<scribe> scribenick: kaz
McCool: Dibyendu's name is Ghosh
<McCool> it's Dibyendu Ghosh
McCool: "ae" is typo for "case"
... any objections to approve the minutes other than those
fixes?
(none)
approved
McCool: May-5
... David's nickname is redundant (dezell)
... typo of "EdgX" for "EdgeX"
... any objections?
(none)
approved
McCool: talked Intel labs
... they actually do logistics
... so have been trying to find somebody
... for robotics
... right people at the meeting maybe next week
Jennifer: any useful platform,
middleware, etc., in mind?
... we're open to take a look
McCool: need to establish an official
collaboration
... and see a good person for that
... not rushing
Jennifer: right now I'm also swamped,
so no rush either
... maybe in 2 months or so
McCool: would take some more time to find relevant guys
Jennifer: possibility of using robots outdoor as well as indoor
Lagally: what kind of environment in your mind so far?
Jennifer: some autonomous stack
McCool: guess whole mechanism for management
Lagally: kind of inline with the fleet management use case
McCool: let's add a topic on use case for "city dashboard vs fleet management"
Kaz: regarding robotics, there was a guy working on robotics during the wot f2f many years ago
<mlagally> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/master/USE-CASES/digital-twin.md
Lagally: smart city use case could be also simulated
Jennifer: interesting question
... didn't think about that
... can you list some initial questions so that I can ask my
Team guys?
Lagally: there are a couple of
variants
... at:
https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/master/USE-CASES/digital-twin.md
... which of those variants are of interest?
Jennifer: so far the subteam for smart building is looking at digital twin approach, so would like to get back to the whole Team
McCool: maybe the robotics Team is also using some kind of simulation mechanism
Lagally: possibly there are various simulation mechanisms based on the vendors
<mlagally> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/blob/master/USE-CASES
Jennifer: could invite the robotics Team lead to this call
Lagally: would suggest we invite that person to the next call if possible
Kaz: a guy from a Japanese Member
was working on automotive digital twin service, maybe
interested in this use case
... can ask him to join this call and the use case call
McCool: yeah, let's ask him to try the next call
McCool: (adds comments to the use
case)
... not superceded by #489
... since it seems that this use case covers things like
logistics, delivery routes, etc.
Lagally: there are various stakeholders
McCool: maybe would narrow to fleet
management logistics first, and think about the other parts
separately
... (and then adds another comment)
... this issue 435 is "logistics fleet management"
McCool's additional suggestion
Lagally: will look into that
McCool: Jennifer, does it seem good
to you?
... we need to look into all the use cases
... including security ones and discovery ones
... starting with the next week
... (mentions a security use case on OAuth2)
security issue on OAuth2 device flow
scripting issue on OAuth2 code flow
McCool: there is general discussion on how to deal with OAuth2 during the other TFs' calls
Jennifer: will take a look at that
McCool: wondering if there are any issues on proprietary or non-OAuth2 key management
<McCool> proposal: This call (the PoC TF) call is an IG call and follows the IG IP policy.
Lagally: what is the pros/cons?
Kaz: the main point is whether
the deriverable of this TF would be a Rec track document or
not, and my understanding is NO. So considering this TF part of
the IG is reasonable, and that is my original
understanding.
... however, we were not clear enough so far, so let's check
with the whole groups during the main call
McCool: makes sense
[adjourned]