12:25:34 RRSAgent has joined #wot 12:25:39 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/09/15-wot-irc 12:25:42 meeting: WoT-WG/IG - Day 2 12:29:13 Mizushima has joined #wot 12:29:34 McCool has joined #wot 12:31:17 ktoumura has joined #wot 12:32:54 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 12:32:57 dezell has joined #wot 12:33:06 present+ David_Ezell 12:33:50 aciortea has joined #wot 12:33:58 cris_ has joined #wot 12:33:59 sebastian has joined #wot 12:34:04 mahda-noura has joined #wot 12:34:04 present+ Michael_McCool 12:34:06 glomb has joined #wot 12:34:06 present+ Andrei_Ciortea 12:34:11 luca_barbato has joined #wot 12:34:16 present+ Christian Glomb 12:34:27 present+ 12:34:35 present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi 12:34:41 present+ mahda_noura 12:34:43 present+ Kunihiko_Toumura 12:34:44 present+ Christian_Glomb 12:34:51 present+ Kaz_Ashimura 12:34:55 present+ Sebastian_Kaebisch 12:35:04 q+ 12:35:05 endo has joined #wot 12:35:10 q- 12:35:12 SalCataldi has joined #wot 12:35:22 present+ SalCataldi 12:35:29 present+ Hiroki_Endo 12:35:36 Ege has joined #wot 12:35:53 https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/main/PRESENTATIONS/2023-09-tpac 12:36:01 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf/2023_WoT_TPAC_Agenda#Friday_.28Sep_15.29_14:30-18:30_CEST_.284h.29_:_WoT_WG.2FIG_Meeting_-_Day_2 12:36:08 hirata has joined #wot 12:36:46 scribe: mahda_noura 12:37:22 i|https|topic: Opening| 12:38:24 sebastian: Topic: Outreach 12:38:29 q+ 12:38:33 Topic: Outreach 12:38:43 i|Outreach|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/PRESENTATIONS/2023-09-tpac/2023-09-15-WoT-TPAC-Opening-Sebastian.pdf Sebastian's slides| 12:38:57 s/sebastian: Topic: Outreach// 12:38:59 rrsagent, make log public 12:39:03 rrsagent, draf minutes 12:39:03 I'm logging. I don't understand 'draf minutes', kaz. Try /msg RRSAgent help 12:39:49 sebastian: WoT current charter 12:39:57 s/rrsagent, draf minutes// 12:40:01 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:40:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:40:12 ...growing number of people attention for WoT and supporting open source implementation 12:40:51 i/current ch/scribenick: mahda-noura/ 12:40:58 ...adaption in the market and commercial usage 12:41:32 i|current charter|https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/PRESENTATIONS/2023-09-tpac/2023-09-15-WoT-TPAC-Outreach-Sebastian.pdf Sebastian's slides| 12:41:40 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:41:41 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:42:13 ...the community group is growing 12:42:49 present+ Salvatore_Cataldi 12:43:02 chair: Sebastian, McCool 12:43:05 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:43:06 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:43:57 ...WoT definition and the benefits, WoT is not a protocol 12:44:03 present+ Takashi_Minamii, David_Singer 12:44:35 ...building blocks are created like TD, binding templates to describe what is the Things capabilities and what is needed to interact with the devices 12:45:07 ...the existing system doesn't have to be changed and can be complemented with WoT 12:46:03 ...WoT needs to be disseminated to SDO's 12:46:26 present+ Ryuichi_Matsukura, Toshio_Ito 12:46:28 ...to show how WoT can help their ecosystems 12:46:56 ...plan to work with OPC UA, Echonet, Asset administration shell, Bacnet Binding, CSA with the matter protocol 12:47:56 ...ease the adaption of WoT by decoupling the binding approach 12:48:41 ...the registry approach presented by ege yesterday is the right approach to continue 12:49:17 ...latest WoT adoptions led by Microsoft called connectivity group 12:49:59 ...another adoption is asset administration shell, describes everything that is around a asset 12:50:47 ...acitvity that specifies the interface of an asset using the TD 12:52:11 ...collaboration with existing W3C groups like the json-ld group, about the signing and canonicalization and serialization 12:52:34 ...important topics for the next charter about DID and verifiable credentials 12:53:41 ...new interest group designed like digitial twins for the smart city from kaz with WoT as a main building block 12:54:10 q? 12:55:53 q+ 12:55:53 q+ 12:55:53 ack mc 12:56:27 mccool: scalability issue, small number of active members working on the spec, what can we move to CG and processes to minimized the work in the WG for more active involvement and contributions 12:56:44 ...can we figure out a