See also: IRC log
<fsasaki> dave is presenting http://www.w3.org/2015/04/w3c-wot-framework-munich-2015.pdf
<Joerg> yes I will do it and query after Dave's talk
<kaz> scribenick: kaz
claes: there were different
options on the slides
... on the possible servers
... we can expect IPv6 as the basis of device
identification
... what is your view for the security?
dsr: security problems for IP
devices
... we should look at layered security approach
Joerg: due to security approach,
what should we consider?
... integration task
... we should be open to which architecture is used for
security
dsr: we'll be discussing security
tomorrow
... having a task force for the discussion
wonsuk: physical web by
Google
... want to know about the difficulty which that
... what do you have in mind?
dsr: conflict with IoT Asia
... Google Physical Device fits well
wunsook: bluetooth work at
W3C
... no problem to work for the bluetooth api at w3c?
dsr: there is a CG
... if the web browser is the UI for WoT
... the browser can't solve security issues by itself
Frank's talk
(presentation should be added later here @@@)
(4/16) 25b devices
(5/16) what is the key technology?
(6/16) Preservation of status quo and safeguarding the future
(7/16) Elements of IoT in the physical layer
(8/16) Innovation
(9/16) Integrated Industry
Trends and influences and technical potential
(10/16) Individualized World is changing...
(11/16) Individualized World
power to signals
all in one connector
providing not only those products but machines to make them as well
(12/16) Mass Customization needs for individualized solution
modularized manufacturing systems
hardware and software
both are modularized
Vertical integration with business environment
Efficient reconfigurable system: business level and execution level
Customer interface
(13/16) HARTING IT System Integration
Components: RFID Devices, Modular Embedded Platform
Linux-based
Software: Event stream processing middleware
(14/16) Vertical Integration - Cyber Physical System
(15/16) Vertical Integration Szenario
Customer-> Product configuration-> Check availability
security is one of the key topics
modular approach is useful to flexibility
the boxes include multiple processing capabilities
Joerg: various application
areas
... how to integrate them?
frank: information on what kind
of connector is managed
... all the information can be integrated with the connector
itself or the center
... can use the application at the center as the manager
... we have much more control for the devices
... controlling modules
... possible to detect unexpected behavior of the modules
(slides to be added here @@@Panasonic)
(2) Wonder Life-Box 2020
Tokyo Olympic games will be held in 2020
(demo video on "Your Life in 2020")
The mirror detects your health condition.
Smart delivery service using the smart locker.
"House Concierge" manages uses' needs.
also recommends some plan on travels.
can detect when the users want to sleep and turn off the light.
(3) Use Cases
(4) Home Automation Categories (1)
air quality, lighting, audio visual, home energy management
(5) Home Automation Categories (2)
home security, cooking assistance, wearing advice, beauty advice
privacy issue
should enhance owners' authentication
(6) Home Automation Categores (3)
wellness/healthcare, home delivery management, emergency mode, in house moving assistance
CE manufactures can help related business suppliers, etc.
there are many disasters in the world
automatically show the evacuation ways
(7) Home Automation Categories (4)
dialogue/concierge system, safety and cyber security system
a wot device and an iot device might use different technologies
currently a GW doesn't have strong capability for universal conversion
smarter GW could let people handle any IoT devices as if they were WoT devices
combination of technologies is important for security as well
wonsuk: two questions
... 1. is Panasonic preparing some products for IoT
... what kind of protocol are you using?
... 2. there are lot of stuff for the "smart house"
... what is the key?
kajimoto: there are many
protocols used currently
... including ECHONET
... we should understand at least 3-4 major ones
... but it's difficult to have only one specific protocol
... because it depends on each device
... so GW should identify at least all the popular
protocols
... 2nd question
... we should categorize all the use cases
... we have a very big menu
... a user would use some of them
... currently our system is implemented by only Panasonic
... applications could be categorized into some ways
benedikt: design centrally? or decentraized?
kajimoto: all the information is
collected by the central server
... in the future (e.g. 2020) each terminal could become even
stronger, and might be going to have capability for distributed
system
Joerg: how much cost?
kajimoto: cooperate with house
makers
... they sell whole "smart house" as their product
... that is one possible solution
... how to combine with our cloud service is the
challenge
... good topic for W3C as well
(slides to be added later @@@COMPOSE)
(2) COMPOSE Platform
platform as a service
service discovery
data provenance
(3) Need for Web of Things
Things (Control, Data Collection) <=> Services
(4) Need for Web of Things (contd.)
