<kaz> scribenick: kaz
Lagally: (goes through the minutes)
<mlagally> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/tree/master/proposals/lifecycle
Lagally: discussion on the
lifecycle
... layered lifecycle diagram by Zoltan
... original one by Elena
... Device lifecycle by Lagally
... will have further discussion next week during the vF2F, so
please join it
... we got contributions to the use cases
Kaz: we could mention all the contributors within the use cases note once it's published as an IG note
Lagally: ok
... we made a resolution to transfer the uc resources to
wot-usecases repo
... the minutes approved
Cristiano: topic: wot-usecases repository now on, contributions to the use cases discussion are to be done for the wot-usecases repo. right?
Lagally: yes
Lagally: regarding lifecycle
... expected contribution by Zoltan
... regarding use cases
... the wot-usecase repo is still a skeleton
Lagally: concrete use case
descriptions are to be transferred
... HTML version of the use case template also to be
provided
<mlagally> Lagally: a separate repo for the profile discussion:
<mlagally> wot-profile repo
Lagally: also REQUIREMENTS area under the repo
<mlagally> REQUIREMENTS area
strawman version draft for WoT Profile
Lagally: using the RFC2119 keywords
carefully
... (goes through the draft)
... profile would make things (easily) implementable
4.1.2.1 Mandatory fields (of Things)
Lagally: would make the "id" mandatory
Kaz: regarding the uniqueness of
"id", I think we should be careful how to handle it
... maybe we could say unique id withing the service during the
service period
Lagally: yeah
... something to be considered
... wondering about the expiration period of TDs as well
Kaz: good point
Lagally: will create an issue about this point
Cristiano: this issue is related to the discovery purposes as well
Kaz: right
<cris> wot-discovery issue 18
Lagally: tx
... I'll include that link to this issue for
wot-architecture
Lagally: initial document for the Use Cases
Kaz: 4 responses so far
Lagally: we can talk about the results during the wot main call
Kaz: and the f2f slot next week :)
Lagally: please visit the questionnaire and respond
Lagally: do you want to include this into the initial use case draft?
Cristiano: would like to ask McCool for opinion as well
Lagally: ok
... let's check with him during the 2nd Architecture call
today
Lagally: (goes through the use case
description)
... example topology put here
Lagally: (adds comments to PR
516)
... do we want to merge it now?
... or later?
... would be better to have the image as SVG
... if you have any other comments, please add them too
Lagally: let's talk about this next
week
... we need Matsukura-san's participation as well
Lagally: can we transfer use case issues from wot-architecture to wot-usecases?
Kaz: yes, think so
... but it requires admin permission for both the repos
<mlagally> proposal: deadline for use case contributions and merge requests is EOD 18.6. After that all UC related work (issues, MRs, document) will be handled in the UC repo.
<mlagally> proposal: deadline for use case contributions and merge requests in the architecture repo is EOD 18.6. After that all UC related work (issues, MRs, document) will be handled in the UC repo.
RESOLUTION: deadline for use case contributions and merge requests in the architecture repo is EOD 18.6. After that all UC related work (issues, MRs, document) will be handled in the UC repo.
<scribe> ACTION: kaz to transfer issues and pullrequests from wot-architecture to wot-usecases after the deadline
[call 1 adjourned]
<scribe> scribenick: McCool
<scribe> agenda: F2F planning, lifecycle, profile requirements, use cases, issues, roadmap
McCool: reviewing the schedule would also be useful
agenda at https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf
<kaz> May-28 minutes
Lagally: review minutes
... any concerns with approving and publishing these
minutes?
... no objections -> minutes approved
McCool: please take a look at the most recent F2F agenda
<inserted> vF2F agenda
McCool: lifecycle was reduced to 1h
Lagally: basically have 3h on Wed and
3h on Thursday
... profiles, need to restart
... lifecycle, have a candidate spec chapter to review
... use cases, have set to review and prioritize, use case
repo
<kaz> wot-usecases repo
Lagally: as well as a draft
document
... although current still an outline
<mlagally> initial draft of WoT Use Cases
McCool: should there be a requirements section?
