Meeting minutes
Guests
Lagally: please be aware of the W3C PP above
Minutes
Lagally: (goes through the minutes)
… discussed ECHONET use case
… several PRs
… possible discussion with MiniApps during TPAC
McCool: did you create a specific issue for that joint meeting?
Lagally: will do
Kaz: there was some discussion on the WoT Chairs mailinglist as well
… can provide some information about that to the issue later
Lagally: regarding the minutes, any problems?
(none)
approved
OPC-UA liaison
Sebastian: how to proceed?
… not very active so far, but good timing to start more active collaboration
… one proposal is
… use case description
PR 90 - Joint activity for a standardized OPC UA Binding
Sebastian: possible companion standardization group between W3C and OPC UA
… just an idea at the moment, though
McCool: 2 thoughts
… agree need standard protocol for OPC standards
… would add this collaboration to the new Charter
… in the meantime, we can work on a separate Note
Sebastian: what is important is what is owned by OPC UA is semantics
… semantics to be standardized via RDF
… concrete ontologies to be defined on the OPC UA side
Lagally: separate kinds of standards one on the W3C and another on the OPC UA
… note those two orgs have different policies on IPR
Kaz: don't think this description itself would fit with the "WoT Use Cases and Requirements" Note as a use case...
WoT Use Cases and Requirements Note
McCool: picking an ecosytem and thinking about possible binding is useful
… but still need concrete use case description
… this is more for the Charter-level discussion
Lagally: note that we have a section for liaisons
(Sebastian leaves)
McCool: possibly we could think about concrete binding with OPC UA within the Binding Templates document, etc.
… but mixing it into the Use Cases and Requirements itself is confusing
Kaz: agree
Lagally: liaison for Industrie 4.0, etc., itself is important
McCool: right
… but we need concrete description on Use Cases
Kaz: right
… we still need some concrete use case description for this purpose
McCool: maybe we could concentrate on the requirements part of this proposal for OPC UA binding
Kaz: +1
ECLASS
PR 140 - Retail use case with ECLASS semantics
Christian: joined the WoT Use Cases a few months ago
… worked with Sebastian to generate this use case for retail purposes
… expected David's review
… initial question was how to support data exchange for retail
… ECLASS use cases varies over IoT, Engineering, ...
Lagally: using ECLASS for retail purposes
… with Thing Description
Lagally: would be nice to have reference on what ECLASS is like
Christian: ok
… there is generic description below
[[
The ECLASS Standard contains tens of thousands of product classes and unique properties. This lets you standardize procurement, storage, production, and distribution activities in and between companies - across sectors, countries and languages. Realize sales potentials and new synergies, reduce costs, and increase the efficiency of your merchandise and data management.
]]
Lagally: maybe more information on the resources would be useful
McCool: comes up with useful categories
… we should think about the whole retail categories
Kaz: think what part of the vocab to be covered by ECLASS ontology
<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to ask whether we are thinking about products for sale, or devices, or both?
<dezell> https://
David: two other classification scheme
… a lot of products we sale
<dezell> https://
David: GS1 is one organization to be referred to
… global product classification
… with strict tree structure
… once you want some additional family, would be complicated
<McCool> (so something can't be both a dessert and a floor wax?)
David: exactly :)
McCool: this use case is an inventory
… and there are many classifications
… legal requirements may differ from countries
Christian: not only inventory...
McCool: are there any processes?
… "retail inventory and equipment management" would fit better for this description as a title
… ECLASS item to be mapped to some (possibly more than one) GS1 entry
<dezell> Note that W3C has a Dataset Exchange WG with members from Dublin Core - https://
(McCool leaves)
David: dominating vocabulary discussion
Lagally: (adds GSI and W3C DXWG to be mentioned)
McCool: general issue on ontology mapping
Lagally: we should handle mapping of classifications across description schemes
… Christian, could you update the description?
Christian: will work with Sebastian
Kaz: mapping of classification schemas implies data catalog as well (which the DXWG was working on)
Lagally: (adds that point to the comment)
[adjourned]