard vocabulary is provided by the WoT WG, that would be out of scope

dsr: the IG's work include semantic work
... it's up to the Members

joerg: comment from my side
... I believe the WG charter draft has a clear statement
... we're not going for domain specific work
... we won't invent yet another domain specific framework
... may be some study case
... that should be clear

dsr: I was talking about this as an IG item

joerg: interesting in this
... we had discussions within the IG
... we won't go for domain specific things
... we're not experts on smart grid, automotive or smart house

(some more discussion)

-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016Jun/0067.html Scott's message

kaz: sounds like we're mixing topics for the IG and the BG

dsr: let's have the detailed discussion during the breakout session

joerg: will come back to the agenda review
... Matthias will talk about the WG Charter

WG Charter and Deliverables

matthias: explains the WG roadmap

-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Roadmap WG roadmap

matthias: AC reps think about the Charter review
... after Baijing end of July, planning to get group resolution for the WG Charter draft
... encourage you all to outreach for p2p review by Members

joerg: important to get feedback from outside of the IG as well
... would like to ask you to take some action to outreach AC reps
... if you see the AC review result of the IG Charter, you can see we got comments from the AC

matthias: we'll fix the draft WG Charter to get group resolution on July 27
... and get W3C Management approval for the AC review
... we'll start the AC review on Aug. 24 until Sep. 21
... this is a tight schedule
... if we get many comments from the AC, the WG launch might be delayed
... so if you have contacts from other Members, please contact them

dsr: it's kind of vacation season, so we should do that quickly

matthias: any questions?

(no questions)

matthias: so we should dive into the issues on GitHub
... got a response from Ericsson
... coordination with the HW security group
... charter draft of the HaSec WG

-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2016AprJun/0005.html

kaz: WG proposal had objections
... and the resolution was creating a CG instead

-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues WoT IG issues

matthias: next object security

-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/210 object security issue

matthias: a pull request from Ari as well
... we have consensus to add this
... next coordination issue

-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/207 coordination issue

matthias: IG has a long list of organizations
... the coordination for the WG is checking the specs
... initial proposed list here

kaz: we can start with this list and add some more later if needed

dsr: how about Web Crypt WG?

matthias: could you respond to the issue 207 and mention the resource?

dsr: sure

<dsr> The web crypto WG is at http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/

matthias: next intro/concept illustration issue

-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/206 intro/concept issue

matthias: editorial changes
... next still lots of issues on the obsolete repo
... raised by Sebastian and Michael but all of them have been transfered to the new repo

kaz: will close all of them

matthias: last one
... issue on interoperability

-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/174 consistency issue

matthias: still waiting for response from Jonathan, but we should be able to close this

(no objections)

matthias: so let's close this
... closes issue 174
... the other thing is wording

-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/104 wording issue

matthias: time series instead of streams

dsr: use cases are business driver

matthias: high impact to implementations
... want to be safe

dsr: streaming is already on the Current Practice document

matthias: we can easily include existing scheme

dsr: quite common to use streaming for small devices
... depends on what kind of device you're using
... streaming is quite popular for IoT

joerg: we had discussion during the breakout yesterday
... we'll restart our Use Case work
... good to have explicit links on your proposal

matthias: on the other hand, we're talking about the WG Charter

dsr: the IG should do more than Use Cases

joerg: we had discussion during the breakout yesterday
... and the discussion was kind of controversial
... we need experts' references
... to better understand the use cases
... we need to make progress
... may need links to reference implementations
... provides very precise expression on his idea

matthias: we need to be very careful about the working for the WG Charter

dsr: several companies require streaming
... we should generate some concrete wording so that people outside this IG can understand it
... we have to clarify our intention

nimura: terminology on streaming and pub/sub is confusing

matthias: shows the draft WG Charter document
... we want editors and contributors

-> http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-wg-2016.html draft WG Charter

matthias: deliverables section

-> http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-wg-2016.html#deliverables deliverables

matthias: would like Kajimoto-san to take care of Architecture

kajimoto: ok

matthias: and TD by Sebastian

sebastian: ok

matthias: if you are also interested, raise your hand
... Scripting APIs by Johannes

johannes: ok

joerg: also we should identify who is active on which topic
... thought Fujitsu was interested in scripting api

matthias: the last item is Protocol Binding
... I myself
... also Michael should be interested
... something we need to work on is Test Cases
... for test suites

