Meeting minutes
Minutes
approved
Plans for the next Charter
wot Issue 1069 - Brainstorming: Topics for the next charter from Architecture TF discussion
Lagally: just consolidated our discussions
McCool: could put them into several categories
… e.g., behavior description might be part of the topic on "Digital Twins"
Kaz: agree with McCool
… for example, we could have "service" and "technology" as the top-level categories
… digital twins could be part of the service category
McCool: ok
Kaz: btw, given we already have a new repo for Charter discussion, we could move this wot Issue 1069 as well to the new repo
McCool: right
… let's move the issue later
Kaz: ok
… in any case, there are various overlaps among the items there
… so we need at least two-dimensional analysis, from service viewpoint and from feature viewpoint
McCool: ok
… let's add some more clarifications to each topic first
Lagally: regarding the definition for Digital Twins, there was some within the Architecture spec
McCool: ok
… (copies the definition from the Architecture spec)
A digital twin is type of Virtual Thing that resides on a cloud or edge node. Digital Twins may be used to represent and provide a network interface for real-world devices which may not be continuously online (see also Shadows), may be able to run simulations of new applications and services before they get deployed to the real devices, may be able to maintain a history of past state or behaviour, and may be able to predict future state or behaviour. Digital Twins typically have more functionality than simple Shadows.
<Ege> +1 to kaz
Kaz: sorry but do we really need to discuss this detail of the definition for each topic now?
McCool: talking about the definition to let people have the same image is important
Ege: also think we should more high-level discussion on the topics for the next Charter preparation
Lagally: improving the definition of "Digital Twins" itself is useful, though
Sebastian: several comments
… should be good to have a nicer definition but we should refer to the other SDOs definition as well
… would be careful about the definition since any other SDOs also work on that
… regarding the definition itself, removing the limitation on edge/cloud would be good
… btw, the Calendar invite for the WoT Architecture call to be fixed
McCool: ok
Lagally: regarding your comment on the definition itself, fully agree
… we should look into the other SDOs definitions
… any ideas about concrete examples?
Sebastian: can look into Industrial Digital Twin Association (IDTA) and CESMII, etc.
… should ask W3C Member colleagues for help first, e.g., Microsoft and Schaeffler
Kaz: fyi, there is an entry within Wikipedia already :)
McCool: ok
Possible restructuring
Ege: from my viewpoint, WoT Architecture's structure should be improved
… got feedback during the TD call yesterday
… 1. the Architecture document is too big
Kaz: Ege is making some comments based on the discussion on Binding Templates yesterday
Ege: yes, would give some background information
… some of the description on Binding Templates is included in the WoT Architecture specification
… regarding the WoT Architecture 1.1 spec, Chapter 4 and 5 describe topics not related to implementations
… (give some more points based on the discussion during the Binding Templates call yesterday)
… consistency among WoT specifications is important
… think it would be useful to have a dedicated TF to work on synchronization among WoT specs
McCool: ok
… understood this is really a different proposal from our original brainstorming for the topics
Lagally: restructuring our specs is always important
… more coordination by all the Editors is also important
… but not sure if we need yet another TF for that purpose
Kaz: agree with all of you :)
… let's create an issue for the new Charter period on stronger synchronization among specs
… then let's use the rest of the time today for the original agenda item
McCool: ok
Brainstorming for new items - revisited
wot Issue 1069 - Brainstorming: Topics for the next charter from Architecture TF discussion
Lagally: (gives ideas for Digital Twins)
… link types with clearer semantics, gneric graph structure like DTDL
<Ege> +1
McCool: digital twins connections to existing standards as well
… 3D models, 2D maps, behavior description
Ege: if we want to think about behavior description, we might want to look into prior work within W3C like SCXML (State Chart XML)
McCool: right
… note there are several kinds of links
… internal links and external links
… internal links can be used for additional structure
… like hierarchy, TM/TD relations
McCool: also thinking about robotics
… think there are two large categories here
… what kind of links to be used for what
Kaz: potential CG, what to do ourselves@@@
McCool: totally agree
… also Digital Twins is only one of our topics
Kaz: right
Sebastian: would propose how WoT can be used in combination with other technologies as well
… also how to apply to other ecosystems
… e.g., OPC UA
… possible services like BIM, GIS, etc.
Kaz: so we might want to add even bigger category on WoT's deployment to the other ecosystems :)
McCool: yeah
Lagally: also would thik about better UI modeling
… would consider the relationship with HTML
McCool: should clarify that
… and behavior annotation for accessibility
Kaz: happy to help around this direction since I had been working on Voice/MMI standards :)
McCool: yes
… also should include devices for UI
Restructuring - revisited
McCool: just creating a new issue
wot issue 1070 - Architecture Restructuring
Kaz: note that further discussion on the new WG Charter (including this issue 1070) should be held on the new repo, wot-charter-drafts
[adjourned]