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://
<mlagally___> https://
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]