(no objections or questions)

matthias: ok we'll move forward to the next agenda item

nimura: interested to join the Scripting API work

-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_July_2016,_China,_Beijing#Thursday.2C_14th_of_July.2C_WoT_IG_Meeting agenda

joerg: we've done the first agenda item
... we'll switch the topics and talk about the Home appliance Vocabulary topic first

Home Appliance Vocabulary

dsr: shows his slides again
... (Web of Things - Web Scale Interoperability)
... interoperability based upon metadata
... need to start work on semantic vocabulary
... home appliance is a good starting point
... (Scott Jenson's comments on 16 June 2016)
... (Who is working on Smart Homes)
... list of SDOs
... home gateway initiative, allseen, cenelec, ...

yongjing: please include oneM2M
... home appliance model
... quite similar to the Thing Description
... the concept is same

dsr: more extensive survey is needed

kajimoto: ECHONET has clarified vocabulary for smart home appliance
... also for the automotive area, Google and Apple promote their work
... the leader is Toyota in the auto world
... they also define some semantic information for automotive
... this is an area of industries
... the other is IIC

dsr: (Home Gateway Initiative)

joerg: we have several people on the queue

sebastian: generic approach on industry domains within EU project, OpenIoT

dsr: this is an initial list

kaz: Dave, are your suggesting we should try some more extensive survey about this for the Tech Landscape doc?

dsr: let's talk about that after the presentation

joerg: there are so many organizations working on semantic vocabulary
... we're interested in interconnection rather than each industry area
... afraid open survey is impossible
... also if we look at the original Scott's email, his original intention was different
... contributions on interexchange is our target
... wondering what would be the reasonable approach
... what would be your recommendation?

dsr: we don't have to create concrete vocabulary
... and we should investigate some specific area as an example

(some more discussion on the objective of the proposal)

joerg: need clarification on our target, interexchange or specific industry area

kajimoto: my understanding for Scott's message is quite similar to the one of Joerg
... there was not any strong intention for the WoT IG to handle specific industry vocabulary

dsr: right

kajimoto: we should not jump in a specific industry domain
... home appliance manufacturers themselves should work on the issue
... meaning the necessary semantic vocabulary for their own specific industry area
... Thing Description is a good candidate as the mechanism to describe that

dsr: agree
... but we need to demonstrate how to use the semantic model using Thing Description
... continues his presentation
... (Gateway)
... (Google Smart Home)
... bluetooth, wifi, ...
... (Apple Homekit)
... (Samsung SmartThings)
... (Francis Daoust's List)
... (Smart Home Appliances)
... very few people will want to be locked to a single platform provider
... (Francois says...)
... (Common Device Categories)
... (Common Characteristics)

<Yongjing> http://www.onem2m.org/component/rsfiles/download-file/files?path=Release_2_Draft_TS%255CTS-0023-Home_Appliances_Information_Model_and_Mapping-V0_10_2.doc&Itemid=238

dsr: brightness, ...
... (Summary)

<Yongjing> this is the latest oneM2M Home Appliances Information Model

dsr: semantic models of devices and characteristics
... further work is needed to study the details
... how to work with other industry alliances/SDOs
... PlugFest demos for services that work with devices

<Yongjing> oneM2M also did some survey on existing home appliance models: http://www.onem2m.org/component/rsfiles/download-file/files?path=Draft_TR%255CTR-0017-Home_Domain_Abstract_Information_Model-V1_0_1.doc&Itemid=238

dsr: should the WoT WG Charter scope enable standardization of such models?

matthias: several comments
... really confused
... Scott didn't raise this proposal itself

<Yongjing> how to get in the queue?

matthias: we have to be careful
... we should not build any industry specific vocabulary ourselves
... should rather use linked data mechanism for existing ontologies
... this is already available for smart home
... we're working on horizontal framework to interconnect with existing industry ontologies

(some discussion between Matthias and Dave on interexchange framework vs vocabulary)

matthias: this kind of work should be done by a BG or a CG
... and this work should not stop our technical work

yongjing: has just put links for oneM2M resources
... regarding the semantic interoperability, we could think about the mapping mechanism with existing ontologies
... Sara is RDF and could be easily integrated

dsr: proposed whitepaper is still in early stage

yongjing: oneM2M has survey document on existing SDOs as well

<Zakim> jhund, you wanted to emphasize the work on tooling and process rather than content

jhund: wanted to emphasize the work on tooling and process rather than content

dsr: we have the data model, i.e., Thing Description
... also have an idea of domain templates

jhund: what is your concrete use case?

