12:05:13 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot
12:05:13 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/04/06-wot-irc
12:05:18 <kaz> meeting: WoT-IG/WG
12:05:30 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Ege_Korkan
12:05:51 <cris> cris has joined #wot
12:06:21 <kaz> present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi, Tomoaki_Mizushima
12:07:26 <kaz> scribenick: cris
12:07:35 <kaz> present+ Sebastian_Kaebisch
12:07:41 <sebastian> sebastian has joined #wot
12:07:41 <cris> topic: previous minutes
12:07:50 <kaz> -> https://www.w3.org/2022/03/30-wot-minutes.html Mar-30
12:07:55 <kaz> chair: McCool/Sebastian
12:08:37 <cris> mc: seems ok
12:09:06 <cris> ... I'm sure I've created the OPC-UA call but there were some problems with the calendar
12:09:23 <cris> ... sorry for the confusion
12:10:18 <Mizushima_> Mizushima_ has joined #wot
12:10:49 <cris> ... btw we now a name for the core profile. it is based on http
12:11:01 <cris> ... do you see any problems with the minutes?
12:11:09 <kaz> present+ Michael_Lagally
12:11:59 <cris> ... minutes approved
12:12:01 <mlagally_> mlagally_ has joined #wot
12:12:21 <cris> topic: OPC-UA liaison
12:12:27 <cris> mc: two things to talk about
12:12:37 <cris> ... one is technical requirements and goals
12:12:59 <cris> ... then we have the discussion about the collaboration with the opc organization
12:13:23 <kaz> present+ Daniel_Peintner
12:13:34 <cris> subtopic: technical activities
12:13:38 <McCool> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1020
12:13:42 <dape> dape has joined #wot
12:13:44 <kaz> s/https/-> https/
12:13:57 <McCool> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/opcua-tech-reqs/liaisons/opcf/tech_reqs.md
12:14:04 <kaz> s/1020/1020 PR 1020 - Technical Requirements for OPC UA/WoT Binding #1020|
12:14:13 <kaz> s/1020|/1020
12:14:20 <cris> mc: two open points: objectives and deliverables
12:14:38 <cris> ... as far as technical objectives
12:15:04 <cris> ... we want that a wot consumer should be able to use an OPC-UA server as a thing
12:15:15 <dezell> dezell has joined #wot
12:15:23 <dezell> present+ David_Ezell
12:15:47 <ktoumura> ktoumura has joined #wot
12:15:50 <kaz> present+ Kunihiko_Toumura
12:16:16 <dezell_> dezell_ has joined #wot
12:16:27 <dezell_> present+ David_Ezell
12:16:30 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
12:16:35 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:16:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/06-wot-minutes.html kaz
12:16:35 <cris> mc: another thing is to integrate WoT TD metadata in OPC UA servers
12:16:52 <mlagally_> q+
12:16:54 <cris> ... integrate also with discovery
12:17:25 <cris> ... the endgame is to have WoT TD metadata be part of the OPC-UA vocabulary
12:17:47 <cris> ... therefore we have to build different documents
12:17:49 <kaz> s/technical activities/Technical requirements/
12:17:57 <cris> ... an onthology
12:18:19 <cris> ... protocol binding template document
12:18:39 <cris> ... then define a process to transform an UA NodesetFile to a WoT Thing Description and vice versa
12:19:25 <stevelee> stevelee has joined #wot
12:19:33 <cris> ... is there also a OPC-UA way to discover TDs ?
12:19:42 <sebastian> q+
12:19:42 <kaz> q?
12:19:42 <cris> q?
12:19:44 <kaz> q+
12:19:48 <kaz> ack ml
12:19:49 <cris> q+
12:20:28 <cris> ml: I would first start from use cases
12:20:45 <cris> mc: we can add it to the use case document
12:21:16 <cris> ml: I would not go with the metadata with the objectives
12:21:26 <cris> ... what's the purpose of sharing metedata
12:22:50 <cris> ... do you mean understanding tds?
12:23:04 <cris> mc: a consumer needs to interpret metadata
12:23:25 <cris> ml: this means that a device described by a TD should be usable in the OPC-UA ecosystem
12:23:40 <cris> mc: it is more about using opc-ua devices from a wot consumer
12:23:53 <cris> ... it would be nice to have bidirectional interaction
12:24:12 <cris> ... like a servient
12:24:41 <cris> ml: ok thank you
12:26:50 <cris> ml: d1 and d2 would they depend to each other?
12:27:05 <cris> mc: yeah they depend to each other
12:27:39 <mjk> mjk has joined #wot
12:27:48 <cris> s/they depend to each other/d2 depends to d1 but not the other way around/
12:27:52 <cris> ml: right
12:28:25 <cris> ... this begs the question who does what. Do we need separate groups ?
