Meeting minutes
Logistics
Scribe
Kaz: will do for the 1st part
<kaz> s/kaz: will do for the 1st part//
Ben for the 1st part; Kaz for the 2nd part
Overview
<kaz> McCool's slides
McCool: The biggest problem with IoT is fragmentation
... Thing Descriptions describe the
network interface of a Thing, and some metadata. Currently working
on Thing Description 1.1
… A TD is an information model, serialised as
JSON-LD, which means it can be imported into a RDF database and
queried with SPARQL
… You can import external ontologies (e.g.
schema.org) to do things like units
… Things must have a Thing Description
… Not just HTTP, we can also describe CoAP and MQTT
and are currently working on standards for others like
OPC-UA
… Thing Description describes an abstraction based
on properties, actions and events at a high level, then protocol
bindings to tell a Consumer how to carry out those interactions
over a protocol
… Provides an abstraction so in theory a Consumer
does not need to worry about the details of a protocol
… One of the problems with discovery is privacy, so
we use a two stage approach to discovery
… Introduction, then exploration
… The initial URL used in the introduction phase
has no private information, then you do a GET on the URL,
authenticate, and use a standard API for a web service to get
metadata about devices
… When describing brownfield devices, the TD can
come from somewhere else, the devices themselves don't need to
support the Web of Things
… One thing we didn't get to is geolocation-based
search, but we are trying to figure out a way to do it through
extension mechanisms in the short term, then address it in the next
version
… Orchestration - there is a scripting API with an
implementation called node-wot through the Eclipse
Foundation
… Deliverables. We are hoping to go into CR
(candidate recommendation) for Architecture, TD and Discovery, with
a vote on September 21st, right after TPAC
… Aiming for a resolution by the end of the
year
… w3.org/WoT is a website which links to everything
else
… Recent activity. We have done PlugFests, the last
one was a couple of weeks ago reading for CR and PR
transition.
… In good shape for implementations of discovery.
Also working on IETF registrations for various things.
… Currently discussing the next charter. There are
some proposals about what to do next.
… There has been a lot of interest in WoT for smart
buildings - building information systems
… Siemens have a project with the Desigo CC BIM,
Takenaka Corporation have the CGLL platform, Bosch have the Ditto
project
… This presentation is available on
GitHub
Sebastian: We are currently finalising the charter which is running until the end of January. We are already designing a new charter and discussing the topics you would like to address. Use the chance to see what you would like to see in Web of Things "2.0".
McCool: If you go to the wot repo you will see a bunch of PRs (pull requests), with a set of proposals.
Sebastian: We can go to the first talk about the Community Group. The CG has existed for almost 10 years, Cristiano and Ege have re-started this group and are the current chairs. I'd like to ask if they can provide an insight into this new group.
WoT Community Group
<kaz> Sep-13 WoT CG minutes
Ege: Have changed from an incubation to an outreach activity. It may mean we have some conflicts with the WoT Interest Group, so need to work on a new setup.
<cris_>
https://
Cristiano: We are organising an event a week from now. We are using the W3C calendar.
Cristiano: We already had some new people attend, which is our first success.
Cristiano: We will have
a presentation about the SIFIS Home project (European
project)
… Philipp Blum will talk about building a
community
… We want to process to be a democratic
process
Ege: The event is next Thursday.
Ege: We had maybe 20
people join, quite a few people we haven't met before. Some people
were expecting a summary of the Web of Things. We maybe should have
prepared something.
… Specific interest for smart cities and digital
twins
… We had an idea to have an initial
brainstorming/ideas session which is focused on digital
twins
… Maybe we should take smart cities more
seriously
… After TPAC we will use the marketing call for
discussions regarding the collaboration with the CG
… Feel free to join the marketing calls on
Tuesdays
Cristiano: We can jumpstart some discussion right now?
Sebastian: Maybe you can talk about the web page, tooling, spaces for people who are interested in latest news and so on
Ege: Here you can see
the Web of Things web page. You can find information about the Web
of Things Working Group activities, events.
… There is a developers section for people outside
our activities with a variety of tools and software packages that
have specific purposes. WoT is an open standard not a
framework.
… We have learnt that the documentation page is the
most popular page. Provides an introduction to the Web of
Things.
… There is a videos section with some introductory
videos, in-depth tutorials, results of previous
meetings
… You can find us on GitHub and Twitter
Kaz: I am very concerned about the mixing up of Marketing work and WoT CG work. What is your rationale?
Ege: We will discuss this in the Marketing call.
Kaz: You are saying you would like to transfer the marketing activity to the WoT CG group? What is your rationale?
McCool: There are a lot
of activities under the IG that we probably want to transfer to the
CG. We have a timeslot where we do this, proposing we replace that
timeslot with a CG call. If we have a marketing task force call and
it's actually an IG call then that's fine but it's an IG meeting.