dsr: demonstrate cross-domain interoperability
... for service composition

joerg: what would be the next step?

kajimoto: totally agree with the motivation and the goal
... however, each specific industry stakeholder, e.g., Panasonic, has already studied vocabulary for this purpose
... and this work should be done outside of the WoT IG
... we WoT is not an authority to handle the expected vocabulary
... why don't you create another group to handle this?
... the "Standard" we as the WoT IG should do is different from defining vocabulary

dsr: agree

kajimoto: each specific domain stakeholders themselves should create vocabulary for their own industry

dsr: this is demonstrating the expected semantic interoperability
... not defining the vocabulary itself

joerg: wondering what the best way to proceed...
... what can be the possibility?
... maybe you can look into the work of oneM2M
... we can look at the survey result during one of our teleconfs
... and Scott joined our meeting in Sunneyvale, we should try to talk with him again
... and see their intention
... why don't we invite him to our teleconfs?

(ok)

<scribe> ACTION: joerg to invite Scott Jenson to the WoT IG call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/14-wot-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-69 - Invite scott jenson to the wot ig call [on Joerg Heuer - due 2016-07-21].

sebastian: we should rely on existing ontologies
... nice to get more experience

<Yongjing> oneM2M base ontology: http://www.onem2m.org/component/rsfiles/download-file/files?path=Release_2_Draft_TS%255CTS-0012-oneM2M-Base-Ontology-V0_10_0.doc&Itemid=238

joerg: can we make the two points as the conclusion?

<DarkoAnicic> ?+

<jhund> Action on Siemens to reach out to Scott Jensen and invite him to a webconf call

<trackbot> Created ACTION-70 - Siemens to reach out to scott jensen and invite him to a webconf call [on Osamu Nakamura - due 2016-07-21].

(no objections)

joerg: 1. Yongjing to provide on oneM2M, 2. Joerg to invite Scott Jensen to our IG Web conf and the IG exchange opinions with him

yongjing: have already provided resources on oneM2M work
... and happy to explain them
... on the other hand, would like to invite W3C experts to the oneM2M call or f2f

Scripting API

jhund: how to do local discovery?
... need read access to the Thing Description, i.e., ConsumedThing.getTD();
... event handling and decorators
... extended sepc with optional parts/hints for runtime implementers
... optional arguments / default values (and overriding them)
... syntactic sugar: operator overloading, getter/setters
... synchronous wrappers
... directly access the results
... any questions? unclear points?

sebastian: query parameters

nimura: relationship between "exposedThing" and WoT API

kaz: support for behavior definition by event-driven state machines

jhund: Results

<Max> Dapeng Liu, my nick name is Max

jhund: local discovery
... need to discover all the voters for PlugFest
... can be misleading and complicated
... visits thingweb/plugfest-scripts
... shows the discover api
... "WoT.getLocalThing();"
... any objections?

dsr: better to have one API
... probably questionous to have asynchronous api

sebastian: not sure about local vs global
... good to have that as parameter
... WoT.discover('local', {'name' : 'voter'})

jhund: good point
... we need to define additional behavior

nimura: the purpose is to mash up

jhund: discover expose thing?

nimura: maybe part of Thing-to-Thing interaction

jhund: WoT.getExposedThing(); returning ExposedThing

(ok)

jhund: "returning Promise resolving to" instead of "returning"
... next, Getting TD from Object
... opinions?

dsr: returning actual objects

max: comment on the agenda
... can share some ideas using 1-2 slides

joerg: have discussion with Max

dape: would agree to simply return the JSON object

jhund: Dave's proposal was not to own interface but runtime's parsed JSON object

dape: ok

nimura: fine

jhund: any objections?

