18 May 2016

See also: IRC log


Kaz_Ashimura, Dave_Raggett, Achille_Zappa, Masato_Ohura, Matthias_Kovatsch, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Soumya_Kanti_Datta, Yun_Li, Daniel_Peintner, Michael_Koster, Claes_Nilsson, Darko_Anicic, Takuki_Kamiya, Tibor_Pardi, Yingying_Chen, Toru_Kawaguchi, Ali_Keraenen, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Shuting_@@@, Nan_Wang, Victor_Charpenay, Johannes_Hund, Chao_Ma, Jim_@@@, Katsuyoshi_Naka, Soumya, Kazuaki_Nimura, Tuan_Tran, Kazuo_Kajimoto


IG extension

kaz: until when?

dsr: till the Beijing meeting

kaz: the end of the meeting?
... or maybe we should simply aim the end of July

<mkovatsc> Sebastian asked if it is possible to extend without expiration date, but to use "when re-charter becomes active"

sebasitan: possible to extend till the new IG Charter is ready?

dsr: our Charter is already expired

kaz: so we need to provide the W3M a concrete date for our extension
... the IG charter we're working on is for the working period of, e.g., 1-2 years, to finalize the deliverable documents
... and after we launch the expected WG, we can recharter the IG with updated scope again

matthias: ok
... are there any topics to discuss quickly?

kaz: Dave is back with the W3M approval for the extension till the end of July

dsr: They've approved our extension till the end of July
... next step is review by one of the W3Mers

kaz: who is the reviewer?

dsr: need to find a candidate
... may be Philipp

kaz: and might be Judy as well from the accessibility viewpoint

IG Charter

-> http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-ig-2016.html draft IG Charter

dsr: compilation of various pull requests
... main changes are the sentence on the introduction section

-> https://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-alpha3.html alpha 3 version

kaz: difference between this alpha3 version and the github version?

dsr: need to check the diff
... added "Industry alliances and standards development organizations are looking to W3C to take the leadership in two critical areas: semantic interoperability and end to end security across different platforms." to the introduction
... scope section describes the relationship and the IG and the expected WG

The Interest Group will identify requirements for standardization by exploring use cases and requirements for a broad range of application domains, and through examining the requirements for integrating a broad range of IoT platforms into the Web of Things.

dsr: bullet points describe the aim of the plugfest:

* tests for conformity for recommendation track technology
* test-drive upcoming or proposed tech for the recommendation track
* outreach to other communities and new members (open day, demo track)

scribe: should have discussion now
... questions?

matthias: would agree with the current scope section
... bullet points and summary too
... outreach through requirements for other SDOs

ari: sent an email right before this call
... regarding semantic work
... we need to reuse existing mechanism generated by others

dsr: people would like to see what this group do
... and why they need to join this group

matthias: I'm fine
... and agree it's kind of too much
... it's not that W3C would rule overall things

dsr: ok

ari: that would be much better

<dsr> I will change the wording to “ looking to collaborate with W3C in two”

ari: and another point of mine is including semantic web groups
... would have discussion offline

dsr: ok
... what about the "Scope Summary"?

matthias: this is editorial

toru: my colleague raised an issue
... would like to know...
... there are two things about testing
... plugfest and interoperability
... what is the difference?

-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/163 issue-163

dsr: the role of plugfest includes interoperability test

toru: deference between the roles by the WG and the IG?

matthias: different aspect of the plugfest
... conformity of implementation
... demo-like approach

toru: interoperability test by WG is for fixing the rec draft?

dsr: in the W3C process, we need implementation reports for exiting CR
... check implementation

kaz: in that case, it would be better to say "Testing for CR exit", etc., for the WG side in this figure

<dsr> we will change tests for conformity for recommendation track technology to testing for CR exit or words to that effect

kaz: would be less misleading

jhund: three points
... would make a good future candidate using plugfest
... testing for comformity is misleading
... from the WG perspective, plugfest would help interoperability in public manners
... "conformity" is misleading

dsr: test suite by the WG will be used for CR-PR transition
... maybe could replace the bullet by two ones
... e.g., one on CR and the other on interoperabiity across different implementations

jhund: maybe you could put it into one bullet

jhund: the difference is maturity
... the purposes are different

dsr: test suites are very comprehensive and different from what we're doing
... will update the bullet points and people can review it

matthias: the first bullet point including "conformity" is misleading
... the first point is new staff coming up to the IG
... the second point is similar to what we've been doing

dape: plugfest is for the second point
... everyone should understand the difference between the first point and the second
... also the capitalization: PlugFest

kaz: we should be clear between the difference

dsr: will update the first point so that people can review it
... let's move ahead
... "Deliverables"
... discussion with Matthias and Johannes
... Use Cases and Requirements
... Architecture

matthias: the first two deliverables are included in the previous charter
... quite easy to fix the pub date
... also positive for the IG to produce them
... and can concentrate new work architecture and current practice
... need editors' contributions
... who want to have the other two: end-to-end security acrros IoT platforms, semantic models and APIs
... additional deliverables may be added

dsr: talking to other SDOs is one of our key values

matthias: semantic models and apis
... this is a useful document
... why do we need another one here?

