Meeting minutes
Guests
Kaz: this is an IG call, so should be clear about WG relationship
… also, we have some guests, who are WG but not IG members. we can still invite them to this call as guests. MunHwan and Changkyu, please consider asking your AC rep to nominate you as IG participants as well
Lagally: my understanding is that use case does not impact IP
Kaz: we should be clear about that and need to formally invite them
McCool: I propose we invite the guests to participate with a resolution
<mlagally> proposal: Invite WG members from ETRI to participate in this call
RESOLUTION: Invite WG members from ETRI to participate in this call
Minutes
Lagally: notes from 6 Dec 2022
… looked at and merged several PRs, and reviewed use case for agriculture
Lagally: kaz, you mind fixing the names, other than that fine with publishing them?
<mlagally> https://
Lagally: hearing no objections, notes can be published, with the name abbreviations expanded
New Use Cases
Smart Agriculture - Milking Use Case
<kaz> PR 200 - Add new use cases for smart agriculture-Milking
Lagally: this is PR #200
… Automatic milking system for dairy farm
McCool: we should look at what we discussed last time; tagging, security, etc.
Lagally: has been some improvements addressing this feedback
McCool: see tagging has been improved, but security still needs work
… however ok with merging for now
Ege: did comment on the issue
… also some feedback about why there is not as much detail on security and protocols
Kaz: but in summary ok to merge, and proposers plan to make improvements later
Lagally: ok, also agree to merge it
Lagally: should however remove extra empty sections and move affiliation to the end of the document.
… would be helpful to include contributors to end of the document
… would like to ask submitters to make these changes, offline
McCool: for the record I agree to merging it offline after those changes
MunHwan: agree, I will do
Ege: ok to merge
… but comment on process, want to do two phases, but feel that is a bit unrealistic due to gap between uc and req extraction
… would be better to gather requirements when the uc is submitted
Lagally: yes, will have to think about how to improve process in next charter
… but the original idea is that anyone can submit a uc, and may not be aware of all the existing specs
Kaz: we've already started that discussion separately, so let's talk about this some other time
McCool: agree, we have to get to the WG charter discussion today
Other Contributions
PR 193
<kaz> PR 193 - Add new requirement fields for the template
Lagally: new requirements template, defer
PR 202
<kaz> PR 202 - adding coverage-gaps.md
Lagally: PR 202, adding coverage gaps
… the coverage document lists the current use cases
… I recently imported it into excel, did some cleanup, sorting, grouping
… and this PR includes an MD file listing and grouping the gaps
McCool: agree with merge, and I think this will also be helpful for our discussion next week
Lagally: merges
PR 203
<kaz> PR 203 - preparing requirements for next WG charter
Lagally: next is PR 203
… requirements for next WG charter
McCool: let me draft an agenda for the charter discussion in Jan and will have to make sure this and the coverage-gaps.md file is linked from it
PR 204
<kaz> PR 204 - carry over profile requirements from profile spec
<kaz> wot-profile PR 344 - refactoring requirements to a separate document
Lagally: would also like to mention Profile PR 344 which factors out profile requirements into a separate document
Ege: is mention of profiles, this is the issue with having multiple requirements
… should be made clear if this is for current or next profile document
Lagally: we have been narrowing down 1.0 to fit in the current charter
… so 1.x is for things that we don't feel will fit in the current charter
Ege: ok, perhaps can explain at the top of the document, was a little confusing from the name of the document
Requirements Coverage and Gaps
<kaz> coverage-gaps.md
<kaz> coverage.csv
McCool: think we need to look at both coverage gaps and deliverable proposals
Lagally: ok, but first want to clean up what we have, in particular get rid of duplicates
McCool: ok, makes sense
<kaz> (all start to edit coverage-gaps.md dynamically based on the discussion during this meeting)
McCool: for a start, the semicolon indicates a set of requirements, so for instance sensory modality is not part of geolocation, but a different topic under accessibility
… also alternative I/O
McCool: would keep FoI/SSN, geopose (orientation), topology
McCool: to be clear about FoI, sometimes the location of that is different from the device itself
McCool: under protocol binding, not clear what LDWAN is about, that's not a protocol, but a communication technology
Kaz: suggest some categories, first there are "Other SDOs/Ecosystems/IoT Ecosystems"
… then LPWAN, etc. are low-level protocols
Lagally: ok, bit of overlap with KNX
McCool: also Matter is missing, would put under "Emerging standards"; and should be listed under smart home
McCool: under security, I also thing we should add something similar for emerging standards, e.g. DID
… also, I would add key distribution, esp on the LAN
Lagally: complex interactions, thing graphs
… basically higher level descriptions
Ege: I think here we have two categories: groups of devices vs. complex interactions
… behaviour vs relationships
Lagally: ok
Lagally: Digital twins also mention twin graphs
Kaz: not clear what graphs means here
… grouping, management
Lagally: we have links already
Kaz: I think relationship is clearer
… also, grouping and history were mentioned by ECHONET/Matsuda
Ege: for individual items that are in two categories, how can we relate, maybe duplicate, link somehow
Lagally: what should I do?
Ege: eg. like 47 and line 55 are the same
… but they perhaps belong in two different categories
Lagally: (adds a "see also" note)
Kaz: please put a note about where we were
Lagally: clear by formatting, but will add a note
Lagally: AOB?
<kaz> (none)
<kaz> [adjourned]