W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT Use Cases

06 December 2022

Attendees

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

Meeting minutes

Agenda

Lagally: two topics
… PR review
… and due diligence

PRs

PR 193

PR 193 - Add new requirement fields for the template

Lagally: Ege proposes we add a requirement field to the use case template
… comments from Mizushima-san there

Mizushima's comments

Lagally: Mizushima-san's comments are reasonable
… don't think we need to rush in
… (shows the proposed new requirements)

Kaz: there are two possible options to handle requirements
… one possibility is putting requirements into each use case
… and second option is generating requirements template separately
… I personally think the second option would make more sense
… because some (sometimes many) of the use cases have similar or identical requirements and
… putting them into each use case template would be too much and kind of redundant

McCool: agree
… also changing the use case template would make it inconsistent with the current use cases

Kaz: yes
… note that we still reuse Ege's proposed items on requirements to update the requirements template

Lagally: (put comments based on the discussion)

Lagally's comments

PR 196

PR 196 - Update README-coverage.md

Lagally: (goes through the proposed changes)
… (fixing typos)
… now would suggest we merge this PR
… should we assign spec Editors for the assessment of use case coverage?

McCool: pretty clear we have to check the coverage itself
… use case owners themselves also should see the coverage

Kaz: yeah
… would suggest we say "each spec TF and the use case generator should collaboratively work on the coverage check"

Lagally: ok
… we can merge this PR itself
… and then add further improvement

merged

Lagally: (adds some more improvement on the collaboration)

updated README-coverage.md

PR 197

PR 197 - Use case coverage review for TD and Binding

Lagally: (goes through the changes)
… would suggest we merge this

rendered version of coverage.csv

McCool: let's not think about the hierarchy style issue

Lagally: ok

McCool: btw, I don't think the second problem since we've reorganized the retail use cases, etc.

merged

PR 198

PR 198 - Update README.md to link to the latest published version.

merged

PR 200

PR 200 - Add new use cases for smart agriculture-Milking

diff - 2.1.4 Automatic milking system for dairy farm

Lagally: (goes through the diff)

McCool: some concerns about security management
… this is a good use case on edge computing

Kaz: feel a bit odd to have only RFID as the technology to identify the cows
… possibly QR codes, etc., or video recognition could be also applied

McCool: right
… potential improvement around that

mizu: is it necessary to distinguish the current Charter from the next Charter?
… my point is that we're now at the end of the current Charter
… so it would make more sense to include this use case for the next Charter

Lagally: that's true
… but we could continue to update the use case document in parallel

McCool: right
… note the WoT Use Case document is an IG Note

Kaz: agree
… we should be clear about which use cases from which use case document to be applied to which version of the WG specs

McCool: right
… and as we've been discussing, we should note potential improvements
… e.g.:
… security requirements
… not only RFID tags but also other possible options like QR codes or bar codes
… latency of the control systems for edge computing

Lagally: (adds those points to the comments for the PR 200)

McCool: also we should have another use case call in 2 weeks
… for that purpose, we should allocate a new WebEx for this slot
… for Dec 20

Kaz: will do

Lagally's comments

Next call

Lagally: would talk about the coverage.csv

coverage.csv

Lagally: we also have descriptions on the requirements as well

REQUIREMENTS area

[adjourned]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 196 (Thu Oct 27 17:06:44 2022 UTC).