process for this? 12:57:18 ack e 12:58:34 ege: observed within RDF* group, it makes sense in cases i.e., we don't know what the solution is 12:58:40 +1 for example of profiles 12:58:52 q? 12:58:54 ...we currently don't have TFs for this and as the CG we should agree on the structure 12:59:45 kaz: I am happy also with the discussion this morning about the collaboration between the CG and WG, but we need to clarify which topics are needed and what kind of team, resources are required 13:00:33 ack k 13:00:51 q+ 13:01:19 s/team,/team structure,/ 13:01:49 Anssi Kostiainen and Louay Bassbouss are the chairs of second screen 13:02:06 q+ 13:02:36 s/needed/targets of which group/ 13:02:50 sebastian: experienced from another group, we should make sure the CG is not allowed to make forces, CG creates plugfest and WG creating normative documents 13:02:52 q+ 13:03:00 s/required/required for which group about which topic./ 13:03:03 q+ 13:03:07 ack s 13:03:16 ack m 13:03:17 q- 13:03:22 q+ quick 13:03:29 ack cr 13:03:40 q+ dezell 13:03:43 q- quick 13:03:53 cris: like the idea of changing the work mode e.g., WebAssembly, it has more than 1000 participants in the CG 13:04:23 ack c 13:04:30 ...you can get more input from the public for some topics like manageable actions 13:04:41 q+ 13:04:45 ack de 13:04:52 q+ 13:05:02 dave: how invested are you in the use case? 13:05:22 mccool: make sense to move it to the CG 13:05:29 ack e 13:06:14 (to clarify what I said: would have made sense to have started UCs in the CG, but since it is now in the IG, may be hard to move, but we can certainly collaborate more closely) 13:06:39 ege: in the presentation we asked the presenters about things that are not satisfied, Telekom provided feedback which are in the minutes 13:07:03 kaz: we need to clarify the collaboratory meaning of the WoT WG and the CG 13:07:21 Topic: Security 13:08:17 s/collaboratory meaning of/procedure on how to transfer use cases from the CG side to the WG side. That should be done collaboratively by/ 13:08:42 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/PRESENTATIONS/2023-09-tpac/2023-09-15-WoT-TPAC-Security-McCool.pdf McCool's slides 13:09:29 mccool: threat models and security and privacy considerations 13:09:45 mccool: see where we can clear things up 13:10:12 ...we have a list of stakeholders in the use case requirements but in the S and P document there are actually good definitions 13:10:34 present+ Vagner_Diniz 13:11:16 ...there are alot of overlap with the general stakeholder 13:11:45 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/wot-security/ WoT Security and Privacy Guidelines 13:11:47 q? 13:11:50 ack 13:12:35 s/ack// 13:12:35 ...issue 2: use case and requirements, we want features mapping to requirements to use cases, the question is how we define the security and privacy use cases? 13:12:38 ack k 13:12:43 ...we need to think about categories 13:13:18 q+ 13:13:18 ...we need to consider what is the priority of mitigating risks 13:13:45 cris_ has changed the topic to: WoT WG/IG TPAC - DAY 2; Calendar event: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a98d2f0d-599e-4fa8-b1cd-1a5ef5d8236e/ 13:14:52 ...how will assertions work 13:14:52 q+ 13:15:25 ...we need to figure out signing for discovery 13:15:25 ...onboarding, we haven't decided whether we want to do onboarding 13:15:59 ...security definitions and schemes that are related to a specific protocol need to be moved to their protocol 13:16:15 ...we need to figure how to validate the binding especially for security 13:16:21 ktoumura has joined #wot 13:17:02 ...we need to decide are security mitigations normative, maybe we need to have them in another document 13:17:24 ...we could split up security and privacy guildelines as they are not the same thing 13:17:55 ...should profiles find security levels? levels of risk 13:18:31 ...there are an issue of how to do with brownfield devices 13:19:45 ...problem of not having enough people 13:20:00 ...in short term we need to clean up the issues we mentioned 13:20:36 ...we need to figure the testability gap in security testing 13:21:08 q? 13:23:23 luca: split the security concern that are about what happened when your software stack hardware get it wrong, the problems can be leveraged to do something, you are misusing the device which can cause damage 13:23:49 ...this could be part of next year work 13:24:05 mccool: the reason of a threat model is that security is multi-facet 13:24:44 luca: for that part please be careful