main features for IoT
special features
more than GET request
there are already devices connected to the Internet
(5) The Challenges
Things/Control/Data Collection/Semantic Description <=> JSON Schema
(6) The COMPOSE Solution
The Web (Service) Object
(7) Use Case 1 - Smart Spaces
what: samrt retail analytics, BLE Beacons on shopping carts, etc.
where: coop supermarket in Trento, north Italy
(picture of the UI for that system)
(8) Use Case 2 - Smart City
what: optimized car pooling
where: city of Tarragona, Spain
(9) Use Case 3 - Smart Territory
what: ski information app
where: Trentino region, north Italy
cd: actual scenario in Trentino
johannes: how to create the objects and how to mashup them?
cd: semantic annotation
... find service already available
... how to combine which and which
... aggregate data
... we use Node-RED
... for navigation
Joerg: there are still 10 more
mins
... maybe we could have some discussion on the presented use
cases a bit
(Dave, Frank, Charalampos and Kajimoto)
Joerg: your need for actions?
cd: building platform for
developers
... as much general as possible
... actuator should be also considered
... security and access control is challenge
... open and flexible scheme is needed
frank: horizontal platform for
vertical industries
... @@@ missed Frank's words
kajimoto: cultural issues in
Japan
... population is decreasing
... many older people
... need to provide solutions
... also need to think about the technology trend
... we can think of use cases for that purpose
university@: source of security/privacy requirements?
scribe: governmental requirements or customers ones?
cd: depends on the domains
... medical data depends on regulations
... in our case, based on the user access control
frank: very limited
... somebody hands over the data
... conditions depend on the situation
... security is extremely important
... the business model changes completely
... final users own the data as well as the products
Joerg: we discussed a lot
kajimoto: home automation use
cases
... one is cloud-based approach
... all the devices are controlled via the cloud service
... another possibility is direct connection
... generic architecture would be better
cd: thinking of edge computing as well
frank: sending data based on the
IP address
... data combination
... for existing machines
... additional information could be used
Joerg: tx
ken: NTT Communications
... two demos
... one is the one on Chrimen project of Mozilla
... will do for Mr. Takagi from KDDI this time
... mozOpenHard project
... open-source computer board
eduardo: Oxford Flood
Network
... collecting data
... and analyze it
... "nominet innovation"
... (picture of a sensor)
... send realtime data
... analyze the data realtime
... live river levels
... monitor sensors
soumya: research engineer from
Eurecom
... lightweight M2M gateway
saki: NTT Communications
... telepresence robot control via WebRTC
... human like robot
... we can control it (in Japan) from outside Japan
... WebRTC platform named "SkyWay"
sebastian: (no slides)
... Siemens
... micro controller
... using IP-based communication
jonathan: ETRI
... WoT.js
... WoT appliation framework
... three kinds of reason
... generic approach for WoT
... solve technical issues
... find new architecture model
... conseptual model
... WoT.js
... consists of: note.js, express.js, etc.
Joerg: now break!
[ break ]
next session will start at 11:30
<tidoust> scribe: tidoust
Soumya: Preliminary, IoT was
about connecting things and proposing services on top of
that.
... We have all seen predictions of volume, 50 billions by
2020.
... What the picture does not show are the challenges: several
incompatible deployed platforms and silos
... An electrical engineer of mine often wonders why he would
need to use his smartphone to switch on a light, instead of the
usual button. We need to understand what the user needs.
... No uniform nomenclature for sensors. The temperature could
be written as T, t, Temp, etc.
... This makes it hard for application developers.
... The Web of Things is emerging as a valuable solution to
address these challenges.
... Leveraging existing Web standards, exposing functionalities
through RESTful APIs to make it easy to GET values.
... I gathered requirements for Web of Things. We need a
uniform desription of devices/things. Then discovery, including
P2P, which is very ambitious as it's about exploring the social
aspect of WoT. Then a very important part is the management of
devices.
... Sensors may switch from one network to another for
instance.
... Provisioning, management, end user access control.
... Then mapping to existing protocols HTTP, CoAP, etc.
... Security, Privacy, Trust, of course.
... One core topic for the group, I think, is data management
and repository (DMR).
... Data processing enable "smart" things to take smart
decisions.
