(Lagally asks Zoltan to share the updated lifecycle diagram so that we can discuss it during the 2nd call.)
<kaz> Apr-23 minutes
Lagally: (goes through the prev minutes)
... minor typo, "discus"
<kaz> [just fixed]
Lagally: ok
... let's approve the minutes then
... and then talk to you all later during the second call
<kaz> [call 1 adjourned]
<kaz> scribenick: McCool
<kaz> Apr-23 minutes
Lagally: (reviews minutes)
... any objections to approving minutes?
... no objections, approved.
<mlagally> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues
<kaz> (go through the use case issues)
<kaz> Issue 490 - people density
<mlagally> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/489
<kaz> Issue 489 - smart city dashboard
McCool: will discuss and convert to template in next call with GovTech
<kaz> Issue 481 - energy efficiency
<kaz> PR to be created
<mlagally> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/480
McCool: we will also work through this one with Fraunhofer in next week's discovery call
<kaz> Issue 480 - NHK's one
Lagally: can close this one, done
<kaz> Issue 479 - agriculture
Lagally: will probably have to discuss this one after golden week
<kaz> Issue 476 - lifecycle discussion
<inserted> scribenick: kaz
McCool: original requirement was
adding high-level considerations
... then technical requirements on different points for
different players
PR 488 on new use case/requireement remplate sections
McCool: features and schemes
Lagally: good to have an example to illustrate the granularity
McCool: discussion by the security tf
will happen in May
... this is a template for that purpose
... will discuss examples during the security calls
Lagally: ok
McCool: btw, it seems there is a typo on "####" for the section title
Lagally: don't worry
<mlagally> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/488
<inserted> scribenick: McCool
Lagally: no problem, will merge
McCool: I will fix typo later
<kaz> PR 487
<kaz> rendered UC on smart grids
McCool: all Michael and non-Michaelss are invited to review
Christian: any inputs, let us know, can
incorporate
... reviews PR
McCool: comment, consider technicians as stakeholders and emergency response as a variant
Lagally: let's defer that until
later
... please expand acronyms, DSO, TSO, VPP, etc
Christian: ok; also PMU (expanded, but used in more than one place...)
McCool: I would add storage
somewhere
... i.e. batteries or pumped water; both amount stored and
capacity
Christian: some variants: Decentralized
power generation (expand CHP);
... Virtual Power Plants (VPP)
... Smart metering
Lagally: VPPs would be energy brokers?
Christian: would also organize physical sources
McCool: would add storage to DER
(call it Distributed Energy Resources rather than "Generation";
Resources includes Storage and DER is an accepted term)
... also add a separate variant for "Emergency Response":
should support bypass of parts of the grid when maintenance is
required to protect workers and keep power distribution going
as much as possible
... (I will add these comments to the issue)
Lagally: any more comments? please do add to the PR
Zoltan: (shares updated diagram showing levels WoT/Provider/Manufacturer)
<inserted> scribenick: kaz
McCool: would call the top layer "application" rather than "WoT"
Kaz: +1
McCool: what happens when the given
system needs update for several layers?
... would make application keys "none" in the middle box
... could imagine the case of rotating the keys
Zoltan: have just updated the
diagram
... please reload it
Lagally: reloads the diagram
Zoltan: application keys: none
... for the operational state
McCool: ok
Zoltan: still have to go through the main system
Lagally: one comment on the "destroy"
state
... there is specific transitions we discourage
McCool: the device is permanently disabled for "destroyed" ?
<inserted> scribenick: McCool
McCool: suggest we use phrase "permanently disabled"
Lagally: we now need a description in
the notes explaining the keys in particular
... related to an issue in the security dicussion
scribenick: kaz
Kaz: wondering about the top layer
... the other two layers are players' names
... so might be better to have some name for the player for the top layer too?
... not sure how to call it at the moment, though
<kaz> (we need further discussion about the lifecycle topic, and will continue the discussion based on the updated diagram)
<mlagally> updated lifecycle diagram
Lagally: would suggest we skip call 1 and have call 2 on May 7
scribenick: McCool
McCool: regrets.. need to drop
[adjourned]