Shouldn't have a call that is both because it's confusing
… from the point of view of the patent
policy.
Ege: The marketing call is not a CG call.
McCool: In the future when we set an IG call, let's not use the marketing task force time slot. Let's be clear that it's a marketing task force call or a CG call, it can't be both.
Ege: It is an IG marketing call, there is no regular CG call.
Kaz: We have been holding an IG marketing call regularly. You would like to invite CG people to that call regularly. That is a problem.
Cristiano: Probably a misunderstanding. We are not going to have this mixed call. We will have discussions separately, then when the time comes we will connect together.
Kaz: When and who will organise what meeting and talk about what topics?
Ege: IG organises the marketing call, IG members can come to that call to discuss what they are OK with giving to the CG. Once there's an agreement that can be passed to the CG.
Kaz: You are expecting that the IG would like to transfer deliverables to the CG.
Ege: The marketing task force has no deliverables.
McCool: We are running out of time. The IG needs to discuss this on the IG call. Only IG members will be attending.
Kaz: Please have internal discussions within the CG group separately and clarify the expectations of participants first.
McCool: I think we are in violent agreement.
Kaz: Do they want to work for the IG task force instead? If so, please discuss that point with them.
Kaz: We need to clarify the relationship between the IG and CG.
Ege: I agree.
Kaz: You have not been doing any discussion about deliverables on the CG side?
<Mizushima> +1 kaz
Sebastian: I am surprised by this discussion. The CG has a charter definition which clearly states the scope. Perhaps the confusion is that we see the same people active in the CG, IG and WG. Perhaps there is some confusion regarding which group you are acting under.
<McCool> (we really need to move on with the agenda)
Sebastian: I think we
should be careful about what we are considering. When I was active
in the marketing task force, we agreed that it is complicated to be
isolated only within the WG because we receive a lot of input from
people not in the IG.
… Sometimes there are touch points between CG and
IG marketing. In my understanding there are separate CG meetings
for people who are not members of the IG and are not invited to the
marketing call.
Kaz: We carefully removed mixing up from the community group charter, but that mixture has started again.
Sebastian: Next is Tomoaki-san who will talk about the Japanese CG
WoT Japanese CG
Mizushima: will
introduce the activity
… [slide 2]
… Web of Things (WoT)
… (gives basic overview of WoT in
general)
… [slide 3]
… Our expectation for the future society using
WoT
<McCool> (actually, my apologies, it seems we still had a lot of time in the agenda. However, while I do think we need to resolve this, I don't think we should spend 15m on this issue right now)
(agree; and would suggest we continue the discussion carefully)
Mizushima: would like
to promote WoT in Japan
… [slide 4]
… 4 goals here
… outreach, deployment, use cases and
translation
… [slide 5]
… 4 TFs to achieve the goals
… [slide 6]
… Outreach TF
… promote WoT in the JP industry
… organized 5 events
… kickoff, demo, ECHONET collaboration, use cases,
smart buildings
… [slide 7]
… Deployment TF
… to provide guidelines and manuals
… generating a portal site
… [slide 8]
… Translation TF
… Japanese localization
… WoT Architecture 1.0 done and transferred to
TTC
… [slide 9]
… Use Cases TF
… colect industrial us cases
… upcoming events: hackathon, ideathon
… [slide 10]
… SDO collaboration
… introduce and discuss the availability of
WoT
… ECHONET, IPA DADC, IEC SC3D
… smart home, smart buildings, IoT
vocabulary
… [slide 11]
… Relationship with WoT-WG/IG
… cooperation via information exchange
McCool: slides are
available on GitHub
… question on translation
… 1.1 version?
Mizushima: planning to
work on them as well
… so far working on 1.0
McCool: wondering about
the timing
… it takes a lot of time to translate the
specs
… would assume you work on 1.1 versions as
well
… maybe post PR
Daniel: similar
question
… going to automatic?
… or translate chapter by chapter?
Mizushima: automatic
translation is nice
… but unfortunately, there are still
problems
… so we need to review it
Kaz: helped them work on the translation
<Mizushima> ?
Kaz: actually, there was a nice translation generated by a great translater, Kamitsuna-san
<McCool> (ege, can you check in slides on github)
Kaz: they used it as the basis
<Ege> the link for the
CG presentation:
https://
<Ege> mccool the slides as pdf are uploaded to GitHub
<Ege>
https://
TPAC Brakouts
WoT Demo
McCool: WoT demo
breakout will be at 3:00pm-4:00pm
… Smart Cities breakout will be at
4:30pm-5:30pm
… McCool and Ezell to show retail, home assistance
integration
Smart Cities
Kaz: A presentation
about smart cities and how to proceed. Discusses ECHONET
… ISO/IEC JTC1
… IEC SC3D
… IPA DADC
… ITU-T SG20
… OGC
… W3C
… What is still missing for smart cities, next
steps
… Smart cities is a large topic, maybe start with
web-based digital twins
McCool: Have discussed
a smart cities IG. Kaz is suggesting we narrow it and talk about
digital twins. Digital twins are also a big topic. SDOs we need to
work with. Tabled for the next charter, but not decided.