12:28:25 <cris> mc: I think we can defer this conversation later
12:28:31 <cris> ml: ok
12:28:44 <mjk> q?
12:28:49 <cris> q?
12:29:04 <kaz> present+ Michael_Koster
12:29:25 <cris> mc: I'm going to merge the PR, if people want to make suggestions the y can edit the file
12:30:05 <cris> seb: I agree with the objectives
12:30:16 <cris> ... we need to sync with opc-ua
12:30:54 <cris> ... especially for discovery
12:30:54 <cris> ... we should also be realistic and stick with a small set of objectives
12:31:08 <cris> ... we can prioritize task items
12:31:17 <cris> mc: I agree
12:31:33 <kaz> ack seb
12:31:54 <cris> ... however we need to be sound, and cover the industry needs
12:32:03 <cris> kaz: great starting point
12:32:27 <cris> ... we need to discuss about the process view point
12:32:46 <cris> ... microsoft also have their ontology defintion for ddtl
12:33:31 <kaz> s/view point/viewpoint as well/
12:34:05 <cris> mc: we need to set up a set of liason call to discuss these points with them
12:34:37 <kaz> s/microsoft also have their ontology defintion for ddtl/also at some point in the future, we should think about potential integration with the other ontologies as well like IEC/
12:34:48 <kaz> ack k
12:34:50 <kaz> ack c
12:37:06 <mjk> Discovery Binding
12:37:25 <mjk> +1 Discovery Binding
12:37:41 <cris> cris: two things: there might be difficulties with mapping opc-ua data model into wot data model
12:38:23 <cris> ... plus I think the discovery derivable can be part of a greater discussion about how to map discovery methods in WoT
12:38:23 <cris> ... Discovery binding
12:38:38 <cris> mc: I agree maybe for Discovery 2.0
12:38:47 <mjk> Cristiano, do you have a summary of the issues in data model mapping? Would like to review
12:39:31 <cris> sadly no :( we had a very long call and in the end we decide to hide opc-ua model from WoT applications
12:40:08 <kaz> q+
12:40:09 <cris> ... I think in the node-wot implemetnation there's an option to force the runtime return OPC-UA specific payloads
12:40:19 <cris> ... i.e. timestamps etc.
12:40:32 <cris> q?
12:40:43 <cris> subtopic: process
12:40:53 <cris> mc: we can start from a small group of people
12:40:56 <mlagally_> q+
12:41:04 <cris> seb: we need people also from opc-ua fundation
12:41:20 <kaz> s/fundation/foundation/
12:41:30 <cris> ... there's no working group taking care about wot integration there
12:41:50 <cris> ... I know people interested in this integration
12:42:01 <cris> ... I can contact theme
12:42:06 <cris> s/theme/them/
12:42:17 <cris> ... and invite them to this call
12:42:38 <cris> mc: I suggest to bring up a good techinical proposal for opc-ua
12:42:50 <cris> ... and ask for review
12:43:02 <mlagally_> q?
12:43:02 <cris> ... and refine the proposal
12:43:16 <cris> ... after we can go to the technical board?
12:43:46 <cris> seb: ok I will ask interest people to join
12:44:06 <cris> kaz: I agree with Michael's proposal
12:44:22 <cris> ... also other groups don't have dedicated people working on wot
12:44:33 <cris> ... they just join our meetings when the feel like
12:44:41 <cris> mc: we have some action items
12:44:41 <kaz> ack k
12:44:48 <kaz> s/Michael's/McCool's/
12:44:52 <cris> ... gather people and input
12:45:00 <cris> ... doodle pool for people to meet
12:45:02 <kaz> q?
12:45:17 <kaz> ack ml
12:45:26 <cris> ... after this we can discuss how to organize things between the two organizations
12:46:11 <cris> ml: why don't we ask directly to the liaison chair in the OPC-UA foundation to look for interested companies
12:46:15 <kaz> q+
12:46:28 <cris> mc: it would be better to trust Sebastian for this
12:46:42 <cris> ... for the technical discussion
12:47:01 <kaz> -> https://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison#opc OPC Liaison contact is Mr. Stefan Hoppe
12:47:09 <cris> s/liaison chair/liaison officer/
12:47:54 <cris> seb: we can but maybe we don't wont managment people for a technical discussion
12:47:56 <cris> mc: right
12:48:18 <cris> kaz: keep them in the loop, we have the mailing list
12:48:21 <cris> mc: I agree
12:48:47 <kaz> s/mailing list/mailing list, team-liaisons@w3.org/
12:48:48 <cris> topic: Use Case coverage
12:49:01 <kaz> s/keep them/keep the Liaison Team/
12:49:08 <cris> ml: we published the use cases document
12:49:19 <cris> ... the second version is available
12:49:32 <cris> ... in the repository we have the converage.csv
12:49:39 <cris> ... what is the purpose of this document?