... Looking at the WoT Architecture that we're considering [see
slide 8]
... At the very bottom, you have devices. Then gateways,
networks and mobile clients connected to Web of Things server
providing DMR, access rights, discovery, etc.
... One idea would be to move lightweight parts to the gateway
since we have more powerful gateways nowadays.
... Proxy-in (sensors) and Proxy-out (actuators) approach to
enable the creation of virtual instances of physical devices.
Each proxy has an URIs. Proxies can support both smart and
legacy devices.
... For description of devices, I re-utilise CoRE Link
Specifications, in JSON, with a proposed uniform
nomenclature.
... The good thing is that description is very lightweight
(less than 1Kb), working on JSON-LD integration.
... Device management is based on OMA Lightweight M2M Technical
Specifications. That defines a framework with several benefits:
provisioning, registration. Taking the example of a Thing
announcing itself every 5 minute. Server knows that the thing
is no longer attached if it does not receive an announcement
after some time. Configuration update can help change the
value.
... Data processing is about making sense out of raw data to
derive actionable intelligence. 3-step solution:
... 1. add side information to sensor using SenML. For
instance, room temperature? outside temperature? In Celsius, In
Fahrenheit?
... This gives the context
... This first step produces metadata
... 3. Derive smarter decisions.
s/... 2. Decorate the metadata with semantic reasoning, based on knowledge of domains, to create a high level abstraction.//
Soumya: M3 approach, implemented
recently in ETSI OneM2M architecture.
... For End User service creation, it can trigger action if a
pre-defined event occurs (someone enters a room leads to the
light being switched on)
... Remote and P2P discovery are work in progress, along with
DMR and security.
... Now looking at use cases. The Smart Home use case is the
main one [presenting slide 16]
... The cross-domain use case is very interesting to consider
[presenting slide 17]. The user could be suggested iced tea if
weather is hot and relevant ingredients are available. Very
simple idea but very powerful as well.
... Another example: a vehicle could automatically swtich on
the fog lamp based on weather sensor.
... In summary, I discussed our motivation and requirements,
presented an overview of a WoT architecture. I'm interested to
lead a WoT Architecture Task Force
Henrich_Pöhls: What do you mean by end-to-end security. Where are the ends?
Soumya: Between the physical
device and the mobile client. It's not only about having HTTPS
in-between. From a mobile client, it's important to know that
you can trust the provider of the gateway.
... We have to have a way to establish the trust on the device,
the gateway, the network.
Dave: @@?
Soumya: By vocabulary, I mean the
uniform nomenclature.
... Developers need to follow the guidelines provided by W3C
very strictly.
<inserted> scribenick: tidoust2
Soumya: In terms of implementations, there is embed-JENA(?), which takes some processing power. The latency might be 1 or 2 seconds for small devices.
Dave: I was talking with someone from Cisco about similar issues.
Daniel: Context is the COMPOSE EU
project, looking at solutions we implemented. We have a bunch
of stakeholders that want to communicate.
... Instead of redoing things again and again, we want ro reuse
things and combine services. This is more software
focused.
... Keep in mind that this can also apply to devices.
... In the IoT, something that did not explicitly show up in
previous discussions is that we're sharing sensors across
applications.
... You have unpredictable interactions between applications in
particular.
... What do you do with security in such a context? Different
applications have different security requirements.
... What we're currently deploying is a very static access
control mechanism.
... That may not cope well with IoT needs where you want to
share.
... The COMPOSE approach is to go down to the data leve and
implement security at that level.
... One of the things that you need is identity management. In
COMPOSE, it's attribute-based which provides a lot of freedom.
For instance, you can assign an OAuth attribute to devices at
home.
... This is not currently possible with deployed IoT systems so
far.
... Showing an operational view [slide 6]. Two weather sensors
provide values. We need to associate security, policies,
reputation. Same thing for a service, who is able to assign the
data, what kind of sensors you want input from, and what kind
of contract.
... When data flows from the sensor to the service, you also
need to associate flow policies, security state and
provenance.
... Which states did that value go through?
... The idea of flow policies for data is that you use some
JSON document tagged to data, defined over actors and you can
create classic read/write rules.
... You can view that as a set of locks. As soon as a lock is
closed you cannot write the data anymore.
... On top of that, you have contracts that describe what the
service is going to do.
... We derive them automatically. They are refinements where a
developer might say "I know the constraints that my software
has". The goal is to be able to blame the developer later on if
the contract is not fully respected.
