W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT Use Cases

11 January 2022

Attendees

Present
David_Ezell, Jack_Dickinson, Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Lagally
Scribe
McCool

Meeting minutes

recap

Lagally: before winter break, reviewed doc and now have a version we are seeking approval for publication
… gave people time over the break to review
… there were a few questions outstanding, e.g. how to integrate retail
… but I think we are in a good position to do editorial fixes but not major content changes at this point

minutes

<kaz> Dec-14

Lagally: went over PRs for new use cases
… looked at EdgeX and Connexxus use cases
… integrated some additional use cases, including digital microscopes
… had a proposal for a table

McCool: thought we agreed to take the table out for now... let's discuss today

Lagally: any objections to publish?
… none, publish

logistics

Lagally: back to biweekly schedule?
… we did a big push to update the doc, but I think it is appropriate to relax a little bit and focus on other specs

<mlagally___> proposal: go back to a bi-weekly schedule, skip next weeks cxall and have the next UC call in 2 weeks from now.

<mlagally___> proposal: go back to a bi-weekly schedule, skip next weeks call and have the next UC call in 2 weeks from now.

RESOLUTION: go back to a bi-weekly schedule, skip next weeks call and have the next UC call in 2 weeks from now.

pull requests

Lagally: two presentations from jack and dave, uploading

McCool: appropriate to include in W3C repos?

Kaz: can archive slides, does not require transfer of copyright

David: as mentioned in email, was not sure where the document we talked about was

<mlagally___> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/160/files

<mlagally___> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/159/files

Lagally: just put the content into the repo, under CONTRIBUTIONS
… not new content, just helping you out with the upload

David: we use gitlab, would like to spend time with someone figuring out how to do PRs

Lagally: let's take ten minute after the call
… in the meantime, are we comfortable with merging these?

David: sure

Jack: sure

David: actually, can you not merge the second one, we can use it as a test case in our session?

Lagally: ok, sure, will keep it open

David: but we do approve merging the content

document review

<kaz> WoT Use Cases - 2.5 Retail

Lagally: to recap, reorganized retail into a common section
… the orginal single use case is now set up as an intro

McCool: but it probably needs a little tweaking so the opening use case reads like an introduction
… and I recall we agreed to comment out the table for now (but it's still in the doc)

Lagally: we thought the table was useful, however
… see slide 3 in pres
… but maybe it goes at the beginning of 2.5 before any use case

David: regarding the table, is it a problem if this only exists for retail
… also first two columns don't really fit
… and needs to be updated to list all of them

Lagally: in that case, let's stick with what we have

McCool: david, please do think about the name for the first retail use case
… we called it "retail operations" but that may not be ideal

publication

McCool: need to clean up issues, etc.
… in particular, need to close issues that have been resolved
… e.g. digital microscopes

Issue #172

<kaz> Issue 172 - Revise introductory Retail use case - table, etc.

Lagally: closing issue #172, for retail use cases

Issue #135

<kaz> Issue 135 - Improve references: Use Specref Database references where available for release 2.0

Lagally: issue #135, use specref database references when possible
… note this is specific, there are a set of references that needed to be fixed
… issue is still outstanding

Issue #121

<kaz> Issue 121 - Add citation to Brick Schema

Lagally: this is for Brick schema
… also need to convert the
… URL to an actual reference

Lagally: ok, editorial, mm can you fix?

McCool: yes

Issue #88

<kaz> Issue 88 - Accessibility review of FPWD draft of "WoT Use Cases and Requirements" document

Lagally: accessibility review

McCool: as part of the revirew, they could provide input on issue #64
… e.g. whether we need to add specific considerations to each use case

McCool: ok, assign this to me, I will send the email requesting review

Issue #50

<kaz> Issue 50 - Complete privacy section for Medical use case

McCool: not clear if the different lifecycles are really different use cases or just different ecosystem conventions
… will have to discuss in security

McCool: rather than specific considerations

McCool: (proposed text in issue)

Issue #48

<kaz> Issue 48 - Horizontal use case for time series

McCool: do we have any vertical use cases that mention time series?
… smart home, digital twin, etc.

Kaz: smart building, media, etc.

Issue #49

Lagally: OAuth

<kaz> Issue 49 - Complete privacy section for Oauth use case

McCool: think we can do the same thing here as medical, just add a sentence citing the appropriate spec, in this case the OAuth spec

Issue #39-#44

<kaz> Issue 39 - Cross reference from vertical use cases to horizontal use cases

<kaz> Issue 40 - Cross reference from vertical use cases to Discovery use case

<kaz> Issue 41 - Cross reference from vertical use cases to Oauth use case

<kaz> Issue 42 - Cross reference from vertical use cases to Digital Twin use case

<kaz> Issue 43 - Cross reference from vertical use cases to Geolocation use case

<kaz> Issue 44 - Cross reference from vertical use cases to Edge Computing use case

Lagally: cross references, all deferred to pub 3.0

Issue #75

<kaz> Issue 75 - Requirements document for time stamps/ time series

Lagally: requirements for timestamps; first need use cases

Issue #76

<kaz> Issue 76 - Requirements document for accuracy

McCool: accuracy; we agreed to use SSE terminology
… agree not short-term, but can start by identifying use cases that mention accuracy, e.g. geolocation

others

Lagally: will generally assume other issues are all deferred

[adjourned]

Summary of resolutions

  1. go back to a bi-weekly schedule, skip next weeks call and have the next UC call in 2 weeks from now.
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).