WoT-IG/WG vF2F Meeting - Day 2

07 Oct 2020



Kaz_Ashimura, Hiroki_Endo, Gyu_Myoung_Lee, Takuya_Handa, Takuji_Kiura, Shinya_Abe, Michael_McCool, Michael_Lagally, Takio_Yamaoka, Kunihiko_Toumura, Ege_Korkan, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Rob_Smith, Hiroshi_Fujisawa, Zoltan_Kis, Dave_Raggett, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Daniel_Peintner, David_Ezell, Hiroshi_Ota, Ken_Ogiso, Sebastian_Kaebisch
McCool, Sebastian
kaz, McCool, mlagally


<McCool> presentations will be here, including opening decks: https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/PRESENTATIONS/2020-10-online-f2f

<inserted> scribenick: kaz


<kaz> McCool, Kaz, Lagally


McCool: logistics
... call agenda


McCool: IRC available


McCool: Guests?

Kaz: Gyu Myoung from ITU-T again

Gyu_Myoung: I'm aware of the W3C Patent Policy

McCool: the other guests from W3C Membership?

Kaz: please confirm all the other observers are also aware of the W3C Patent Policy :)

all: OK

McCool: Schedule
... Oct 7: use cases, requirements, liaisons
... Oct 13: joint with DID and PUB
... Oct 14: joint with APA
... etc.
... Cancellations of the group calls
... see the main wot wiki


McCool: would like to confirm the rest
... architecture on Oct 8?

Lagally: cancelled

McCool: scriptin on Oct 12?

Daniel: planning to have it

McCool: security on Oct 12
... cancelled
... discovery on Oct 12
... will be held
... TD on Oct 14
... cancelled
... architecture on Oct 15?

Lagally: should have the call
... though could be shorter

McCool: main call on Oct 14
... will be held
... mainly logistics and organizations
... Joint calls
... 3 possible slots
... Oct 12, 9am EDT
... Oct 13, 9am EDT
... Oct 13, 10am EDT
... my 2 cents is 10am would be better
... any thoughts?

Sebastian: sounds good

RESOLUTION: we'll go for Oct 13, 10m EDT for the JSON-LD joint meeting

Sebastian: will let them know

McCool: Sebastian to confirm with the JSON-LD WG; McCool to handle the GitHub issue agenda and outlook invite
... APA
... Oct 14, 9am EDT
... agenda updated and Zoom allocated
... Other meetings: DID, PUB, Web&Networks

WoT vF2F meeting table

Ege: what would be the agenda for PUB?

McCool: media in general as well as published media

Agenda for the PUB joint meeting

Kaz: please see the agenda issue above

McCool: yes
... and we need session managers for those meetings
... (shows the agenda issues on wot repo)

agenda issues

McCool: will record all the session organizers to the issues above
... any volunteers?
... e.g., who is interested in the APA meeting
... anything else on logistics?


Agenda for today

agenda for Oct 7

Arch TF part 2

<scribe> scribenick: McCool

Lagally: behind schedule, full agenda; overflow from monday to deal with to close FPWD
... for both Arch and Profile
... may need to modify parts of later agenda to make time

Gyu_Myoung: I may have to leave before the end of the meeting

Lagally: ok, may have to shift things around

Gyu_Myoung: correction: need to leave, will be back in 1.5h

* Issues and PRs

Lagally: review issues, tagged some with "FPWD" label in wot-architecture repo
... some PRs that deal with some of these
... PR 539
... add device lifecycle section
... see you were having some rebase problems, marked as WIP

<kaz> PR 539

Lagally: is it valid to say we can merge even though imperfect, as a baseline?

Zoltan: tried many ways to resolve conflicts... had to rebuild
... PR shows long information, but merge should be fine

McCool: may break other PRs, but...

Lagally: well, let's merge anyway, and then deal with it as necessary
... (merged PR 539)

<inserted> PR 559

Lagally: next, PR 559, TM definition
... no merge conflicts
... now takes comments and discussion into account

<inserted> PR 560

Lagally: next, PR 560
... no merge conflicts
... suggest merging; any objections?
... no objections, merging
... no let's look at issues

<inserted> Issue 547

Lagally: closes issue 547, TM
... also issue 476, lifecycle; related to device

<inserted> Issue 476

McCool: think we should look through this closed issue and create smaller ones for things that are not addressed
... need smaller, more specific issues

Lagally: there are some editorial issues

McCool: maybe could label the editorial issues with a github label...

<Ege> I will be back in ~10 minutes

Lagally: issue 548, cleanup of usage of "Use Case" term

<kaz> Issue 548

Lagally: (marked as editorial)

<kaz> Issue 551

Lagally: issue 551, need a few lines to open section and summarize
... there are a few other places that are missing opening sections

McCool: I think these are not technically required, and unless we write the text right now there is no way to review in time

Lagally: right, so let's just accept it as it is, then deal with these sections after FPWD

Zoltan: do think we need to discuss whether we want three separate lifecycles or one
... and the introductory text should state the plan

McCool: suggest we just say in the ednote that "reorganization is under discussion" and maybe link to the issue
... detailed discussion can then take place in the issue

Lagally: sure

Zoltan: sure

Lagally: (does a direct edit...)
... need to create an issue, zk can you do so?

