Meeting minutes
<kaz> vF2F Day 4 discussion as the starting point
note there was a review document discussed in the last meeting
<kaz> McCool's summary on ITU-T use cases analysis
Lagally: what we would like to do today is discuss our goals for collaboration
… for example, when looking at your documents, we noticed some gaps in our own terminology
… and we don't know about your future plans, and whether there is an opportunity to align ITU-T and W3C standards
… at the very least we want to look for synergies, gaps, and collaboration opportunities
… willingness on WoT side to define some new work items, as long as we can justify them
… in the new charter, starting next year
McCool: so we'd also like to understand the willingness of ITU-T to publish updates, collaborate, etc.
McCool: as for a new WoT charter, we would write/submit it in the fall, then start it in Jan 2022 (probably)
Lagally: I understand there is an upcoming ITU-T meeting coming?
Gyu_Myoung: 17 May and 27 May plenary meetings
… other days will have several other individual meetings on different topics
… these are only for ITU-T members
Lagally: we have been sketching out some ideas for working together
… for example, would there be a willingness to adopt TDs?
McCool: note there would technically be no problem with supporting both, and deprecating the less-used one over time
Lagally: some technical questions; are these equivalent, can we express the same things? Can they be automatically translated?
… is anyone in ITU-T interested in moving to more modern metadata description?
McCool: and also, how many implementations are there?
Gyu_Myoung: as far as I know, now specific activities
… there is something going on with metadata; but as for WoT, although we have developed recommendations, and have an ongoing work item in health care
… ITU-T also does not intend to develop any protocols
… want to focus on architectural modelling and use cases; high-level concepts
… to really collaborate, we would have to organize a meeting and focus on a list of specific gaps
… and then work towards a harmonized solution
Lagally: if we organized a meeting, can the health-care editor attend, and who should/could attend?
Gyu_Myoung: next meeting we will be setting up a new organization structure
… basically the period ended last year and new one starts this year
… and there is a group for data management topics, which I think metadata fits into
… will provide a link
Gyu_Myoung: is a "question/poll" posted to the group
… on the data processing and management
… and note that collaboration is called out in this page
McCool: although would be useful to discuss linked data in general in this context
Lagally: so, is it realistic to get to something like an endorsement of WoT?
McCool: the current spec does use a W3C metadata standard, so there is precedent
Lagally: it all depends on the stakeholders and business interests of the representatives
Lagally: don't know enough about the process in ITU-T
… I understand there is a 4-year study period; what is the publication process?
Gyu_Myoung: in this case we plan to continue work into a new period
Lagally: so it takes a couple of years to publish a document?
Gyu_Myoung: if we start a new relevant work item, need at least 2 years to publish
Lagally: do you think we can get people from the DPM group into a call to work on a plan?
… for example, to define a common goal or document
Kaz: for Q4, what is the main use case or business area? I see smart city is mentioned...
Gyu_Myoung: mainly consider 2; IoT in general; and smart cities and communities
Lagally: we do have some smart cities use cases, we could discuss those and ask for feedback
… and whether they would agree or support these use cases
… there are also some health care use cases
McCool: Kaz and I are involved in a W3C workshop on smart cities
… to clarify use cases and stakeholders
Lagally: and that would engage with a wider set of people from W3C
Lagally: but we would also like feedback on the document we are about to publish
McCool: some feedback on documents would indeed be very helpful, but we could make a list of other goals
Kaz: two goals from the viewpoint of W3C as a whole
… one would be input to the WoT UC document
… and the other thing, which is separate, is the Smart Cities Workshop; but this is much broader
… and for this call, we should focus on the WoT use cases document
McCool: other goals could include studying the feasibility of adopting TDs in ITU-T, looking for feedback on other specs, etc.
Lagally: I think we should be very focused
... we want to drive synergies and decrease fragmentation
... so we really want to seek adoption by TDs by other organizations
... that is the goal; the UC review is just a task
... so as the next step we should target a call with the right people, put together a presentation on WoT, etc.
… and should look at the right format for working together
… ideally the common goal should also be of sufficient interest to ITU-T that ITU-T members would be engaged in the work
Lagally: who proposes the action items and tasks within the ITU-T?
Gyu_Myoung: I think it would be helpful for WoT to send a liaison statement to ITU-T to state some specific requests
… based on this document I can initiate discussion?
McCool: is there a format for this document, and what should the goals be?
Gyu_Myoung: just an email, and mention an interesting point for collaboration, including setting up a workshop
McCool: so the request could just be a formal meeting request to discuss goals, not actual specific technical goals
Gyu_Myoung: suggest that we send it to SG20, and then that will allow other subgroups to join besides DPM, for example
Lagally: should we have an informal meeting with key stakeholders first? What is the most efficient/typical approach?
Gyu_Myoung: we could also discuss with administrative groups in ITU-T
Lagally: would you be willing to help us talk to the right people, and word the request appropriately
Kaz: holding a joint "workshop" directly is complicated
McCool: we could do an ITU-T workshop them join...
Kaz: "workshop" has a specific meaning on the W3C side, so I'd suggest we start with another joint meeting including more participants from the ITU-T side (e.g., SG20's Question 4)
McCool: I think the word "workshop" means different things in the two groups
… so let's avoid this term in the email and just propose a joint call
<McCool> ok, I think we reached a point we can close
<McCool> we can follow up with email; a draft email
Action: mmccool to draft an email requesting a call with SG20 on WoT alignment; to send to mlagally and kaz for input, then Gyu Myoung Lee for feedback, then have a WoT/W3C/W3M resolution, finally to send to SG20
[adjourned]