W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT Architecture

17 February 2022

Attendees

Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Lagally
Scribe
kaz, McCool

Meeting minutes

minutes

Lagally: Feb 10 minutes

<kaz> Feb-10

Lagally: anything needs to be changed? Any objections to publish?
… hearing none, will be published.

PRs

PR #695

<kaz> PR 695 - fixes #688: Improving language, adding rfc2119 assertion

Lagally: improving language, rfc2119

<kaz> diff - 7.1.3 Links

Lagally: suggest we use Web Thing consistently for Thing with a network interface

McCool: I would be ok with that, as a more precise subclass of Thing
… in which case Device and Service are subclasses of Web Thing (and also, indirectly, Thing)

Kaz: if we need to discuss the data transfer diagram for this PR, we should rather discuss the terminology issue to clarify the basic components and data transfer among them

McCool: suggest we do the diagram offline, and have a pure class relationships without extra stuff we have to maintain (like descriptions)

Lagally: (edits diagram)

Lagally: ok, need to make some adjustments, will hold on this one for now

PR #696

<kaz> PR 696 - New section on "virtual things", clarifying terminology

<kaz> related Issue 682 - clarify virtual thing

<kaz> diff - 6.9 Virtual Things

McCool: I think "abstract thing" is the wrong name, could be "thing that has metadata", i.e. Metadata Thing
… we do have use cases for some of these, e.g. compositions are already in TD spec, links things (called Thing Links, actually) are in Directories under discovery

Kaz: might be good to have "levels" of definitions
… and then there is virtualization, mapping between physical and virtual entity

McCool: right now virtual thing "represents" other Things, and this is a different kind of relationship than subclass

Kaz: right. if we've not yet clearly defined "virtualization" yet and would use "representing" as the basic relationship, that's ok. however, we should split "representing layer" and "represented layer".

Lagally: seems composition thing is a subclass of link thing

McCool: location thing (thing representing a location) might be very complex
… however, it may simply be an RDF class, e.g. from the BOT ontology

Kaz: location itself is information which can be part of the TD, so I'm not sure about the "location Thing" as part of this diagram. maybe a sensor entity providing location information

Lagally: ok, let's leave location off for now and move

PR #700

<kaz> PR 700 - Update Abstract

McCool: so added "prescriptive when necessary" and took out link to Use Cases (refs not allowed in abstract)

PR #701

<kaz> PR 701 - Update Implementation Report link in SOTD

Lagally: not yet done, let's hold

Kaz: so we'll wait until the actual report is once fixed. right?

McCool: yes

PR #711

<kaz> PR 711 - Definitions for Device, Service, etc.

McCool: definitions for Device, Service, etc. as discussed

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).