use a language that avoids the mistake, make the end user aware that a device could be harmful 13:25:24 ege: safety guidelines, maybe we need a new type of document for safety guidelines 13:25:57 q+ 13:26:01 ack lu 13:26:02 ack e 13:26:08 q+ 13:26:09 ...how to make people more aware of this document, and how much people take this guidance as we haven't tested 13:26:28 mccool: it is linked, not updated since 2019 13:26:38 ...but the content is really good 13:27:42 mccool: the guidelines are high-level, making the document more central is one option 13:28:32 kaz: going for this direction is fine and important, governance on user data is important for smart city also, we as the WoT group we should survey about existing smart cities 13:28:47 q+ 13:29:05 ack k 13:29:08 ...more survey is required 13:29:25 mccool: would be helpful if implementers reviewing the spec 13:29:28 hirata has joined #wot 13:29:34 ...we need to volunteer for this 13:30:25 kaz: knows some academics who could do this 13:30:43 s/knows some academics who could do this/can introduce some the guidelines including governmental ones as a starting point./ 13:30:48 sebastian: comment to the statement: "developer is not aware of the security guidelines...", maybe we should think about extending the specification topic like TD with more hints 13:31:10 +1 for kaz 13:31:32 q? 13:31:34 mccool: we could say, if your implementing this and that, you need to follow those guidelines 13:31:36 ack se 13:31:38 ack a 13:31:42 ack sa 13:32:13 s/group we/group/ 13:32:22 mmc not modbus, it is BACnet 13:32:27 s/about ex/ex/ 13:33:06 s/existing smart cities/existing guidelines on user data governance, e.g., for smart cities./ 13:33:09 SalCataldi: subject is wide, also in the bacnet group, i am wondering why you don't use the existing standards which deal with security in automation 13:33:57 s/for smart cities./for smart cities. Probably that survey could be done collaboratively with the newly proposed Web-based Digital Twins for Smart Cities IG./ 13:34:04 ...there are exactly calls for how to standardize securing digital assets 13:34:11 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:34:12 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:34:41 mccool: 5 years ago there wasn't alot, we need re-open that analysis 13:34:53 q+ 13:35:15 ack d 13:36:19 ktoumura__ has joined #wot 13:37:16 ktoumura__ has joined #wot 13:37:38 david: in the past experience, always remember adequate security, what about the domain? 13:37:49 scribenick: Ege 13:38:32 topic: Profiles 13:39:46 lb: a quick introduction first 13:39:55 ... they are used in many fields 13:40:33 ... you want to restrict capabilities. Like in multimedia you can have a profile with max resolution, framerate 13:41:07 ... there are also usb device classes. A keyboard will not produce audio. Bluetooth similar 13:42:08 ... if we want out of box interop, we should think of device classes 13:42:32 ... our current profiles are not considering resource constraints 13:42:40 ... they are all about HTTP 13:43:01 ... we do not say that "if you have device with X amount of RAM, here is what you can do" 13:43:47 present+ Josh_Cohen 13:44:10 ... in the future we should think about resource or we can think of content negotiation 13:44:38 ... currently, it is not clear how we mix two profiles for different forms 13:45:03 ... we do not know how to signal that one form uses which profile 13:45:20 ... that was it 13:45:20 q+ 13:45:25 q? 13:46:25 cg: one of the challenges in the discussion in the past was that profiles was a superset of TD and not on the subset 13:46:45 q+ 13:47:09 q+ 13:47:19 lb: we did not constrain what is a subprotocol so it is very flexible at the moment 13:47:31 ... profiles can do a better job that subprotocol 13:47:40 q- 13:47:55 ... there is no way to agree, in a strict way, between Thing and Consumer on what to expect from the TD. 13:48:20 present+ Michael_Lagally 13:48:42 ml: we discussed superset and subset but we are defining something for implementers 13:48:55 ... we should not discuss this mathematically 13:50:18 ... we did not agree on the device classes since there was no consensus 13:50:18 ... thank you Luca for taking the lead here 13:50:18 ack mc 13:50:52 mm: I think that the set is misinterpreted 13:51:24 .. we should discuss about constraints 13:51:57 q+ 13:51:57 ... another comment. We have also behavioral constraints so the question is whether those are appopriate 13:52:38 ... profiles is to increase interop 