Lagally: may have IPR issues for requirements...
McCool: we should figure out if there
really is an IPR issue
... if is, just call this "Use Cases"
Lagally: also, please make PR to fill in company info for editors, etc.
McCool: Cross domain looks like it is
at the wrong level
... but that seems like the place for the "horizontal" use
cases
Kaz: maybe use "vertical domains" and "horizontal domains" for the two categories
McCool: should flesh out the list of horizontal domains, eg. digital twin
Kaz: normally in W3C use cases
and requirements are published at the same time
... if there are any problems with IPR for the requirements, we need to look into them
McCool: I suspect use cases are more
of an IPR risk than requirements
... we have to state requirements in general term, so that we
do not end up requiring technologies that are covered by a
patent in the spec
Lagally: I suggest let's just do use cases first, since we don't have a lot of requirements content anyway
McCool: +1 on just having a use case document first
Kaz: also there is a complex
relationship between use cases and requirements
... requirements can be driven by more than one use case, so
also +1 to start with use case description first
McCool: I think it would also be
useful to assign unique ids to use cases
... that are stable; maybe after we decide on the high-priority
UCs
Lagally: similar discussion for F2F
planning
... lifecycle has been reorganized; thanks zkis
... also did some issue clean up, including issue #520, which
relates to lifecycle
<mlagally> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22use+case%22
Lagally: moving over use case issues to new uc repo
<mlagally> proposal: deadline for use case contributions and merge requests in the architecture repo is EOD 18.6. After that all UC related work (issues, MRs, document) will be handled in the UC repo.
RESOLUTION: deadline for use case contributions and merge requests in the architecture repo is EOD 18.6. After that all UC related work (issues, MRs, document) will be handled in the UC repo.
<kaz> [we made the same resolution during the first call too]
https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/520
Lagally: for lifecycle, want to merge PR and close related issue
zkis: mention "Fix: issue #" in commit, will close automatically
Lagally: for now, will close manually
smart campus use case: https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/516
had a problem with images not being part of the PR
Lagally: images now there, but
references have not yet been updated
... images now there, but references have not yet been
updated
... in interest of time, will merge, then manually fix; ml to
fix
... (merges PR)
OAuth use cases: https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/517
McCool: suggest we go ahead and merge this, then add (or update) and then create an issue in the security repo to review (after move to uc repo)
Lagally: we do know what the link will be though; just change wot-architecture to wot-usecases
<inserted> Issue 459
issue 459, healthcare
Lagally: also can't add jennifer to the issue
McCool: as for the use case content, can copy old text from original architecture document as a starting point
Lagally: does not solve issue that we can't add jennifer as a reviewer
McCool: I think jennifer needs to comment at least once on the repo
Kaz: also will technically be easier once we are in the new usecases repo
Lagally: so let's try to resolve this after the move, then
McCool: also once we put a use case
into the HTML format, we need to archive the md version to
avoid confusion
... when we do that, should create empty security/privacy
considerations sections for each use case
Lagally: also have some input from
accessibility
... also have to look at ITU-T SG20 use cases; there are 20
documents, so due diligence will take time
McCool: we also need to have a liaison agreement in place before importing material from another standards org
Kaz: have been talking to W3M, need to figure out needs from ITU-T side, then establish liaison, THEN look at these documents
McCool: but certainly someone could
read these documents, make list of possible use cases... but we
can't put anything in our repo until we sort out
relationship
... definitely I feel we should work to align our definitions
and architecture
Kaz: plan is to have a chairs call to make progress
Lagally: maybe a combined editors/chairs
McCool: I concur that inviting ML to
this call makes sense
... as for future work... I think we should put in the
"horizontal" use cases
<kaz> use case prioritization questionnaire results so far (Member-only)
<kaz> [call 2 adjourned]