<kaz> scribenick: McCool

Agenda

Koster: let's review checklists
... participants and security
... let's also discuss semantic interop
... reserve last 20m for sematics

Checklists

<mjkoster> General WoT Plugfest Participant Questionnaire

Koster: PR has been accepted for participant questionnaire
... want to collect this information so we can see what people are thinking
... would also like to have a lot of scenarios
... we also want to document both what we plan to do
... AND what we would do for a real product deployment
... for example, we may do something manually in an ad-hoc way
... that in a real deployment we would automate
... even if you are just bringing connected things, but not a client
... still good to document
... (discussion of application scenario section)

McCool: what is the timeline on the scenario questionnaire?

Koster: probably next week
... good to have a document that is more focused on use cases
... I also plan to work up a more concrete example...
... is also a survey of what components people are bringing
... important if you want to build scenarios that cross components brought by different people
... as an additional topic: how do we add extrinsic semantics
... are looking at that for the IETF Hackathon the weekend before IETF
... March 17-18
... what we want to look at there is how to do discovery
... how can we do some complementary things
... some additional information needed to make sense of data
... thing directory would be the obvious place (Koster: IMO) to add this information
... next topic is semantic integration
... what ARE the types and capabilties, in English?
... what information do you want to express?
... what kind of information would you want to find out?
... then there's the issue of adapting to engineering units. etc.
... now protocol bindings
... what protocols you plan to use, and how
... are you building a driver, or using the information in the protocol binding?
... how are observables/events handled in particular? (MQTT, SSE, WS, LP, etc)
... then how do you generate bindings for exposed things
... next topic: system level
... proxies, nat traversal, caching, translation, etc.
... how does it interact with other things and services
... topic security: a few high-level stuff, but look at security questionnaire

McCool: under accessiblility, we probably need to thing about semantic tagging
... for example, to indicate physical events and ui options
... to know when we have to worry about translation into alternative sensory modalities

<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to ask about possible template for use cases

<kaz> use case template

Kaz: there is another template for use cases
... the multimodal interaction working group looked at this
... and developed a template

Koster: nice, we can review that at perhaps reuse

Kaz: work itself was regarding accessibility and user interface
... but we can extend it to the more general case, using the template

Darko: when do you expect to obtain some results?
... it looks very extensive, but what is the timeline?
... how can we get the results as soon as possible?

Koster: optional, easy to update, etc.
... it's all optional
... should make it easy for people to update information
... we still have six weeks, but...

Darko: what format? Is the wiki the right place?

Koster: if there was any easy way to do a survey...

Darko: could use google
... using doodle is a little awkward

Kaz: there is a questionairre functionality we can use in W3C

<kaz> [ we can use hyperlinks using W3C WBS (Web-based straw-poll system like https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/WoTF2F201803/?login)

Koster: would be nice if it can also do file attachments

McCool: ok if people can just hyperlink to their own github
... I think two weeks out do get some initial drafts would be good

Darko: but it is important to be able to see answers from others
... it is useful so that one can look at others for examples

Koster: so... we need to go look at tools, can do that offline

Security

<kaz> Security questionnaire

<inserted> scribenick: kaz

McCool: (goes through the questionnaire)
... would like to add figures
... there is picture in the Security note
... would like to check if we can use SVG
... concrete example would be helpful

Koster: concrete example and implementation guidance would be useful

McCool: right now the security note is quite high level
... need concrete example on provisioning key, etc.
... let us know if anything to be added
... or need clarification

Semantic interoperability

<scribe> scribenick: McCool

Soumya: project with another company
... set up tools that can insure interoperability
... will create a couple of slides that can share in the next meeting

Koster: can you discuss the idea of testing semantic interop test?
... what is the system being tested, what are the inputs and outputs?

Soumya: better to let me put it down on some slides first
... better than saying things now

Koster: are you available for the Friday meeting?

Soumya: yes, I am

<kaz> (4pm in Europe)

Koster: that would be good time to discuss the conceptual aspects
... also participation in the Eurocom testing

Darko's slides (esp. p5 on "Next Steps")

Darko: let me show what we are thinking about for the next steps for semantic interop
... want a set of scenarios
... extend scenarios with "WoT challenges"
... which in order to be implemented need semantic integration
... provide semantic artifacts (queries, capabilities, recipes, etc) needed for these scenarios
... in addition, Eurocom may want to participate with some other semantic models
... rather than using iotschema
... may want to use other semantics models...
... iotschema in particular has three levels
... can talk about interoperability at these levels
... but other models may have other levels

Soumya: think that iotschema is a good place to start

Darko: that makes things easy...
... but we can look at additional capabilities

Koster: I did a presentation that added a "thing type"
... that would be useful
... I think it's far more useful for capabilities
... but some people still want to think in terms of
... types

Darko: it would be great to get feedback from telcos on templates
... so we can direct our work in the direction of results from participants

Koster: thing we discussed in Wishi group earlier this week
... extrinsic information
... is this something we want to add?
... seems to be in scope, but we haven't really discussed

McCool: concrete examples?

Koster: location is one for sure

Darko: SOSA
... location, also "feature of interest"
... eg: what are you measuring?
... is a pattern, not everyone will want it
... but will be useful for some people

Koster: location is kind of an aspect of FOI
... want to know which capabilities are applied to which FOIs

Darko: sometimes the FOI is more important that the capability
... for instance, I may want to find out everything I can about some FOI
... but don't necessarily know in advance what things are being sensed about that FOI

Benjamin: is this integrated into Iotschema.org

Darko: not integrated/public yet
... SOSA would be an additional pattern, as opposed to a horizontal layer
... in order to keep it simple
... but we need to go back and look at SOSA pattern

Koster: ok, will take this up in the Friday meeting

<inserted> scribenick: kaz

McCool: when is the iot.schema meeting?

Koster: once charter, etc., is clarified, would have one

McCool: github, etc.?

Koster: there is a iot.schema repo

McCool: place for pullrequests?

Koster: yes, there is a place for that purpose
... ontology pattern is very simple
... iot.schema is based on ontology

McCool: legal framework?

Koster: charter would clarify license, etc.
... you need to part of the W3C CG

McCool: we're already part of W3C

Koster: the venue will go under the W3C CG framework

<inserted> scribenick: McCool

Koster: there have been some important decisions made recently
... interactions seem to be central

darko: properties may not be top-level
... also mention shape constraints
... some companies some things may be a property
... for others may be an action
... be more generally, have interaction patterns

Koster: let's put that down as a topic for the next iotschema meeting...
... our hour is up

kaz: regarding CG for iotschema...
... not created yet, correct?

Koster: right. first thing is to create the charter
... thought we could use the existing WoT CG
... timeline is... we write up the charter
... and then have to decide whether we want to create a new CG or reuse the existing WoT one
... any more business? No? then adjourn...

<kaz> [adjourned]