... Going back to example combining a weather service and a
service that provides places to meet, we need to ensure that
conflicting constraints are handled properly.
... In COMPOSE, we extended Node to handle our security
policies, to ensure that legal flows are allowed and illegal
ones are not.
... We can also compose things and analyse the composition
itself. We may use TAKS and Klee to analysis the JavaScript and
native code. This might reveal some misconfigured things, which
would lead to composition reconfiguration.
... if you think back to the original solution where we only
had node monitors, this is not so efficient, of course. On
other hand, we could also put monitoring directly within the
code, and split up the security components, which saves the
centralized approach and allow us to compute reputation and
manage provenance.
... Reputation and provenance generate a lot of data that can
be fed back in the system to adjust policies: "I only want data
that was generated by Google sensors, not by others",
etc.
... What we don't address is the security of the physical
devices themselves.
... Also it does not address tampering if someone introduces a
sensor in the wrong place in the production line.
... The manufacture also has to guarantee that the firmware
cannot be hacked.
... About data confidentiality and integrity, everything goes
to the cloud. You can decide yourself how much goes to another
peer.
... Note that the analysis tool and instrumentations are
somewhat limited. We can do Java and JavaScript but other
languages are not yet supported, and you should not forget that
these systems are not perfect.
... They might be wrong. However, it's not as bad as static
access control.
... Conclusions: it seems the mechanisms that we introduced
based on flow control frameworks appear to be a perfect match
for most use cases and create new dimensions for policy
enforcement.
... Of course, these mechanisms introduce storage and
processing overhead, and something that security experts
usually do not like, meaning a dynamic security enforcement
architecture.
... Final question is: does the Web of Things want to face this
fine granularity? Are the gains worth the cost?
Benedikt: Comparison between the Semantic Web and the WoT. The WoT focuses on bits and bytes, real-time and dynamic domains.
[Benedikt going through slides, presenting FZI]
Benedikt: First use case I wanted
to touch upon is Ambient assisted living use case. We want to
use intelligent sensors for elder people and people with
disabilities.
... How much efforts need to be put to enable this use
case?
... Going through an example. The stakeholders are the
handicapped people, nursing staff, relatives. Things are wheel
chair, smart phone, all sorts of sensors. What benefits from
linking between things?
... Estimating the action that user wants to execute for
instance (pointing at a light to switch it on)
... Benefits from interactions between things? Privacy is
improved because a restricted amount of information leaves the
house.
... Energy management could also be improved by things being
able to communicate their battery status.
... [presenting AAL scenario, slide 9]
... The context management could device what is the perfect
medium to remind the user about taking a medicine depending on
the context.
... Another use case: Digital Entreprise. The goal is to
transition from sensing entreprises to proactive enterprises,
e.g. by identifying machines that are likely going to break
soon.
... Such system must be scalable, distributed.
... From linking these things, you could understand
relationship between the behavior of things and the KPI.
... About possible contributions, we are using semantic
mediaWiki to keep humans in the loop. The openAAL tool that I
presented.
... Linked APIs are a way to describing services.
... We have also been working on rule-based languages such as
Linked-Data-Fu.
... To answer W3C questions about interest in WoT: I think it's
mainly about connecting things together based on mechanisms
that have evolved over the last 10-15 years.
... Stream data protocols, rule enginges, service description
languages would be technologies of interest.
[ lunch break ]
<Alan> scribenick: Alan
Jeorg talks about networking
Jeorg: Idea is to meet at the
underground station at 6P
... We'll get together then and then take the subway
... [explains how to get there on your own]
Carsten: I'm going to talk about
standardization on the network side
... it's been 10 years of work
<inserted> scribenick: JAB
Carsten: Let's start by defining
IOT - was originally RFID
... We're expecting 50 billion nodes by 2020
... It's a matter of scale that we know how to do. We have very
little to change in this space.
<fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki
Carsten: constraints of nodes
lead to constrains of the networks
... nodes work on batteries, need to have them sleep a
lot
... there are various networking technologies
... we can use a stable internet protocol
... constrained node networks
... terms for this: IoT, wireless embedded internet, IP smart
objects, ...
... wireless sensor networks: rather about research - designed
for a specific research grant
... "designed for grant proposals versus designed for decades"
- the latter is the goal of the ietf work
... many people in IETF try to build architectures that it
works without the cloud
... can we move the baggage? you can make it work but may not
want to
... two camps: "Ip is too expensive" ... vs "ip works as it is
- why change?"