<Soumya> I will support the new two deliverables

dsr: important role of semantics

soumya: would support both the two new deliverables
... there is a notion of semantic web
... what we're doing is linking to semantics, so need to define some specific semantic model

jhund: we had discussion yesterday
... how to see thin description, etc.
... the question is we have separate deliveralbles
... would be brought to a recommendation

dsr: work on ontology by other groups
... what is the main constraint?
... we haven't done
... and we should take the lead for that

matthias: my question is who would take the lead for these two work?

soumya: me

dsr: and me

michael: interested in domain model using RDF, etc.
... W3C should focus on document formats
... how the TD would be used for annotation

dsr: standardizing cross-domain metadata
... how to be used collaboratively with other SDOs

kaz: wondering the difference between this semantic model and TD

dsr: sensor should define data based on ontology
... select services, apply constraints
... which ontology uses which semantics

sebastian: basic idea of the capability

<jhund:> if TD is the HTML of the Web of Things, then we would not want to standardize the content of web pages

dsr: we need a common understanding

matthias: would repeat who representing which company would work for it?

michael: we need to see Thing Description as the deliverable
... that's the role of this group
... to work properly
... common language layer
... not sure how much survey is needed, though
... annotating things

dsr: role of the model
... collaboration with the other SDOs

<dsr> It is not just about thing descriptions

matthias: why do we need this work item which don't have enough people support
... we're interested in working on Thing Description

dsr: report is a deliverable and part of the culture of plugfest

<kajimoto> My audio has trouble now... (kajimoto)

dsr: there are various approaches on semantic information for IoT
... very important to show scalability
... if we don't do this, WoT won't be successful
... likewise security we would get new members for this as well

jhund: @@@couldn't hear well

matthias: how about include this into the current practices?

soumya: let me rephrase what Dave is saying
... what we need here is generic framework/concept applicable to various frameworks

sebastian: we have technology landscape, current practice documents
... I think this would make people confused

dsr: don't think so

jhund: why we couldn't do this within the tech landscape work?

dsr: generic framework across the platforms
... how ontologies could be used

nimura: @@@couldn't hear and asked him to type-in

<k_nimura> i dont think it is feasible because both are expecting some other oraganizations involvement.

dsr: as an IG, we need to coordinate with other SDOs
... so it's something we do

<dsr> we invite talks from outside of the IG

<k_nimura> without understanding every specs we cannot do plugfest

<dsr> we give talks to other groups

<dsr> we invite orgs to participate in plugfgests

<dsr> we collaborate on joint reports

<k_nimura> nobody commited it yet.

kaz: Dave, maybe you also can agree we need some kind of basic survey for this purpose

dsr: yes, that's the study

matthias: we just have 15 more mins
... currently more opposes to be included in the IG Charter

dsr: from the viewpoint of W3C BusDev Team, we should keep it
... it's an IG
... we need this stuff
... we need to encourage more people to join the IG

<kajimoto> How do you think that IG charter dividing to IG1 for creating WG, IG2 for continuous input from other organizations ?

sebasitan: would propose to remove this proposal from the deliverables section
... and have some description in the scope section

dsr: would harm to get new people...
... this is important to recuruit people
... please look at the previous charter

-> https://www.w3.org/2014/12/wot-ig-charter.html#deliverables previous Charter

tibor: want to agree with Dave
... important for a startup company as well

<kajimoto> Creating WG, technology landscape has power, IG1 charter includes important 4 deliverables that is use case, architecture, plugfest practice and technology landscape.

tibor: sent an email to the list about "decentralized..."

<kajimoto> On the other hand, as IG2, continuous requirement input by many organizations with the latest technology.

-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016May/0080.html Tibor's message

tibor: suggesting decentralised, peer-to-peer,

blockchain based Internet-of-Things in the charter

scribe: from business viewpoint, there are definitely use cases

<kajimoto> Reading IRC discussion, some of us insist IG1 to create WG, Dave and some guys says IG2 for continuous requirement input to WG,

kaz: Matthias, there're several different opinions and we need some more time to wrap up this

matthias: blockchain-based IoT would be a possible solution
... but we should not charter for some specific solution which is not yet analyzed

tibor: I put much effort on WoT platforms
... who has the final vote for what should be done?

matthias: as I mentioned, we should not charter for some specific solution which is not analyzed yet

tibor: some of the IG participants agree and some don't
... how to make decision in that case?
... my company and myself would volunteer to work for this item

dsr: decentralized architecture as the topic, and blockchain as an example
... will come up with some text for review
... also would see the timeline for each document

matthias: Kajimoto-san, do you have any idea when we could have a stable version for the architecture document?
... will check with him
... also will see the tech landscape, etc.

dsr: thanks very much

matthias: there are 4 bullet points open on the issue tracker

<kajimoto> Middle of Jun, we finalize stable document.

matthias: let's try to finalize the pull requests
... by the end of this week

taki: would agree to take some challenge for the new charter
... saw some keywords like semantic model
... having some new challenges would be good
... good for existing members too

matthias: you mean we should have that in the deliverables section?

taki: not sure, but just continuing the current work would be not attracting

toru: my colleague raised another issue-162
... would discuss that
... on email is fine
... patent policy, etc.
... should be replaced by the text from the previous Charter
... don't think IG's deliverables require IPP commitment

dsr: tx
... will replace the text

matthias: difficult to have specific solutions for the charter
... not a good way

dsr: we need to discuss the level of solutions

<Soumya> have to leave for another meeting, bye

dsr: please look into the background as well
... we don't have enough time now, though...

matthias: we'll close the call
... until the end of this week, we'll try to wrap up the discussion

[ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/05/18 13:58:46 $