<kaz> Issue 561

<zkis> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/561

Gyu_Myoung: will be back in an hour

<mlagally> proposal: Accept the current editor's draft as the FPWD version with the fixes discussed in the call on Oct 7th. and including the editorial fixes marked with fpwd in the issue tracker.

<mlagally> proposal: Accept the current editor's draft as the FPWD version with the fixes discussed in the call on Oct 7th. and including the editorial fixes marked with fpwd and editorial in the issue tracker.

RESOLUTION: Accept the current editor's draft as the FPWD version with the fixes discussed in the call on Oct 7th. and including the editorial fixes marked with fpwd and editorial in the issue tracker.

Lagally: 5 min break

<kaz> [5min break]

McCool: seems there is still a lot of feedback we should take into account, perhaps we should defer FPWD?

Lagally: let's look at some PRs I developed first and then discuss

* Profile

<kaz> scribenick: kaz

Issue 42

Lagally: current events section is too loose
... Ege mentions "No experience at all with both of them from the plugfests."
... and that's true

McCool: Mozilla was working on WebSocket
... but WebSocket itself is not a complete spec yet

Ege: client/server bind

McCool: let's say longpoll at the moment
... need one mechanism for event handling

Ege: advantages and disadvantages with each approach
... would be over engineering unless we have protocols over it
... this may cause with high speed eventing

McCool: we could align with Mozilla's work later but at the moment need to live with one method which is already available

Zoltan: given this discussion, wondering if we should explore the WoT WebSocket protocols work

Lagally: should be out of scope

<McCool> mm: note also that primary goal of profiles is OOTBI, secondary (future) objective could be supporting performance (in which case, yes, WS makes sense... but we need more constraints to get OOTBI)\

Lagally's comment added

PR 44

Lagally: next PR 44

5.1.6 Event Affordances

Lagally: Editors not on event handling there

McCool: ok with accept this asis
... assuming change to longpolling and SSE
... we can defer protocol-specific reorg, really this comment should be in HTTP-specific section
... consistently for all affordances

https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/43 Issue 43

Lagally: tx for feedback
... (goes through the comments)

Daniel: data schema should be defined

PR 46

Lagally: (goes through the changes)

McCool: we need to look into use cases to see if it's reasonable

Kaz: +1

Lagally: let's address use cases which are relevant

McCool: ok

Lagally: hope this change will improve what we have so far

<McCool> mm: although if we are targetting new devices vs brownfield devices this is not as much of an issue

Lagally: should we merge this PR?

Kaz: should we add an Editor's note on relevant use cases?

McCool: let's assume pre-scriptive cases here

Lagally: objections for merging PR 46?



McCool: at the very least, supporting brownfield devices can be under "secondary goals" (and OOTBI is still primary!)

PR 47

Lagally: Sebastian's comment

Sebastian: we've been holding discussions about this point

Lagally: I have some ideas

Kaz: would suggest we defer this PR and discuss it after FPWD publication

Sebastian: would like to discuss this before FPWD...

Lagally: let's see if there could be some compromise
... Editor's Note within the Abstract section

The name WoT Core Profile is still under discussion in the group and is used as a working title. It is subject to change after the profile specification has reached a certain level of maturity.

Sebastian: Core profile would have impacts to all the other profiles...

McCool: "Core" is common
... would suggest we stick to "Core" at the moment with an Editor's Note

Lagally: at least the Note addresses the concern

Sebastian: saying "Core" implies it's already there

McCool: need to understand what Sebastian expects for Profiles

Kaz: unfortunately, it seems to me that we still need further discussion to get the conclusion
... so we should defer the discussion on this point and move ahead for the use cases discussion today

Lagally: would not like to defer the publication of Profiles...

Kaz: in that case we should have a dedicated additional Profiles call
... but we should have discussion on use cases as planned during this call
... given we have many invited guests for that purpose

Lagally: Sebastian, could you raise any concrete alternative proposal?

Sebastian: share the same goal with Lagally for the publication itself
... would like to provide clarifications

Kaz: in that case, we need to have an additional call for Profiles. right?

Lagally: let's have an additional discussion during the Architecture call on 15th

Kaz: need not to have that tomorrow?

Lagally: since can't make it tomorrow
... we can close PR 47 itself, and then continue the discussion

RESOLUTION: we'll continue the profile discussion during the Architecture on Oct 15

[5min break; then Use Cases]

Use cases

Lagally: various guests for the discussion
... would like to skip the detailed discussion on requirements
... and would start with the ITU-T collaboration
... then new use cases the WoT TFs
... and then Agriculture, Media&Entertainment

* WoT IG Use Case TF

slides @@@

Lagally: objectives
... identify and describe new relevant use cases
... collect use cases from the other W3C groups and also the other relevant stakeholders
... publication of "WoT Use Cases" document
... work split
... architecture vs use case work
... use cases are handled by the WoT IG's Use Cases TF at wot-usecases repo
... process
... use cases => shortlisting => requirements => spec work by the other TFs
... requirements analysis
... requirements draft

