01:03:20 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
03:04:06 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
04:24:30 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
06:25:23 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
07:00:36 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
07:30:54 <kaz> kaz has joined #wot
07:31:56 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
07:49:03 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
08:15:22 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
09:10:57 <zkis> zkis has joined #wot
09:23:18 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
11:11:22 <zkis> zkis has joined #wot
11:58:53 <zkis> zkis has joined #wot
13:05:28 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
13:14:41 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
14:03:20 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #wot
14:03:31 <McCool> McCool has joined #wot
14:03:31 <kaz> rrsagent, bye
14:03:31 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
14:03:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot
14:03:40 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/03/04-wot-irc
14:03:47 <kaz> Meeting: WoT Liaisons
14:03:59 <ktoumura> ktoumura has joined #wot
14:04:19 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Dave_Raggett, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool
14:05:20 <kaz> present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima
14:06:58 <kaz> present+ Sebastian_Kaebisch
14:07:09 <kaz> present+ Michael_Lagally
14:07:43 <kaz> kaz: would like to ask you all about your opinions/ideas
14:07:58 <kaz> sk: I'm interested in OPC UA
14:08:06 <kaz> ... UA binding for WoT, etc.
14:08:21 <McCool> q+
14:08:29 <kaz> ... how should the collaboration be?
14:08:43 <kaz> ... my proposal was having a joint activity
14:08:58 <kaz> ... but may require much effort
14:09:23 <kaz> ... e.g., W3C and OPCF working on the binding template spec
14:09:44 <mlagally__> mlagally__ has joined #wot
14:09:44 <kaz> ... working with manufacture organizations would make sense
14:09:47 <mlagally__> q+
14:09:59 <kaz> ... but OK with not having a joint charter for the work
14:10:07 <kaz> ... but wondering about how to handle it
14:10:41 <kaz> dsr: we have some precedent with OGC about joint work
14:10:43 <kaz> q?
14:10:55 <kaz> mm: we need to do 2 things
14:11:05 <kaz> ... 1. what's our requirement for goals
14:11:08 <kaz> ... 2. pros and cons
14:11:39 <kaz> ... we're chartered to publish our own specs based on the W3C process
14:11:52 <kaz> present+ Kunihiko_Toumura
14:11:59 <kaz> zakim, who is on the call?
14:11:59 <Zakim> Present: Kaz_Ashimura, Dave_Raggett, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Sebastian_Kaebisch
14:12:15 <kaz> ... we need to clarify the points
14:12:18 <kaz> sk: yeah
14:12:31 <kaz> ... we need to think about IP issues
14:12:54 <sebastian> sebastian has joined #wot
14:12:57 <kaz> mm: would like to stay within the current Charter
14:13:13 <kaz> ... generating royalty-free specs base on the W3C process
14:13:20 <kaz> ... is OPC UA ok with that?
14:13:30 <kaz> q?
14:13:31 <sebastian> q?
14:13:32 <kaz> ack mc
14:13:34 <kaz> q+
14:13:46 <kaz> ml: interoperability problem here
14:13:58 <kaz> ... different organizations with different patent policy, etc.
14:14:04 <kaz> ... we need to set our goals
14:14:10 <kaz> ... what kind of specs we need
14:14:18 <kaz> ... what kind of work is required
14:14:33 <kaz> ... there is no clue yet
14:15:00 <kaz> ... in terms of interoperability, who has time and bandwidth?
14:15:05 <kaz> ... also question about expertise
14:15:25 <kaz> ... knowledge about OPC UA is required
14:15:35 <kaz> ... we first need an actual story for the collaboration
14:15:42 <Mizushima> Mizushima has joined #wot
14:15:43 <kaz> ... e.g., mapping for transition
14:15:56 <kaz> q?
14:16:00 <kaz> ack ml
14:16:13 <kaz> sk: the point here is you can't make benefit yet
14:16:30 <kaz> ... we're resolution for interoperability
14:16:40 <kaz> ... we're offering solutions
14:16:54 <kaz> ml: we're seeking counter-fragments
14:17:08 <kaz> ... figure out reaching out OPC UA guys
14:17:22 <McCool> q+
14:17:23 <kaz> sk: there is silos
14:17:32 <kaz> ml: definitely
14:17:38 <McCool> q+
14:17:52 <dsr> q+
14:18:20 <kaz> sk: OPC UA has their own standards and tools
14:18:41 <kaz> ... but not flexible enough for their requirements
14:18:57 <kaz> ... WoT could be a nice bridge using the Web technology
14:19:03 <kaz> ... for OPC-based systems too
14:19:11 <kaz> ml: right
14:19:30 <kaz> ... but I don't understand your point on the expected collaboration
14:19:58 <kaz> mm: we need to find other benefits
14:20:07 <kaz> ... easy to ingest, etc.
14:20:14 <kaz> ... emphasize a lot of things
14:20:31 <kaz> ... integrating OPC UA with other various ecosystems
14:20:56 <kaz> ml: we counter the fragments of IoT
14:21:33 <kaz> (some more discussions)
14:21:52 <dsr> s/fragments/fragmentation/
14:22:20 <kaz> ml: web technology and wot would bridge with OPC
14:22:31 <kaz> mm: detailed list of benefits to be generated
14:22:41 <kaz> ... specific about the benefits
14:22:44 <kaz> ml: absolutely
14:22:46 <kaz> q?
14:23:00 <kaz> ... we have to have compelling descriptions
14:23:24 <kaz> mm: do we have any champions on the OPC UA side?
14:23:33 <kaz> ... who to convince?
14:23:42 <kaz> ... what's the status
14:23:57 <kaz> sk: technical director of OPC UA
14:27:01 <dsr> q?
