18 Nov 2020


Kaz_Ashimura, Critiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Georg_Schneider, Maria_Husman, Maria_Poveda, Maxime_Lefrancois, Michael_McCool, Taki_Kamiya, Cristiano_Aguzzi, mlefranc, Kevin_Olotu, Mads_Holten_Rasmussen, Herve_Pruvost, Andrea_Cimmino, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Michael_Lagally


<taki> scribeNick: taki


Sebastian: We have guests today.
... Guests from CG are W3C members.

<kaz> W3C Patent Policy

Sebastian gave information about patent policy etc.

Previous minutes

<inserted> Nov-11

Sebastian: We had guests last week.
... We checked TD 1.1 transition
... We discussed Thing Model.
... Thing Model, Device Model. Eclipse Vorto.
... We had guest from schaeffler.
... any objection to make minutes public?
... Kaz, please publish minutes.
... next TPAC meeting minutes.
... We discussed Thing Model. I presented slides.
... Slides are not linked.
... We checked status of TD 1.1 draft wrt Thing Model.

<kaz> vF2F Thing Model session

Sebastian: Discussed features such as extensions.
... Discussed pull request #540.
... Thing Model's relationship to architecture document.
... any objections?
... no objections.
... Joint discussion wuth JSON-LD WG

<kaz> vF2F JSON-LD session

Sebastian: Discussed issue #988
... and #967
... Mainly discussed issues that we discovered during the development of TD 1.1.
... Issue #643. JSON-LD and WoT approaches are somewhat contradictory.
... Issue #988. Round trip issue.
... LD-proofs is about security.
... Discussion is still on-going.
... any objections?

TD 1.1 FPWD status

Sebastian: transition is approved.
... Kaz found an issue.
... I will going to address this issue.

Kaz: the remaining issue is completely editorial. I can update both template and index.html.

Linked building data CG

Sebastian: I already introduced WoT to the CG.
... This time, linked building data CG introduce us what they are doing.

Georg: I have been working on Building-related research.
... There are some members joining from CG today.

Lagally: I was in WoT group 2 years ago.
... I authored building topology ontology, and worked in SSN ontology.

Maria: I contributed ontology model in WoT group before.
... contributed to SAREF.

Mads: I am working on architectural enginneering. I worked on topology ontology, then joined W3C. I am working on building platform.

<GeorgSchneider> Slides are here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aZosv92Mg59I1ErHQUyRqNlTMMcIW9gwtwioXbWLrd0/edit#slide=id.ga10f9409b8_2_56

<GeorgSchneider> readable

Herve: I am from organization IIS. Modling on building automation. also in Linked data community.

Georg making presentation.

Georg: prepared with inputs from CG members.
... motivation. BIM. application of BIM. increasingly used. data exchange between tools throughout lifecycle. virtual from physical through lifecycle.
... model by architect. later, engineering model comes in. during operation, things in building for actuation. data are heterogeneous.
... geographical data is important in building. Also Weather data.
... IFC4 already exists.
... there are shortcomings. File-based. not modular.
... not web-compliant.
... IFCS5 is currently worked on in a better direction.
... CG bring together experts, to manage data across building life cycle. Both researchers and practitioners.
... 140+ members as of september 2020.
... 2019 August, there was a change in chairmanship.

Georg shows CG web page.

Georg: We have GitHub page.
... We have bot, lbd, etc. repositories.
... We have public ML. every other week, there is a telecon.
... meny members are associated with other SDOs, such as ISO, ETSI, bSDD, CEN TC 442, etc.
... there are collaborations between other W3C groups as well.
... We maintain github repo.
... bot (building ontology)
... building ontology is being developed again and again.
... there are common relationships.
... we found many relationships between ontologies.
... We came up with initial building topology ontology.
... there is a BOT document published in 2020.
... bot:Zone is part of physical world. general concept from DUL.
... zones are different from different perspective. Architecture, fire, thermal, etc.
... bot:Element examples are chairs, windowsm Air conditiners. constituent of construction entity.
... Chairs can be put into building.
... relationship between concepts. zone relates to element. contains, adjacent, etc. relationship are defined.
... Matryoshka style nesting. building has multiple stories. stpries has spaces.
... zones can intersect. two stories, elevator spans across multiple stories.
... bot:interface is about surface.
... zone and wall. consider heat transfer area. interface is between zone and wall.
... if there are pipe between zones, it can also be interface.
... is it possible to map BOT to brick, ifcOWL4, SAREF4bldg etc?
... BOT is upper level ontology.
... there is a draft community group report in github.
... Next about implementations.
... BOT + SOSA + Geometry were combined using Web interface. There is a YouTube video showing this implementation.
... IFC-to-LBD converter. There is a GitHub repo. IFC has many tools for integrating data. It outputs building topology ontology data.
... Where are we heading at?
... CG is an active forum. building data on web best practices.
... Linking to WoT TD. BOT elements should be able to link to TD.
... Thank you. Any questions?

<Zakim> dape_, you wanted to What makes IFC5 more web compliant? more/other Industry Foundation Classes or also changes w.r.t. to format and such?

Daniel: IFC seems to be using a format.

Georg: They are moving.
... They are shifting from STEP to web-compliant format.

<GeorgSchneider> https://www.buildingsmart.org/about/technical-roadmap/

Daniel: Linking is not very possible at this point, I think.

Mads: Python library can help.

Sebastian: Do we have specification where ontology is hosted?

<GeorgSchneider> All ontologies are hosted here: https://github.com/w3c-lbd-cg/bot

Sebastian: Do you have a fixed URL?

<GeorgSchneider> https://w3id.org/bot

Georg: Yes.