13:52:46 lb: we can also guarantee if we are strict 13:53:30 mm: we cant since we do not do conformance testing 13:53:30 lb: we can by establishing a consortium 13:54:07 sk: we talked a lot about resource constraints, we can dig up from github 13:54:34 ... How about using linting for handling profile mechanisms 13:55:02 ... another interesting topic is how bindings relate to bindings 13:55:09 q? 13:55:10 ack s 13:55:36 q+ 13:56:25 ca: we discussed with ben about profile using defaults of a binding. So a profile can be linting plus defaults 13:56:28 ack c 13:56:35 ... we can discuss this in the cg as well 13:57:25 mm: the constrained devices can be valid in one case and not in the other 13:57:27 q+ 13:57:34 ... we need a better way to validate 13:57:49 ... TD part and the behavior 13:58:00 q+ 13:58:03 ack mc 13:58:04 ack cr 13:58:06 gkellogg has joined #wot 13:58:10 q+ 13:58:54 ack cr 13:59:20 ca: we also have schemas in bindings to validate the td containing the binding 14:00:02 q+ 14:00:44 ack e 14:01:44 ek: we need to agree on what we are trying to solve. resource constraints conflict with human readability 14:01:52 ... also linting makes sense in this regard 14:02:04 sk: bringing this topic to the cg makes sense. we should get more feedback 14:02:52 ack s 14:02:57 ... we need Kaz's opinion whether we can move something like this to cg 14:03:52 q? 14:04:33 mm: to what scenario does a profile apply to. This is something we did not discuss entirely 14:04:33 q+ 14:04:48 ... we need to resist putting features that does not exist elsewhere 14:04:58 ... profiles should be pretty simple 14:05:28 ... there can be more than one profile 14:05:30 ack m 14:05:36 ack k 14:05:36 ack s 14:05:39 q+ 14:06:38 kaz: if we have consensus, we can move any document anywhere 14:07:10 ... we should discuss it further 14:07:19 ack s 14:07:34 sk: we can bring it back from CG once it is stable 14:07:43 s/move any document anywhere/transfer any of the WG deliverables to the CG side./ 14:08:09 mm: otherwise +1 to sebastian 14:08:26 sk: also what do you think luca? 14:08:57 s/we should discuss it further/However, we need a group-wide consensus, so I' suggest we add this topic to the "possible collaboration targets list for WoT-WG and WoT-CG" as discussed in the morning, and have some more discussion there./ 14:09:03 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:09:04 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:09:12 lb: I have prepared it to start discussion. Profiles can be many things and we should tackle the most interesting one 14:10:22 ... so it would be pointless to propose arbitrary limitations if there is no interest 14:10:22 ... I have enjoyed SSE profile for example 14:10:56 mm: we have food for thought. We should document where profiles are useful 14:11:56 sk: we can talk about architecture now 14:12:30 topic: Architecture 14:13:23 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/PRESENTATIONS/2023-09-tpac/2023-09-15-WoT-TPAC-Architecture-McCool.pdf McCool's slides 14:13:42 mm: I want to talk about the issues we have, what do we want out of it and craft a plan 14:13:55 ... arch document is trying to satisfy multiple objectives 14:14:50 ... it satisfies those in different levels of quality, sometimes overlaps with other documents, sometimes inconsistent with other docs 14:16:13 ... we do not need 20 use case examples 14:16:27 +1 on its objective not being clear 14:16:43 q+ 14:17:22 subtopic: goals 14:17:41 ... I personally think that it should be a good place to start 14:17:55 ... the philosophy of the WoT should be clear 14:18:30 ... building blocks do not map well to other documents 14:18:50 q+ 14:19:59 ... abstract servient architecture is in a weird place 14:20:16 ... there are assertions about TD in the arch 14:21:05 mm: my planning document assumes it is an explainer document 14:21:57 ... a lot of terminology in the beginning works against explainer 14:23:17 ... (mm explains the plan) 14:23:46 ... if we have normative requirements, they need to be testable 14:24:22 ... once we do all this, it will not have to be normative 14:24:38 q? 14:24:44 q+ 14:24:47 ege: multiple points 14:24:59 ... in the CG, some discussion 14:25:16 ... high level people need expliner document 14:25:35 ... read WoT specs starting with WoT Architecture 14:26:08 ... also TAG gave a comment that Architecture should be informative 14:26:39 ... if it's a guideline, that's still useful 14:26:41 joshco has joined #wot 14:26:45 ... could try to