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?
(none)
approved
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
https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_October_2020#Proposed_Topics
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)
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
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
Lagally: Mizushima-san has moved all the processed use case MD file to "processed" folder
mizu: yes
Lagally: will merge it then
(merged)
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
(merged)
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)
[adjourned]