– DRAFT –
WoT Use Cases

Minutes

<kaz> Mar-7

Lagally: any objections?

Lagally: minutes are approved, thanks to scribes

Contributions

PR 205

Lagally: this is what I have presented before

<kaz> PR 205 - UC and requirement process - new WG charter

Ege: Is this just your proposal?

Lagally: yes it was reviewed in the call

Ege: I think we need to extract technical requirements much better

Lagally: I agree

Kaz: the name of the PR is confusing, it is adding PDF and PPTX we discussed before to the repository. On the other hand, we still need to agree on the procedure to handle WoT use cases including ones from external developers like CG participants.
… that could be done as part of the WG Charter discussion but given the situation, we should concentrate on the WG Charter first and handle the Use Case generation policy separately.

McCool: let's just change the title and merge this PR. Also continue to discuss the Use Case handling procedure separately.

Kaz: agree

PR 211

<kaz> PR 211 - Hazard Annotation

Luca: This is about sifis home, a horizon europe project. It is about making smart home trustworthy

Luca: the policies by the user can be enforced by the whole home
… like never turning the oven at 3am
… this is about labeling interactions with the right information about the hazards. what will you risk if you operate this device
… it can be applied to other domains as well
… we define risks as well
… you can also tell which operations run at the same time
… also relationships between what an action will have based on a property value

Lagally: sometimes the risks depend on the context a lot, like speed limits in different occasions

McCool: not focusing on a solution before understanding the problem

McCool: we have to look at interlocks
… and it is going towards digital twins

Lagally: it is going towards system behavior as well

McCool: also an interaction can be risky or combination of states

Kaz: when we discuss use cases, we should think about the whole scenario from the user point of view. Then analyze from standardization aspect later on. So not prescribing the technical solution in the use case

Lagally: this PR is written from user point of view

Kaz: we should describe the life cycle of the use case

Lagally: who sets the risks in TD? The manufacturer?

Kaz: the "Description" section is too short in this use case, and we should add clarification to the "Description" section including concrete scenario about "Hazard situation" a bit more before diving into the discussion on requirements on security, privacy, etc.

Ege: I think we are being unfair about this PR since it is using the template which does not have requirements to be that long and there are use cases that are shorter than this

Lagally: what is the suggestion to be added to this PR

McCool: we should define what is a hazard

McCool: we need to put something like hazard annotation and avoidance

McCool: it is a challenging problem
… adding a list of subproblems

McCool: is this enough input to improve this

Ege: I think we need to write other documents to draw out the topic area as a whole, we should discuss this on this PR

Lagally: luca should decide, not about fairness

Kaz: As I mentioned, we need to think about the use case template and procedure itself a bit more. On the other hand of this PR itself, the title "Hazard Annotation" is a bit odd from my viewpoint. What is the actual need from the user's viewpoint? Hazard detection, hazard prevention or evacuation from a hazard?

Lagally: let's add feedback into the PR as review comments
… then we can have another look next week

Luca: if I get that feedback, I can address them.
… the use case is about annotation, otherwise the scope would be too big

Lagally: I understand about the scope being narrow
… if these annotations can be a bit narrow, then the consumers can use them. This would enable a unique way of annotating

Luca: hazard management might be another title

Kaz: that would be good

McCool: hazard management is good

McCool: if we think of categories, we should align with existing standards

Lagally: with that we have 8 minutes

Lagally: so let's look at the other issues

Issues

Issue 195

<kaz> Issue 195 - Use cases for smart agriculture

Lagally: how can we distinguish them?

McCool: Right. Could you explain the differences

Kaz: milking and pest control would be good addition, so I'd agree we add those use cases. However, we should be careful about how many use cases to be described to each use case category. Probably this point should be also included in the Use Case Policy.

Lagally: is there a common requirement

McCool: it is good if a requirement is raised by multiple use cases
… so adding a line to template about what is distinct about this use case

Lagally: aob?

Lagally: meeting adjourned