WoT Use Cases

17 Sep 2020



Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Hazel_Kuok, Jennifer_lin, Michael_McCool, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Tomoaki_Mizushima


Prev minutes


Lagally: wondering about how to run the liaison with ITU-T
... they'll have their meeting in Oct
... and we should be able to get some more interesting use cases from that meeting
... and had discussion on housekeeping
... any objections to approve the minutes?




Lagally: depend on the dynamics of the TF
... review UCs, ITU-T input, Singapore Geospatial Week feedback
... use case are coming from outside

Kaz: use case discussion should be the core part of some of the joint meetings, e.g., MEIG, PBG and Agriculture CG

McCool: do you want to pack the discussions with them into one?

Kaz: possibly we could invite them to the use cases session

Lagally: let me see the vF2F agenda wiki


Lagally: wondering about the PBG's contribution

McCool: we could have a Chairs meeting with them to clarify the agenda (like we did for WNIG)
... note that WNIG is interested in edge computing use case
... we could ask them to fill in some template

Lagally: why don't we reuse our use case template?

Kaz: good idea

Lagally: potentially next week at this slot?

McCool: possibly
... note we should concentrate on the use cases from their viewpoints

Kaz: yeah, for example, one of the MEIG guys was interested in collaboration among media streams, game devices and geolocation information for VR games

McCool: VR game controllers are related to IoT devices

Kaz: yes

Lagally: why don't we propose a pre-meeting to them?

Kaz: sounds good

Lagally: pre-meeting next Thursday this time

Kaz: will ask them about that
... if they're not available we can think about an alternative

McCool: we could use this slot in 2 weeks too

<scribe> ACTION: kaz to ask the ME, ACG, PBG guys about their availability for the pre-meeting next week or in 2 weeks

(like we did for the WNIG :)

Lagally: (and then continue to put possible topics to the vF2F wiki)
... requirements and spec gaps
... contributions

Kaz: what do you mean by "contributions" here?

Lagally: concrete Pullrequests

McCool: should be sub bullet of requirements and spec gaps then?

Lagally: (moves "contributions" as a sub bullet of requirements and spec gaps)
... (also makes it "contributions in PRs" and then adds "Issues" as well)

Singapore Geospatial Week

Lagally: have looked at the agenda
... "mobility & logistics"

McCool: concrete definition?

Jennifer: a lot of use cases are very settled and some of them are very different
... e.g., agriculture
... so much content there

Lagally: why don't we just try to pick some of them :) ?
... e.g., pick 3 of them

Jennifer: ok

McCool: maybe we can generate a bullet list including the use cases
... on some MD file
... one-liner describes them

Jennifer: ok but maybe I'm a bit biased...

McCool: you can generate a list, and I can go through it

Kaz: yeah, that list doesn't have to be very long
... you can concentrate on those you're really interested like Cristiano's agriculture use cases

McCool: yeah, bunch of smart sensors, etc.

Lagally: are you ok with working on that?

Jennifer: may take some time, though

McCool: do you have slides of those presentations?

Jennifer: have some of them locally

Kaz: don't think we need to capture all the interesting topics from this event
... you can capture just some of them :)

Jennifer: ok

Lagally: can also help you
... interested in digital twin use case at airport

<McCool> correction to above - what I meant was that we don't have to capture all the use cases, we just have to capture a set that covers the requirements. So we don't need to include duplicate use cases with the same requirements, we just need good examples in each "category". I used "remote sensing" as an example; there are a lot with this requirement, but we don't need 20 such use cases, just one good one

ITU-T SG20 liaison

Lagally: next steps?

McCool: need another round to work on that
... a bit confusing that web object model is a metadata model

Lagally: ok, you need some more time
... MD files are not quite detailed
... seems ITU-T in general is thinking about gateways
... should we put that for the next call's agenda?

McCool: yeah

Lagally: ok
... I'll invite GyuMyoung to the next call then
... in 2 weeks


PR 52

Lagally: Mizushima-san has moved all the processed use case MD file to "processed" folder

mizu: yes

Lagally: will merge it then


PR 33

Lagally: horizontal discovery

McCool: not perfect yet
... recently raised issue on protecting query
... need additional PRs
... this is a good starting point and can be merged (and then create another PR for updates)

Lagally: (goes through the changes)

McCool: important to define "discovery"

Lagally: ok
... possible to discover the "Thing Model" too?

McCool: that's mentioned below
... discovery mechanism is already implemented
... and handles JSON files
... so could easily add Thing Model (given it's also a JSON-based model)

Lagally: (adds comment to fix "TD Template" as "Thing Model"

Kaz: we can simply fix it right now and then merge this PR 33

McCool: some more minor edits as well, though

Lagally: in that case, let's merge this PR as is, and fix typos later

McCool: btw, we can add "horizontal" vs "vertical" categories to the use case template

Lagally: good suggestion
... regarding PR 33 itself, let's merge it


PR 25

Kaz: Lionel from Lyon Univ.
... we can invite him to the use case call

Lagally: ok

McCool: if he is part of the Agriculture CG, we can go through that path too

Lagally: (at the end of the call, Lagally summarizes today's discussion)


Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: kaz to ask the ME, ACG, PBG guys about their availability for the pre-meeting next week or in 2 weeks

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/11/18 05:43:26 $