14:27:30 <kaz> kaz: wondering why we can't go through the usual path for liaison, e.g., use case discussion and plugfest demonstration, for OPC UA
14:27:58 <kaz> sk: we've already started some use case discussion
14:28:01 <kaz> kaz: right
14:28:15 <kaz> ... and why don't we simply continue to discuss it?
14:28:25 <kaz> sk: (shows his generated PR for use cases)
14:29:44 <McCool> q+
14:29:50 <mlagally__> q+
14:29:57 <dsr> ack kaz
14:31:19 <dsr> ack McCool
14:31:29 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/90 wot-usecases PR 90
14:32:26 <kaz> kaz: we should start with the actual use case and business needs description rather than starting with a proposal on joint spec work
14:32:29 <kaz> mm: right
14:32:31 <kaz> dsr: right
14:32:36 <kaz> ?
14:32:40 <kaz> s/?//
14:32:42 <kaz> q?
14:32:45 <kaz> ack d
14:32:48 <kaz> ack ml
14:33:05 <kaz> ml: why don't we start with our usual small steps?
14:33:13 <kaz> ... to see the need for the collaboration
14:35:18 <kaz> ... your goal is thinking about Thing Description for OPC devices. right?
14:35:21 <kaz> sk: right
14:36:01 <dsr> q+
14:36:47 <kaz> ... you could have a common way to define endpoints
14:37:05 <kaz> ... regardless of the subsystems
14:37:15 <kaz> ml: that's integration issues. right?
14:37:19 <kaz> dsr: right
14:37:39 <kaz> ... many different systems could be involved
14:37:44 <kaz> sk: yeah
14:38:17 <kaz> ... and OPC UA is a big market to be involved
14:38:31 <kaz> q+
14:38:34 <kaz> ack d
14:38:41 <mlagally__> q+
14:41:02 <sebastian> Karl Deiretsbacher - OPC Foundation Technical Director
14:41:15 <kaz> ... so collaboration with them would be very useful for marketing and deploy purposes too
14:41:21 <kaz> s/... so/sk: so/
14:41:44 <mlagally__> ?
14:41:48 <mlagally__> q?
14:43:46 <kaz> ack k
14:43:51 <kaz> (some more discussions)
14:45:51 <mlagally__> q?
14:46:45 <mlagally__> yeah, we just should ensure we also have time to talk about ITU
14:47:20 <mlagally__> we should try to discuss here
14:48:38 <dezell> dezell has joined #wot
14:49:48 <kaz> sk: (gives clarifications on the background history)
14:50:11 <kaz> ml: would like to suggest we continue the use case discussion
14:50:44 <kaz> sk: we might be going to fail the possible OPC binding
14:51:26 <kaz> mm: can understand your concern but we should clarify our need first
14:51:37 <kaz> ... also the champion who handles that collaboration
14:52:07 <kaz> ... e.g., talk with somebody from OPC side to clarify what is needed
14:52:46 <kaz> sk: one possibility is working with the OPC UA guys for some specific use case
14:52:50 <kaz> ml: that's good
14:53:03 <kaz> mm: can be done via the current simple liaison
14:53:15 <kaz> present+ David_Ezell
14:53:25 <kaz> mm: writing down the motivation as well
14:53:26 <kaz> q?
14:53:29 <kaz> ack ml
14:53:37 <kaz> ml: then
14:53:46 <kaz> ... would like to talk about the ITU-T liaison too
14:53:58 <kaz> ... some of their specs are pretty old
14:54:01 <McCool> q+
14:54:10 <kaz> ... could be added to the terminology
14:54:20 <kaz> ... many thanks for McCool
14:54:40 <kaz> ... what should be done for the joint discussion during the vF2F on March 22?
14:55:01 <kaz> mm: on their side updating their specs for better alignment
14:55:05 <kaz> ... should ask them
14:55:22 <kaz> ml: collaboration for interoperability?
14:55:46 <kaz> mm: we should say what they want to do on the ITU-T side
14:56:01 <kaz> ... updating their spec to get aligned with our specs
14:56:17 <kaz> ... if their specs recommend W3C WoT, that's fine
14:56:40 <kaz> ... but aligning the terminology is important, for example
14:56:42 <kaz> ml: yeah
14:56:48 <kaz> ... we should ask them about their plan
14:57:23 <kaz> ... for counter-fragment effort
14:57:30 <kaz> mm: yeah
14:57:47 <kaz> ... it's possible their WoT is an extension of W3C WoT
14:58:02 <kaz> ml: let's see their ideas
14:58:31 <kaz> ... so regarding OPC UA, we'll refine the use case description
14:58:40 <kaz> ... based on the feedback from the OPC UA side
14:58:48 <kaz> sk: ok
14:59:08 <kaz> ... but not possible within the upcoming a few weeks
14:59:13 <kaz> ml: that's ok
15:00:13 <kaz> sk: btw, still wondering about the possible joint Charter
15:00:21 <kaz> mm: that's possible if really needed
15:01:02 <kaz> sk: would involve people from OPC UA into our discussion
15:01:08 <kaz> ml: we can invite them to our meetings
15:01:23 <kaz> ... e.g., the use cases call
15:01:27 <kaz> [adjourned]
15:01:32 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
15:01:39 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:01:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/03/04-wot-minutes.html kaz
15:18:19 <Ege> Ege has joined #wot
15:37:26 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
15:57:35 <Mizushima> Mizushima has left #wot
16:56:33 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wot
17:00:36 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
17:47:45 <zkis> zkis has joined #wot
18:34:00 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
19:08:59 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
19:27:38 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
20:01:50 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
20:19:07 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
20:36:31 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
22:01:48 <dsr> dsr has joined #wot
22:13:24 <zkis> zkis has joined #wot