(no objections)

jhund: consensus to return runtime's parsed JSON objects
... ExposedThing and ConsumedThing should offer getTD(); to retrieve a parsed JSON object of the TD
... regarding event handling
... not sure if we have enough experts here
... visits wot repo

<inserted> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/173

jhund: discussion with Tobie from Generic Sensor (by DAS WG)
... maybe would put this topic on the agenda of our call
... Event handling postponed to a Web call
... next, Optional arguments / default values
... add function parameter for RequestParams as given in TD to invokeAction, get/setProperty, possibly events
... next, Relationship between ExposedThing and WoT API

-> https://github.com/thingweb/plugfest-scripts/blob/master/beijing072016/counter.js counter.js

(some discussion between Johannes and Nimura-san)

jhund: we should define event for TD change

nimura: ok

jhund: next, Support behavior definition by event-driven state machines

kaz: Apache Web server has a module as an implementation of SCXML processor

jhund: can you outreach some of the SCXML experts?

kaz: will do

jhund: Kaz to outreach for experts about state chart XML

Reports from breakouts

joerg: yesterday we had breakouts on Type System and Subscription
... and we talked about them this morning

[ 15-min break till 12:15 ]

IoT Device Identity Management

max: (Use Cases - Why we need a trust ID?)
... device-based charging
... remote control
... keys provision
... (Flow Example)
... IoT device - IoT service platform - ID management platform
... 1. IoT device sends ID and request random seed of sid to the ID management platform
... 2. ID management platform send the seed back to the IoT device
... 3. IoT device generates AuthCode
... 4. IoT device signs the AuthCode with device's private key
... (The IoT ID Management Ecosystem Example)
... many different roles here
... 3rd party service works as the "ID and Data Management platform"
... Max explains the data flow of the ecosystem diagram
... security requirements are relatively high in some use cases

liu: in your flow example, what kind of key was used?
... how to provide the key?

max: how to protect our private keys?

liu: right

max: private key will not be transferred

liu: what is your method?
... using UACC?

max: cryptography itself is out of scope of this diagram

jhund: using semantic encryption?

max: the platform needs to know the public key

jhund: the ID will allow me to generate the key?

max: this ID is just an index for the key

jhund: regarding the ecosystem example

<yongjing> request q

max: hardware vendor is responsible to the communication between the vendor itself and the others

sebastian: each device trustable?
... the real problem is how you could trust the data and devices
... we're considering the application layer not the hardware layer

max: each layer should have different level of security

mingyu: this is related to service security?
... seems like the point is certification rather than ID

max: this is just one example

mingyu: how can you prevent copying IDs

max: ID management platform handles that
... if public key is stolen, private key is safe

mingyu: your point is verification of ID rather than ID itself

max: how to manage the ID itself is out of scope

(detailed discussion to be made offline)

joerg: intensive security/privacy discussion
... the mechanism you put here is similar to the work by IRTF's T2T group
... taking this proposal as input for our use case work is good

max: great
... will also join IRTF meeting myself

matthias: would suggest you talk with Oliver (the security TF moderator) as well

Report from the Type System breakout

taki: optimized JSON Schema
... possibly explore the possibility of mapping the optimized JSON Schema to JSON Schema
... what is the objective of Type System on the WoT layer?
... need to allow the use of existing type systems like RDF
... property needs to have both input/output definition

joerg: next steps?

taki: Dave and Sebastian start their investigation on the Optimized JSON Schema

Report from Subscription breakout

jhund: report on the GitHub

-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/meeting-results/beijing-f2f/wot-f2f-beijing-subscriptions.md Report from the Subscription breakout

jhund: self-containing vs delta
... severity of loss / ensured delivery
... equidistance in time vs spontanous occurence
... history/buffer vs only most recent value
... Micro Use Cases
... 5 type of clusters
... 5 different types of application patterns

dsr: reading several data topics at the same time
... we should use more time to collect use cases

jhund: ok

kaz: had similar discussion yesterday during the breakout
... our strategy is collecting this kind of micro use cases first
... and think about how to manage multiple data at once later

sebastian: what does "delta" mean?

jhund: one of the distinctive requirements
... "delta or not" means "whether a single sample make sense or not"

sebastian: ok

jhund: the whole idea of this practice was how to handle implicit subscription

joerg: we'll take this as the starting point
... and continue the work
... any further comments?

(no comments)

[ lunch until 14:00 ]

s/report on oneM2M/report on oneM2M and the whole IG will talk about semantic interoperability during the web conf/

IG organization

joerg: ToC
... report from the Comm TF
... IG Charter
... WG Charter
... Deliverables documents
... PlugFest prep
... Meeting logistics

-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/images/f/fd/W3C_WoT_Logistics_160413.pdf Joerg's slides

sebastian: regarding the deliverables, how to handle the outcome of the group meeting?

joerg: adds that point
... Yingying can you talk about the Comm TF?