... both are right: boundaries between IP or not IP are being
moved
... 7 WGs in the IETF are working on IoT
... group 8 is created soon
... several groups related to security, one related to
applications
... layer of IP on constrained devices by a given company
(ARM)
... comparison of hype IoT and real IoT: different technologies
being applied
... 2008 starting working on routing
... now on applications: group on CoRE - constrained restful
environments
... CoRE done in basic mode. Elements of the web: HTML, URIs,
HTTP
... HTML in IoT still needs work
... URIs for IoT is suitable
... HTTP still needs work, e.g. for compression related to
IoT
... CoAP can use rest proxies
... run proxy chain from CoAP to HTTP
... CoRE embraces REST. Adds "observe" and web linking
... details see http://coap.technology
... security in CoAP is not optional: DTLS 1.2
... since May 2015: ACE working group
... on authentification and authorization
... since 2013: CBOR. Representing JSON in binary
... http://cbor.io/
... next step: COSE (IETF JSON security)
... need to work together, also with W3C
... cooperation items: application layer technologies like mgmt
for constrained nodes, security, ...
... now switching to IRTF (research arm of IETF)
... first wave of IoT standards done
... IoT consortia are filling gaps
<scribe> ... new requirements for research coming up
Claes: how are unique ipv6 addresses allocated?
carsten: has a privacy
element
... unique identifiers can be used for linking, on IP and net
layer
... recent work around with randomized MAC addresses
... one question - how persistent do the addresses need to
be?
... we de-emphasize DNS
... there is no problem with having the same address in
multiple times
Benedikt: you mentioned the "observe" command - can you explain why?
carsten: sometimes a server has
new information and wants to let the client know about
that
... a small addition to the architecture, integrates smoothly
into REST
richard: standards above
coap
... what is your opininion on having standards on the resource
description layer?
carsten: personal opinion: there
are a lot of pits here, e.g. doing the next wsdl
... with the web linking based architecture we are not done
yet
... e.g. there may be other metadata that one may to add
... interesting thing of web linking is that easily you can add
new information, just document them
<JAB> sccribenick Alan
<JAB> sccribenick: Alan
<JAB> scribenick: Alan
<inserted> scribenick: JAB
Carlos: I'm going to be taoking
about aspects of the last question
... This is a mapping of some of the solutoisn and standards
that are around
... Focus on how to make this work
... Verticals slide
... It's harder when you look across domains
... What ususally happens is they go for an API
[Horizontals slide]
Carlos: The stand is on the Web
part of WoT
... The win is to find the way to repurpose components
[Find Understand Intereact Combine slide]
Carlos: "this needs to happen despite Vendor Specific silos"
<inserted> scribenick: Alan
Carlos: behind the scenes there will be different things, but at the application level you should be able to work together
[xively slide]
[dweet.io slide]
[ThingSpeak slide]
Carlos: I was trying to figure
out a way to show this.
... It brought me back to talks about mashups from 2007
... That has worked, and in my opinion the WoT needs to head in
the same direction
... Looking bat at Web APIs slide
... we should rely on developers implementing things properly
but that's a problem
... but that's not the case, even HTML pages aren't implemented
properly
... Semantics are essential, you need to consistently say what
the data is, etc.
...
... The SAWSDL standard only focuses on three things
[Description slide]
Carlos: We've been working on
these things and have solutions.
... It's university research but it works
... we have iServe covering this
... we use existing datasets with the definitions that are out
there.
[data mining slide]
[Describing Things slide]
[Things Functionality slide]
[Things Interface slide]
[Discover slide]
[iServe demo]
[Interact slide]
[screen shot of data extract]
[Combine slide]
[Composition slide]
[ending slide with links]
Robert.Kleinfield
Robert: We try to provide
solutions to mashup IoT / IoS
... Our proposal is we have a platform galled glue.things
... We need to identify the building blocks for WoT
[What is Glue.things slide]
[glue.things overview slide]
Robert: It's important to focus
on the data depicted on the right side
... There are various solutions for data management, we try to
provide integration for them
... We've integrated the red, I'll explain how we did that.