12:49:53 <cris> ... I believe some clarity is required
12:49:59 <cris> ... I wrote an explainer
12:50:26 <cris> ... the table has a column for use case name and section number
12:50:47 <cris> ... then we have a column for each deliverable
12:50:52 <Ege> I would like to discuss about https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/192 if there is time
12:50:52 <kaz> i|we published|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/main/USE-CASES/coverage.csv coverage.csv|
12:51:23 <McCool> q+
12:51:27 <kaz> ack k
12:51:30 <cris> ... for example reading the use cases there are a set of requirements/gaps
12:52:01 <cris> ... the goal of the table is to find specific gaps in each wot deliverable
12:52:02 <kaz> i|we published|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/189 wot-usecases Issue 189 - Clarify Expectations for Coverage Table|
12:52:14 <dape> q+
12:52:17 <cris> ... I also added a comment column
12:52:19 <Ege> q+
12:52:41 <cris> ... mccool is working on another table with requirements
12:53:09 <cris> ... is summarizing the requirements from the use cases list
12:53:35 <mlagally_> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/main/USE-CASES/README-coverage.md
12:53:52 <cris> mc: I created this requirement table
12:54:34 <cris> ... we should identify also if the requirements comes from different use cases
12:55:23 <cris> ... status of the device is an example of requirement that is in multiple places
12:55:26 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pull/191 wot-usecases PR 191 - Create requirements-summary.csv
12:56:13 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/requirements-summary/REQUIREMENTS/requirements-summary.csv proposed requirements-summary.csv file
12:56:16 <cris> ... I want to suggest to use this table to enrich the coverage.csv with a quick definition
12:58:02 <kaz> q?
12:58:05 <kaz> q+
12:58:09 <kaz> ack mc
12:58:43 <cris> ... I grouped security and privacy requirements in their own section
12:59:22 <cris> ... I want to merge this PR so that we can collaboratively edit it
12:59:25 <cris> q?
12:59:31 <kaz> ack dape
12:59:52 <cris> dape: coming back to coverage.csv is not about coverage is rather gaps
13:00:03 <cris> ml: correct
13:00:11 <kaz> s/csv/csv, it/
13:00:29 <kaz> s/coverage is/coverage itself. it's/
13:00:36 <kaz> s/gaps/about gaps/
13:01:00 <cris> dape: looking at it from the scripting api point of view is hard
13:01:43 <cris> ... I not sure if the use case is meant to work with script api as it might be written with scripting api in mind
13:01:51 <cris> ... but they are just application descriptions
13:01:52 <sebastian> I need to go. See you in TD call
13:02:01 <kaz> s/I not sure/I'm not sure/
13:02:40 <kaz> q?
13:03:26 <McCool> q?
13:03:38 <cris_> cris_ has joined #wot
13:03:48 <cris_> dape: got it
13:04:08 <cris_> ege:  added an issue
13:04:29 <kaz> i/got it/scribenick: cris_/
13:05:21 <cris_> ... we need dedicated sections to point directly to wot deliverables
13:05:41 <cris_> ml: I agree, but we can do it in a second phase
13:05:49 <cris_> ... can I ask you to create a PR ?
13:06:07 <Fady> Fady has joined #wot
13:06:16 <cris_> ege: I want to discuss it in today's PB call
13:06:24 <cris_> ml: yeah we can start from there
13:06:25 <kaz> q?
13:06:27 <McCool> q?
13:06:29 <kaz> ack e
13:06:30 <McCool> ack e
13:06:50 <cris_> kaz: I tend to agree with Mccool
13:06:57 <cris_> ... but we need to define a policy
13:10:49 <Ege> q+
13:11:21 <kaz> kaz: my question is whether we want to do this effort for the current 1.1 version specs or not, if so, we should rather go for a summary level description on which technical requirements should be covered by which spec(s) rather than detailed use case template. If we want to do this for the 2.0 spec work, we could try detailed gap analysis, though./
13:11:34 <kaz> s|though./|though.|
13:11:50 <kaz> i/my question/scribenick: kaz/
13:11:52 <kaz> ack k
13:12:18 <cris_> mc: aob ?
13:13:01 <cris_> mc: adjourned
13:13:14 <kaz> i/aob/scribenick: cris_/
13:13:20 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:13:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/04/06-wot-minutes.html kaz
13:22:10 <dezell_> dezell_ has left #wot
13:23:07 <dezell_> dezell_ has joined #wot
13:23:17 <stevelee> stevelee has joined #wot
13:31:02 <McCool> q?
13:33:08 <McCool> q?
13:44:15 <McCool> q?
15:00:05 <dezell_> dezell_ has left #wot
16:05:57 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wot