<mlefranc> see https://github.com/w3c-lbd-cg/bot/issues/85

Sebastian: We can think of use cases about how TD can be used with BOT. We can work on a Note document together.

<mlefranc> we have issue https://github.com/w3c-lbd-cg/bot/issues/85 for a JSON-LD context that could be used in conjunction with the TD context

<kaz> scribenick: dape_

Cristiano: interested to work together
... Question: Ontology is high level. Possible to describe bridges?
... not being "actual" building

Mads: BOT is meant for buildings
... one could use the same mechanisms
... Norway did something similar.... works exists

<GeorgSchneider> Definition of bot:Building: Building - An independent unit of the built environment with a characteristic spatial structure, intended to serve at least one function or user activity [ISO-12006].

Georg: definitions are specific to buildings

McCool: +1 for capturing use case
... we do have repo for that

<inserted> wot-usecases repo

McCool: TD examples are very interesting
... in PlugFest we used geolocation with links
... talking about zones / buildings sounds interesting

<McCool> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/939

McCool: spatial data on the web meeting
... scenario: HVAC systems ... coordinate sensors with actuators
... oneDataModel might be of interest also
... SSN talks about feature of interest
... one driving example might be useful

Georg: Question: is there a way to specify location in TD?

McCool: no standard way yet

Sebastian: TD model is meant to be neutral
... location information highly depend on use cases
... that is why we did not pick one
... 1.1 version introduces how location based information can be used... using existing ontologies

McCool: should facilitate convergence

Herve: MQTT: meta-data embedded in JSON-LD ?

McCool: TD is more meant for static information
... dynamic data is more coming from properties
... We do support MQTT bindings

Sebastian: Future plan?
... becoming working group?

Georg: No
... keep community group as is
... spin-off working groups are possible

Sebastian: I see

Georg: For proper standard wg is needed
... we plan to keep CG running

Max: Ted mentioned we do not need to create WG, but we can add topic to the newly proposed Spatial Data on the Web WG Charer

Sebastian: Suggest addressing topic in use case task force
... e.g., creating W3C note

Georg: Sounds good. Support this effort

Sebastian: Will ping M. Lagally
... inviting you in the use case call
... new time slot is planned for the upcoming use case calls
... will let you know once the time/date is set

Georg: Great

Kaz: bringing this to the WoT Use Cases TF and generate some use case description would be great. On the other hand, we should think about the relationship between this ontology proposal and others like oneDM, schema.org

McCool: we have examples combining several ontologies

Kaz: e.g., mashup use cases?

Georg: Yes, there are lots of ontologies
... link to the ones that are recognized
... propose best practices

Kaz: starting with use cases is correct. At some point we need to look at how to integrate best.

Sebastian: Okay, lets discuss this in use case meeting


<inserted> Issue 1000

Sebastian: Issue#1000
... Kevin shared Vorto example
... washer example
... contains properties readOnly, events (partial) and actions (partial)
... "type" reference in properties

<cris> +1

Kevin: Yes, the current link points to complex type and we might need to fully define it

Ege: Datatype representable with JSON schema?

Kevin: Yes, should be possible

Ege: Where do I find the datatype in vorto lang?

<Ege_> ?

Kevin: either repository or same folder structure (in Vorto)

Ege: how is "type" used? Checks?

Kevin: Vorto lang tooling tries to import and resolve
... similar to Java imports

Cristiano: Comment: We might need another keyword ... express model of property
... type does not seem to be the right fit

Kevin: Note: Complex types are aggregrates of simple types

Cristiano: @type is probably not useful either

Sebastian: "mandatory" flag ?

Kevin: payload is similar

Ege: "required" keyword can be used

Sebastian: Let's discuss further in issue
... issue 999, see https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/999
... ML is not here -> postpone
... issue 1001, see https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1001
... about "precision"
... about "reliability" similar issue, https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1001
... ML asked for additional terms

McCool: SSN defines already accuracy and precision

Ege: does not really define what it means.. I think

McCool: I think they do define

<Ege_> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/#SSNSYSTEMAccuracy

McCool: about "reliability" i am not sure if ontology exists

<inserted> Issue 1002

Cristiano: should point to other ontologies OR add another layer
... SOSA layer and SSN

Ege: I do not see "reliability"... but we need to be sure what ML means by that

McCool: Could be accuracy... but I am not sure
... false reading falls into accuracy

Sebastian: I am bit concerned. This information depends a lot on environment / use-case
... not sure if we want to introduce these terms

McCool: We can recommend terms

Cristiano: Should we deprecate unit? Why do we have unit in the first place

McCool: Broader concept... and we have it already

Sebastian: motivation for unit was to provide a simple solution for JSON solutions only..
... not necessarily based on ontology

Cristiano: Not sure were to put the line

Sebastian: Agree. We should be careful
... "stability" was used in the past also
... not sure about the benefits

McCool: stability was meant for support caching... that is, it had an operational purpose
... reliability might be different although might have an operational meaning for analytics (eg to indicate that outliers should be discarded)


<inserted> wot-binding-templates issue 103

Sebastian: issue#103
... how to propose a new binding
... worked on PR also
... Another proposal: Restructure document
... maybe we can have a dedicated section for each protocol, with subsections etc
... at the moment the information is somewhat distributed
... OR one document for defining basic concepts and side-documents for each binding like HTTP, CoAP, ...

Cristiano: +1 for revising structure

Ege: multi documents advantages would be multiple editors for each binding

Daniel: +1 for Ege ;-)

Sebastian: Will create issue
... let's continue discussion on GitHub or next week

<kaz> [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/12/16 08:14:55 $