– DRAFT –
OPC-UA Liaison

Logistics

Sebastian: (gives instruction on the IRC)

OPC UA / W3C WoT Liaison

Sebastian: have been doing discussions
… WoT would allow people develop IoT apps quickly
… including OPC platform

Kaz: just to make sure, OK to publish the minutes from this meeting publicly

(everybody is OK to publish the minutes publicly)

Karl: the meeting itself being recorded?

McCool: would suggest we record this time

Sebastian: any problems?

(none)

recording started

Sebastian: (starts his presentation)

Agenda

Sebastian: would like to start introduction
… some people can't make this call but very interested
… (shows regrets list)
… Bernd, Etienne, Heiko, Stephan

(then starts quick self introduction by the participants)

Sebastian Kaebisch, Michael McCool

Erich Barnstedt

Karl Deiretsbacher

Jim Luth

Johannes Olbort

Kevin Brohan

Matthias Arnold

Matt Wherry

Reiner Sciekofer

Michael Lagally

Kaz Ashimura

Aparna Thuluva

Cristiano Aguzzi

Darko Anicic

Kunihiko Toumura

Ryuichi Matsukura

Tetsushi Matsuda

Tomoaki Mizushima

McCool: WoT-JP CG is working with ECHONET, FYI

OPC UA Binding for WoT

Sebastian's slides

[slide 1] Motivation

Sebastian: The Web and the standards are established in our daily life and various businesses.
… (mentions various Web services)
… multiple sub-services are integrated for a specific service on the Web
… W3C WoT standardize building blocks for IoT like that
… so that people can generate services easily
… one of the building blocks should be the landing page for IoT purposes
… that's what the WoT Thing Description should provide
… integrate the data and function points is needed
… on the other hand, OPC is working on industries based on Industie 4.0

[slide 2] What is Missing?

Sebastian: important to have documents on how to use it
… WoT binding template describes how the forms within the WoT Thing Description should be set up
… a possible OPC UA binding template should describe how to set it up for OPC endpoints

[slide 3] Proposed Idea

Sebastian: have been proposing this idea
… how the official semantic should look like
… would be greate to describe that based on the WoT data model
… OPC UA is working on something similar to the WoT Thing Description
… named UA NodesetFile
… W3C WoT WG/IG has been working on PoC named Plugfest
… to evaluate working assumptions
… details on discussion on GitHub

McCool: need to clarify what kind of technical work to be done by whom

wot repo PR 1020

Lagally: what is important is working together
… working hand in hand

[slide 4] Current status of collaboration

Sebastian: (describes the history so far)
… note that the WoT WG is wrapping up our 1.1 specs
… and are considering the new topics for then 2.0 Charter period

McCool: want to finalize the Charter work by early next year
… while the MoU is expected earlier than that

Sebastian: important step is working on the MoU
… would clarify a concrete plan for that

[slide 5] Proposed Next Step

Sebastian: for that purpose, would like to have another meeting by the OPCF representatives and the WoT Chairs/Staff

McCool: need to clarify the scope for our next Charter
… assumption of focus on TD and binding

Sebastian: need to think about the major goal

McCool: one more piece is security
… interaction with OPC would require some mechanism to handle the security too
… maybe need something new onboard

Matt: question about the scope
… semantic definition would be useful

Sebastian: WoT Thing Description is generated based on semantic interoperability
… further clarification would be great

Kaz: clarifying the scope should be the next step, I completely agree
… on the other hand, I think we should clarify the need for the MoU
… we already have liaison between OPC and W3C
… so we can have any king of technical collaboration
… W3C spec work is already public and W3C can provide any information to OPC
… so I'd like to know if OPC needs MoU for further discussion even if we could start with public information

Jim: we can hold technical discussion based on the current liaison
… MoU and Charter to clarify the scope of the next steps

Matt: possibly could work with the TCB members

Jim: yes, we could help you

Lagally: it's great to have this discussion
… but we need another dedicated discussion by the experts from both the sides
… need further clarification about the procedure including MoU as well
… good step forward gradually
… let's clarify what's needed!

Sebastian: right
… let's have another call
… to clarify procedure
… and also the scope fo the technical collaboration
… would it be OK?

McCool: logistics will be discussed by email?

Sebastian: will send information on another doodle
… also give comments to the GitHub PR

PR 1020 - Technical Objectives and Requirements for OPC UA/WoT Binding

[adjourned]