<mlagally> Proposed Agenda:

<mlagally> - introductions

<mlagally> - WoT Architecture Use Cases: Status / Next steps

Background

Lagally: having the use case discussion based on the requests from the non-WG participants
... (give summaries on the background)
... would give the current status first

McCool: at some point, we should see the discovery use cases as well

Lagally: yes
... anything else?

(none)

Introduction

Michael Lagally, Oracle

David Ezell, Conexxus

Clerley Silveira, Conexxus

Anna Nikander, Aalto Univ.

Ben Francis, Invited Expert

Christian Glomb, Siemens

Dmitrij Lagutin, Arlto Univ.

Hazel Kuok, Invited Expert

Kunihiko Toumura, Hitachi

Michael McCool, Intel also co-Chair of the WoT WG/IG

Ryuihi Matsukura, Fujitsu

Tomoaki Mizushima, IRI

Kaz Ashimura, W3C Team Contact

Quick outline

@@ slides tbd

Lagally: architecture tf work items
... requirements, use cases, vocabulary
... architecture discussion proces
... 2 phases
... 1. collecting use cases and put them on the table
... then filtering for sanity check
... 2. based on the short list from the phase 1

<McCool> (please add discovery to right hand side in third slide...)

<McCool> (also, you have security twice ;)

Lagally: various points come including gaps, new building blocks, system configuration, etc.
... and clarify our requirements
... use cases
... 20 new use cases are in the pipeline
... active contributions from the group participants
... target domains include smart cities, industrial , transpportation, manufacturing, logistics, ...
... categories
... retail, audio/vido, agriculture, smart city, health, manufacturing, multi-vendor system integration, accessibility, automotive, energy/smart grid, fleet management, data streaming, discovery

McCool: "discovery" is not a category but we should look into all the use cases from that viewpoint as well

Lagally: point taking
... the current description is kind of mixture

David: typo within Conexxus' name

Lagally: (fixes it)

Ben: might be useful to think about the granularity of the use case descriptions

Kaz: +1

Lagally: that's a good point

<mlagally> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture

Lagally: (visits the use case directory on the wot-architecture repo)

uc template

McCool: having a concrete example use case would be good for improvement
... the template should include example section as well

Lagally: would encourage people to include examples withing their proposed use cases
... think the template itself is good enough
... so would like to continue the discussion using the current template
... (shows digital twin use case)

digital twin use case

McCool: maybe it would be better to use a more concrete use case as an example for today

<mlagally> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/master/USE-CASES/smartcity-geolocation.md

Kaz: would suggest something for the next step though I should wait until Lagally finishes his slides

Lagally: let's finish the slides
... use case shortlisting
... shortlist use cases to make sure the use cases address real market needs
... also make sure best use of limited human resources
... so prioritize use cases that glow the IoT market

Sebastian Kaebisch, Siemens and another co-Chairs of the WoT groups

Lagally: how to prioritize the use cases?
... should vote?
... could be done by doodle or W3C WBS
... holding this use case call to get input from broader people
... this prioritization would start another iteration
... next steps
... for each shortlisted use case, we need a requirement document on the GitHub
... and then
... proposal for the WoT IG Use Cases TF's activity
... objective
... collect input from wider IoT market audience
... the expected output is an IG Note

McCool: having a separate repo
... from IP point of view, use case discussion has a bit different characteristics from the WG
... so creating a separate repo would make sense
... moving resources is a bit annoying, though

Lagally: wondering about the process

McCool: we could ask the contributors about if it's OK
... but moving over would make sense
... we can freeze the current one and then create a new one based on the current resources

Lagally: btw, any additional stakeholders we want to be here?

McCool: several new contributors, e.g., for discovery discussion
... also we could ask people here for opinions about new participants

Ben: want to submit a use case on digital signage
... wondering about the relationship with the audio/visual one, though

McCool: can categorize use cases based on the "Category" field

Lagally: we can keep the category field empty and could use it for categorization

McCool: anybody else is thinking about other use cases?

Sebastian: would like to see some more previous slides

Lagally: (goes back to the "use case categories" slide)

<benfrancis> "Galaxywide Web of Things" 😀

Sebastian: very basic use cases on smart home and building are missing here

Ben: happy to contribute to smart home as well

Lagally: hearing 3-4 new ones
... also still up to come

Sebastian: one question is that there are several use cases within the current (v1) WoT Architecture document
... what would be the relationship with them?

Lagally: great question

McCool: the current ones on the Architecture document are rather domains
... could revisit them and make clarification

Kaz: would suggest we quickly pick up items/features from the use cases within the current WoT Architecture spec and put them into the Use Case template so that ppeole can use them as the basis for possible extensions

Lagally: we should concentrate on the new use cases, shouldn't we?

Kaz: having concrete description for smart building and smart home as part of our target use cases would be useful for further discussion

Sebastian: maybe we could copy the description from the WoT Architecture document and put it into the template
... my question is whether we should revive it or not

David: some possible scenario could be related to the existing use case like smart home
... also would mention regulations
... and would think about surface of the platform

Lagally: cross-domain use cases would make sense

McCool: cross-domain use cases are similar to security/privacy
... product been developed would be also useful
... particular, Siemens already has a product
... would be OK to generalize the motivation, etc.?
... not tied with the product itself but for general requirements

Kaz: we have only 3 mins for today. so wondering if we can make a resolution to create a new use case and transfer the use cases to there for further discussions?

<dezell> +1

Lagally: would propose that we check with the WoT Architecture TF
... and continue this discussion in 2 weeks on May 28

all: ok

RESOLUTION: we'll check with the WoT WG Architecture TF on May 21, and continue this discussion by the WoT IG Use Cases TF in 2 weeks on May 28

[adjourned]