Meeting minutes
Minutes
approved
Contributions
Kaz: note that we need to think about the policy and procedure about how to handle the use case proposals before adding actual use cases
McCool: don't disagree, but we don't have Lagally today, so...
Kaz: right. specifically for today, we can't have the discussion on the policy and procedure without Lagally...
McCool: we should not reject use case proposals because we're working on the discussion...
Kaz: yeah
… I personally think we could have one-hour call to make sure the initial direction
… then think about the detail based on the new proposals
McCool: yeah
… given the queue of the proposed use cases is relatively empty, it's good timing to discuss the policy and procedure
McCool: we can think about MD proposals at least
Luca: regarding the features
… there is a default procedure of getting contributions
… so we could use it for a while
McCool: yeah
… and we're discussing how to improve the procedure
… we should shut down new contributions when we discuss the policy
Kaz: right. we should declare the agenda would be the discussion around the policy and procedure at some point.
PRs
PR 218
PR 218 - Proposed new usecase of smart agriculture
Changkyu: (goes through the proposal)
McCool: suggest we describe the acronyms, e.g., GNSS
… also talk about the means of standardization
… should add motivation text around various kinds of machinery
Changkyu: agree
McCool: also around I18N
… we have need for scheduling
… e.g., Daylight-Saving time depending on the areas
… holidays, locations, translation into some specific languages...
… also why don't we think about workers in addition to the machinery
… people driving the machinery
… also weather forecast is very important
Kaz: basically agree with McCool
… also think having variations of machinery, species of fruits/vegetables, lands, locations, etc., would be good motivation for this use case to be covered by WoT
Kaz: in addition, smart agriculture can't exist by itself
… would be nicer to work with smart supply-chain services to deliver the food as product to the consumers
… might be better to describe that as a separate use case, though
Changkyu: yeah
… would be better to describe that separately
McCool: (adds comments based on the discussion)
… like smart factory but more influenced by environment
… how to handle the potential use case on supply chain?
Kaz: we can simply create a GitHub Issue for that
… pointing to this use case and some others like the ones from Conexxus
McCool: yes
… (creates a new Issue for that purpose)
… and mention the Issue from PR 218
… can we merge this PR 218?
… (adds some more comments)
… need to resolve the conflicts later offline...
PR 211
Luca: was asked to extend the use cases
… to cover the possibility of things being dangerous
… added a few more scenarios
… chemical hazards, biological hazards, physical hazards, ...
McCool: can see the diff between this updated version and the previous version?
Luca: can simply review the updated one
… tried to expand the hazard cases because got a comment not to dive into the solution
McCool: different type of hazards are handled by different standards. Right?
… electric hazards, chemical hazards, etc.
… so we need to refer to various IoT standards
Kaz: for the use case description itself, we don't/can't prescribe which ontology would be used for which kind of hazard
… we should rather describe our expectation from the user's viewpoint about what to be handled how
… including various types of hazards in various areas and situations
McCool: I myself need to review this a bit more
Luca: waiting for comments
… so if we don't get any further comments, would like to merge this PR
McCool: yeah
Kaz: can understand your feeling
… and so think we should clarify the policy, procedure and what to be described how before getting actual proposals...
McCool: once Lagally is back, we should think about that
[adjourned]