make assertions also informative 14:26:52 q+ 14:26:59 mm: there are still 50 assertions 14:27:01 ack e 14:27:05 ... need to find a home for them 14:27:37 ege: regarding transfer of assertions 14:27:57 ... maybe use cases and requirements have cross-spec assertions 14:28:08 mm: moving out to the use cases doc? 14:28:11 ege: yeah 14:28:38 ... think the WoT Architecture TF could review all the other WoT specs horizontally 14:28:58 mm: easier to have spec design in general 14:29:19 q+ 14:29:24 kaz: I agree with Michael McCool and in line with what I have been suggesting 14:29:31 ... we start with refactoring 14:29:51 ... and we start with arch spec 14:30:17 ack k 14:31:04 ... I agree with the arrow in slide 6. evaluating when the restructuring is complete, whether the document is informative or not 14:31:05 ack s 14:31:23 mm: restructuring is important for all specs 14:32:05 sk: I like this idea of having arch as the entry point. Is it necessary to have it in a rec document? Entry point can be a webpage 14:32:43 s/in line/this proposal (on slide 6) is in line/ 14:32:46 ... sometimes other specs, I see a landing page where it asks "are you a developer? then go here", "are you a manager/decision maker? then go here about conceptual points" 14:32:48 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:32:49 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:33:17 q+ 14:34:51 ack j 14:35:41 s/... I personally/mm: I personally/ 14:35:42 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:35:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:36:23 ca: First a question. If we do a restructuring, what happens to the sections like servient architecture 14:36:23 ... also is it a REC in the chapter 14:36:31 q+ 14:36:34 ack c 14:36:35 sk: yes since it easier to make it note from REC than REC from note 14:36:36 q+ 14:36:50 mm: I do not know if servient is useful. People get confused 14:37:13 i/multiple points/scribenick: kaz/ 14:37:22 i/agree with Mi/scribenick: Ege/ 14:37:25 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:37:26 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:38:16 mm: another thing talked about is hateoas and hypermedia but we are not really using it 14:38:37 ... we make a big deal about it but do not use again 14:39:54 q+ 14:40:10 ack m 14:40:11 ack k 14:40:44 ack e 14:40:59 +1 for restructuring 14:40:59 ack ac 14:41:07 ek: I would like to read in detail before reaching resolution 14:41:54 mm: maybe it is too detailed 14:42:18 ac: I think some points like "hypermedia should be serialized as forms" are very important and should be normative 14:42:50 q? 14:42:54 mm: we can make it an informative point and normative in TD 14:43:44 sk: see you in 15 mins 15:03:51 topic: New/Commercial Use Cases and Requirements 15:04:04 -> https://www.w3.org/2023/Talks/0915-wot-usecases-ka/ Kaz's slides 15:04:09 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:04:11 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 15:05:53 aciortea has joined #wot 15:07:20 cris_ has joined #wot 15:07:25 scribe+ 15:08:47 present+ Mahda_Noura 15:08:48 topic: new commercial use cases and requirements 15:08:55 cpn has joined #wot 15:09:02 present+ Chris_Needham 15:09:14 Ege has joined #wot 15:09:20 kaz: today we will talk about a new commercial usecases for wot 15:09:35 ... we are starting WoT 2.0 charter soon 15:10:04 ... and for this reason use cases from various industries will be very important 15:10:42 slide has discovery three times? 15:10:47 ... so far we have a WoT Use cases document with various use cases. 15:11:43 ... we have also technical cross domain use cases like discovery and virtual things 15:12:01 ... there are also emerging use cases 15:12:17 ... like in the space of smart cities 15:12:43 ... takenaka use WoT to integrate different GW 15:13:05 ... Sebastian mention smart factories are valid use cases for WoT 15:13:42 ... is there any other cases that require integration? 15:13:54 q+ 15:14:06 ack m 15:14:07 ... that's why I invited different stakeholder 15:14:32 ... I want to create an open discussion 15:18:09 q? 15:18:29 q+ 15:19:03 q? 15:19:35 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:19:36 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 15:19:42 xx: the publishing industry lately is paying attention to new technologies: like blockchains. The combination between the physical and the virtual world is already happening in Japan. There is also the idea to have bookstores in the metaverse. 15:19:42