Comm TF

yingying: 6 topics here
... IG blog
... Testimonials on the WoT landing page
... Call for Implementations
... todo: restructure the wiki
... Liaisons
... no one responded so far
... todo: speicific contact person per each liaison
... Events
... todo: identify the key eents
... need resources
... Flyers and Salessheet
... whitepaper generated

joerg: tx
... comments?

sebastian: collections of Implementations
... just listing implementations wouldn't make much sense
... we should have discussion on this

dsr: how to handle the results is important
... which one would fit with the Current Practices document, etc.

joerg: we could go through each entry of this list
... and see how to handle each entry
... into several categories

dsr: sounds like a reasonable idea
... possible key point is what kind of protocol they're using
... would like to build good relationship
... regarding the other Comm task, how to encourage people to blog the group's work, etc.

-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Implementations WoT implementations list

jhund: it might be quite confusing if they are working with us
... so should clarify who are working with us
... what kind of approach is used on their side
... outreaching to the people behind the implementations themselves would be helpful

dape: we do have a list of categorized participation in PlugFests
... we could refer to that

kaz: can you put the resource of that information?

joerg: we discussed outcome from PlugFests
... using an Excel sheet
... the first step could be putting the information together
... who participates in PlugFests

dsr: @@@

joerg: PlugFest online?

dsr: some people could join online

jhund: we can somehow arrange to contact people who implemented these implementations?
... joint activity is good
... some people may not join f2f and need to join online

dape: we could have opened the port to report participants
... but there was a difficulty
... during the next meeting, we should set up remote configuration and make sure it will be stable

joerg: for example, IRTF T2T guys could join remotely
... why not to try to find out a convenient day for them?
... maybe we could even try a completely online PlugFest

<DarkoAnicic> +q

joerg: 2 step approach
... do the excersise within the group and @@@

jhund: it would be hard to understand the mechanism/technical issues if completely online

darko: would agree with Johannes
... how to make sure the demo scenario is already difficult
... using a template (as Matthias suggested) would be useful

sebastian: maybe we should use not only one day but some more days for preparation

yingying: how could we reachout these guys?

darko: maybe we could start with Members

sebastian: we could see how other groups manage this kind of work

<yongjing> have to leave early. Nice meeting you all this week. bye :)

jhund: maybe I could take out an action to reachout an expert

joerg: shows the Status page again
... updatd the TODO list for "Call for Implementation"
... restructure te collections on wiki, outreach to the people to get engaged, conduct also PlugFests online

yingying: there are only limited people in the Comm TF

joerg: these actions are for the whole IG
... we as the IG will do the categorization of implementations
... Daniel, can you check the descriptions on the list?

dape: will do

joerg: and we'll discuss this based on that

<scribe> ACTION: dape to check directly with the implementers and see who have participated in the PlugFests so far [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/14-wot-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-71 - Check directly with the implementers and see who have participated in the plugfests so far [on Daniel Peintner - due 2016-07-21].

joerg: move forward
... IG Blog

dsr: would encourage more people to contribute to the Blog
... suggestion is
... would like to have blog posts by the PlugFest participants

joerg: even with pictures
... taki on template
... as we need the scenario template document anyway
... to contact the participants and compile the scenarios
... we have pitch slides and could have some more text (based on the template)
... and we could have some pictures
... those could be input for the possible blog post

dsr: Daniel is working on the Flyers
... would some sponsorship for printing

joerg: updates the Status slide
... IG Blog: Draft a blog entry reporting about the last PlugFest (including a picture) [PlugFest Participants]
... and about the Flyers?

dsr: yes

joerg: do we need to add anything here?

(some more discussion about flyers)

yingying: reports the cost for printing

joerg: todo: review in IG, check the cost and make them ready before TPAC
... there is a link on the Status slide
... any other concerns?