* PRs for the latest draft

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

Lagally: use cases repo above

rendered draft

Lagally: Mizushima-san has been working on clean-up
... there are still issues on the document, though

PR 60

Lagally: merged

PR 60

Lagally: ITU-T summary
... Gyu Myoung will give updates
... there will be ITU-T meeting in Nov
... we've started to look into their work
... hope we could work collaboratively

(Gyu Myoung joins again)

OLS - DRAFT.md Proposed liaison statement

Lagally: should add references to the published specs
... align terminology to avoid fragmentation
... would like to establish open conversation channel
... as a starting point, we should provide our use case document to them

Kaz: given we need some more time to finalize this proposal, probably we should work on this during the use cases call next week :)
... we should think about the scope like reviewing the specs with each other
... providing use cases with each other, etc.

Lagally: right
... we should continue the discussion during the use cases calls
... also we should clarify the expectations from the ITU-T side
... Gyu Myoung, please let us know about your need too

Gyu_Myoung: maybe starting with simply exchange share our current work?
... to see what the other side has been doing
... something related to energy environment management, etc.
... ITU-T work on use cases and then architecture
... then provide ideas to related SDOs working on protocols, etc.
... if we have clear views between ITU-T and W3C WoT, could work on certain document

Lagally: ok
... McCool, could you help us generate some text for that?

McCool: we're interested in ongoing work

Lagally: note this is a liaison letter to be sent to ITU-T SG20

McCool: ok
... we should include alignment of standards
... terminology alignment would be helpful
... should not define different terminology for the same idea
... opportunity to align our work efforts, e.g., jointly developing common documents
... would say "seek to align"

Lagally: ok
... this could be an initial draft

Kaz: we need to copy to team-liaisons when we send this to ITU-T
... also should talk with them beforehand as well

Lagally: ok
... commit the proposal as an initial draft

Collaboration with other W3C groups

<mlagally> scribenick: mlagally

Agriculture - Kiura-san

<kaz> slides tbd@@@

Kiura Takuji - presentation - Agriculture CG

Rural hybridization

Since 2020 Prototype of Agricultural WoT?

Early warning system, monitoring glacial lake in Himalaya

Physical Hybridization in Rural Area, Open field smart agriculture use case is closely related

Technologies include: AR, AI, Cloud/Edge Computing, High performance networks, 5G and beyond

Various use cases

Discussion at APAN50

COVID-19 reveals vulnerabilities in rural area

scribenick: kaz

<kaz> Use Case Template

Kaz: would like to suggest Kiura-san generate a concrete use case description using the template above. "Rural hybridization" is a big use case which could cover many topics.

Lagally: interested in mitigation of natural disaster

McCool: would like to see a general use case which covers possible issues
... power management, etc., as well
... decentralized management using solar, etc.
... a lot of interesting stuff here
... agriculture is part of this but many other topics too

<McCool> sorry for taking extra time. I would like to mention the following link as being relevant to "rural hybridization": https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-one-traffic-light-town-with-some-of-the-fastest-internet-in-the-us

NHK - Endo-san

scribenick: mlagally

demo is implemented using open source code available on github

In plugfest we connected TV to 4 devices from other WoT members

WoT enabled TV will enable new use cases by integrating with other devices

scribenick: kaz

<kaz> NHK's original use case

Kaz: related to the use case above
... please extend the one or provide an additional one for this work
... also this demo should be included in the demo during the breakouts later October

Sebastian: context?
... your own ontology?
... can the video be shared?

Kaz: let's continue the discussion based on the updated use case description from NHK :)

Sebastian: ok

* AR use cases - Rob Smith

Rob: WebVMT overview
... open web format for location sync with video
... sharing, indexing, map presentation
... W3C editor's draft by the CG available
... roadmap
... use cases
... golden tutorial use case: AR demo, proof of action, data capture format for AR debugging
... virtual guide: AR/VR guide, e.g., historic site, medical, control in general

<McCool> (aside: closely related to geospatial use cases we can cover on Friday in the plugfest wrapup)

Rob: visualize events and structures + narrative
... sync with annotated map or virtual space

Kaz: we've generated initial draft use case descriptions as PRs

<kaz> PR 61 by Kaz

<kaz> PR 62 by Rob

Wrap-up for today

<McCool> (I think we should determine, quickly another time for Rob to join us)

Lagally: thanks a lot for contributions!

Sebastian: and thanks a lot for your hard work, Lagally!

Lagally: will continue discussion in next use case call (next week)

<McCool> (I will note then that the Use Case call next week is NOT cancelled as well in the wiki, etc)

McCool: note that there will be the WoT Use Case call on Oct 15th at 7am EDT


Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. we'll go for Oct 13, 10m EDT for the JSON-LD joint meeting
  2. Accept the current editor's draft as the FPWD version with the fixes discussed in the call on Oct 7th. and including the editorial fixes marked with fpwd and editorial in the issue tracker.
  3. we'll continue the profile discussion during the Architecture on Oct 15
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/10/15 15:14:18 $