… Digital twins. One aspect is physical metadata.
Right now we have a lot of metadata about the network interface,
but not much about the physical thing. E.g. location, user
interface. Things you care about for a digital twin. Have been
talking to accessibility group. May want to annotate a digital
twin, translate into different sensory modalities.
… TD doesn't currently talk about the physical
interface.
Kaz: What is missing.... Guidelines for real world engineering, data transfer and distribution
Kaz: W3C as a central hub for collaborative discussion
McCool: Complicated. I can think of another half dozen organisations not on this list. So many organisations.
Lagally: We see all the SDOs on this list, there are already many of those. Need to start working on focused use cases. Don't think complete twin of a city down to a smart home will be a requirement, need a focused discussion. May be some additional work required here.
McCool: Geolocation comes up a lot
McCool: Need workshops to explore use cases. Workshops we've had have had very few attendees from actual cities. Need them to tell us what their use cases are.
Lagally: We already have some use cases
McCool: I think there will be many more. One target of the group is to generate a use cases document to identify gaps.
Ben: people treating digital twins differently
Lagally: we have looked
into several kinds of meta data
… go into individual approach by those SDOs is
important
… possible requirements for TD and Profile,
etc.
McCool: we've started
to talk with Microsoft DTDL as well
… need to think about how to satisfy the gaps in
this area
McCool: fyi, there will joint discussion on RDF canonicalization on Friday, Sep. 16
Brent: will have joint discussion with them
AOB
McCool: voice
integration for accessibility purposes
… home assistance integration to be shown during
the breakout session
… e.g., Google Home
Kaz: we should consider those existing mechanisms in addition to the SDO collaboration
Ben: the Web Thing CG
will have a meeting tomorrow, Sep 15
… 8:30-10:30am PDT
<benfrancis>
https://
DID and VC
McCool: (shows Kaz's
smart cities slides including WoT+DID+VC)
… possible resolution mechanism via
DID
… VC will meet on Friday
… TD signing for the next WoT Charter
Manu: sounds
great
… we have Brent as the WG Chair as
well
… using DID for identifying IoT devices would make
sense
… could be small binary data
… DID key has been expressed as public
key
… some basic version of encryption, e.g., 64-bit or
256-bit
… as either a primary identifier or a secondary
identifier
McCool: one possible
solution for the identifier for IoT purposes
… a typical question with home IoT
… need some kind of standardized
mechanism
Manu: have your had discussion on identification of valid devices?
McCool: the issue
is
… need process to list
… issue about onboarding is on the
list
… OPC UA device is one thing
… get back to the challenge of the current DID
mechanism
… so many DID methods there
… think about requirements first
… or starting with methods?
Manu: DID holding rechartering discussion
Brent: DID Rubric
… trying registry of DIDs
… as a mean of using different DID methods based on
the need
… looking at the possibility of standardization for
specific DID methods
… end-to-end DID-based mechanism
… related discussion by DIDComm on IoT
purposes
McCool: we're
discussing minimum size of IoT devices
… minimum functionality and cost
… also there is an immerging standard named
Matter
Manu: speaking to
payload sizes
… discussion on minimize the data size, e.g., using
CBOR
… includes digital signature
… another set of work done as well
… canonicalization template
… inject data into the message
<Geun-Hyung_Kim> s /CBOR/CBOR-LD
Manu: their mechanism to reduce the memory footpoint
McCool: we're
discussing an alternative data format than TD
… CBOR is an option
… also template for TD
… that is Thing Model (TM)
Manu: hash linking, etc., has been discussed as well
McCool: the other point is canonicalization of the HASH tag
Manu: from the privacy
viewpoint
… the best practice is downloading the
cache
McCool: meant to be
open for WoT
… downloading the cache would be good for the
proxy
Manu: particular use
cases for that purpose
… another point on canonicalization
… working on data integrity
… use different canonicalization
algorithm
… using JCS
… if you want to, you can define your own
canonicalization algorithm
McCool: one issue is
generation of HASH
… what if you have CBOR or YAML
serialization
Manu: should think about what might be the best use cases
Lagally: if we WoT want to go VC and JCS, what would be the time frame?
Manu: would not be difficult to integrate JCS algorithm
Kaz: would suggest we continue collaborative discussions
McCool: yeah, let's continue offline discussions
Post-TPAC meeting
Sebastian: we'll continue discussion next week as the Post-TPAC meeting
[adjourned]