(none)

joerg: next, Liaisons
... need care takers for each liaison
... shows the wiki

-> @@@l

joerg: comments?
... discussion on ITU-T yesterday
... this is something the Comm TF bring to the main group, and the main group can review it
... we need to go through the list
... let's say in 3 weeks
... and ask for volunteers
... for the contacts from our side
... August 3
... 3 weeks to check with

(no more comments)

joerg: further comments?

dsr: maybe people here are not enthusiastic with outreach
... but there may be somebody from your company who work on outreach

joerg: next is IG Charter status

-> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/wot-ig-2016/results AC review results (member-only)

joerg: 31 positive votes so far

dsr: may be sent to W3M next week

joerg: complementary to upcoming WG Charter
... next steps
... looking for a co-Chair
... will reorganize work on the deliverables
... we have some outcome from the meeting discussion
... some probably prefer the Architecture and the Current Practice
... and some more in scenarios
... we had controversial discussion on subscription
... scenarios behind
... important to handle Use Cases/Requirements and Scenarios
... what would be the best way?

kaz: how about creating dedicated TFs for each deliverable document?

<sebastian> ack

sebastian: there are many existing solutions and we should see those practices

dsr: some regular slots could be assigned during the IG call

joerg: during the last several months, we've been working on the Charters
... having said that it's important to have technical discussion
... also we should ask others for contributions

liu: I'm not an expert of Web but maybe how to deal with IoT technology is an important question

jhund: we're discussing how to make the Web accessible to the devices
... for constrained devices, we may use EXI as the data format

liu: for the application layer some optimization is needed (?)

jhund: we're still keeping the design

liu: we should think about optimization (on each layer?)
... on the application, there are so many message handlers

joerg: cross-layer optimization is important
... and it's a trade-off
... simplicity of application vs cost
... we need to experiment how high the cost would be

dsr: in the architecture of WoT, a lot of communications are allowed
... CoAP, HTTP, etc.
... we should do what kind of protocols are used

joerg: how do we arrange our calls and actions?
... reserve certain time for technical discussion is good
... we need responsible persons for these deliverable documents
... next, WG Charter draft
... we discussed it this morning
... p2p feedback
... on track wrt the WG roadmap
... comments?

(none)

joerg: next, Logistics
... work setup
... fix time slots
... restart on 20 July
... agenda includes: open actions, technical discussion, housekeeping deliverables, focus of next call?

jhund: follow-up on subscription/events/streams -> UC&term

joerg: one other topic is sketching out the TPAC meeting
... share ideas how to setup (technically) the demo at TPAC
... then, time to discuss the next f2f
... IETF 96, RIOT Summit in Berlin
... and TPAC 2016 in Lisbon on Sep. 22-23
... expected demo session on 21?
... preparation on 20 afternoon?
... is a small room available for that purpose?

kaz: will check with the Meeting planner team

joerg: WoT IG f2f on Sep. 22-23
... joint meeting with IRTF on Sep. 24-25
... may be different place than the TPAC venue
... meeting after TPAC?

kajimoto: April would be a very good season for Japan :)
... Panasonic can host a meeting

joerg: have idea on a concrete date?

kajimoto: let me check

joerg: updates the slide
... January, idea in US?
... April, in Osaka, Japan

-> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/schedule.html TPAC schedule page

dsr: regarding US, possibly could get a company instead of MIT

joerg: all are encouraged to see the possibility of hosting the January meeting within the upcoming three weeks

kaz: the expected place for January is US?

joerg: yes
... the expected date is Jan. 23-27

dsr: if we have a WG at that time, how do we want to arrange the meeting?

joerg: maybe we might want to keep the current configuration
... WG guys might be going to join the IG meeting as well
... let's keep the initial proposal as 4 days

jenny: not a good idea to hold the meeting at that time due to the Chinese New Year holidays

<inserted> joerg: updates the slides and put "Jan. 30-Feb. 3" as the candidate for the January meeting

joerg: we should see if there are any other conflicts
... Kaz, please conduct a poll to see people's availability
... July, possibility in Europe/Germany
... before closing the meeting, would like to appreciate the host, CETC, again
... there were many activities during the meeting
... would appreciate the W3C Beihang Team
... also other W3C Team colleagues who took minutes
... have a nice time and travel back home

(and thanks to our friendly Chair :)

[ f2f adjourned ]

- DRAFT -

WoT IG f2f meeting in Beijing - Day 2

14 Jul 2016

Attendees

Contents

Review of today's agenda

Home App Vocabulary

WG Charter and Deliverables

Home Appliance Vocabulary

Scripting API

Reports from breakouts

IoT Device Identity Management

Report from the Type System breakout

Report from Subscription breakout

IG organization

Comm TF

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output