[how can applications be developed slide]
scribe: Application in 3 steps - 1. Connect, 2. Build and 3. Distribute
[glue.things dashboard slide]
[glue.things dashboard detail slide]
Robert: Each device is defined in data management and the streams are represented in the mashup
[glue.things composer slide]
[example of My Composer screen]
[Marketplace slide]
[My Automations screen shot]
[Developer Tools slide]
[Technology Stack slide]
[W3C Web of Things slide]
[ETSI M2M slide]
[Conclusion slide]
[Thank You slide with pointers for info]
<fsasaki> scribe: fsasaki
dave showing thing description from his presentation
http://www.w3.org/2015/04/w3c-wot-framework-munich-2015.pdf#page=14
dave going through json-ld description containing events, properties, actions (not always given for each thing)
dave: now things as an agent
http://www.w3.org/2015/04/w3c-wot-framework-munich-2015.pdf#page=15
dave: behaviour here expressed
via JS - but that is up to the server
... here event is send and bind to a function
... calls unlock action to the door
... many of these things have to be thought throuh
see http://www.w3.org/2015/04/w3c-wot-framework-munich-2015.pdf#page=16
dave: see for efficient transfer
of structured data
... ways of specifying vocabularies
... binding protocols may be a standardization item
... standardizing servers - normally done via protocolls, e.g.
http / coap, so not so much to be done
... provisioning and life cycle mgmt
... discovery
... discussion about security and privacy
... legal terms - can we borrow s.t. from the web like creative
commons?
... some thoughts - now everything open for discussion
... question to stefan on xmpp - how hard would it be to define
restful bindings?
stefan: there is already s.t.
that helps with that
... I would suggest to come up with new items that specifically
target WoT
... xmpp is extensional protocoll, core protocoll only defines
stream of xml that is being exchanged
... we would have to come up with new items to extend xmpp
felix: asking about modeling domains more general or specifically - how to interrelate that, e.g. for end customer and manufactuer?
dave: example of different
manufactures who have different approaches
... project involving etsi - worked on interrelateing
vocabularies
... w3c is not in position to define vocabularies, but can
build foundations to build relations between vocabularies
Carlos: experience from SAWSDL:
we defined a hook how to "attach" semantics
... similar to REST principles
... establishing / building principles may help
... could be some space for defining a core ontology
... but then there are more specific domain specific
items
... see the example of schema.org which is the "upper model" in
that way
dave: important to take the different models of abstractions into account
alan: this is open discussion
session
... we need people from the various industry involved e.g. to
move a task force forward
... to move s.t. forward you need two implementations to create
a standard
... see e.g. fraunhofer showed something which can be input to
this - if you don't want this to become a standard, join the
conversation and make your voice
dave: thanks - there is a deliverable for the group that will help with gathering the use cases
jörg: this morning was interesting to see: different proposals on architectures
scribe: e.g. architecture of a
hub see glue.presentation - then e.g. see architecture of
network of things
... coming to agreement on the set of architecture and then
discuss building blocks seems to be pre-condition for the
IG
... then the question is: what other pre-conditions do we have
for the IG
... then some questions to think about: what are the most two
important building blocks?
... security was the most refered topic today
... but not sure if security is a building block
... whatever we discuss - need to understand if it will be a
building block
... also "taking care" can mean: we use something that already
exists
... see e.g. CoAP / IETF relationship
... so in IG we need to discuss: pre-conditions, building
blocks, what do we want to take care of
Henrich: you may need secure
building blocks
... be precise in terms of the endpoints that you want to
communicate with
<kaz> s/Daniel_Shreckling:/Henrich:/
dave: need a group of people -
what are the right questions to ask
... there will be some parts done, e.g. some metadata items
that already can be described
jörg: technical aspect important, but also: how to work on it in the interest group?
gisela: it depends on the
scenario that you want to build
... e.g. for security & privacy, you need
confenditality
... for security there are non-functional and functional
requirements
... then also important: standardisation point of view
... there are many standardisation activities that deal with
WoT / IoT
... you need a standardisation landscape to doc on other
activities
... not only IETF, but also ETSI, ISO for smart cards and there
is a new ISO group for IoT
dave: one proposed task force is:
to work on liaisons
... to make sure that messaging is clear - but we need some
help of people working with that
benedikt: one important task:
decide what would be the outcomes of the IG
... e.g. would you want to establish best practices?
dave: part of the answer is:
understand what the WoT means
... we don't want to create yet anther platform, but would
allow the platforms to talk to each other via the web
<Alan> Felix: Dave mentioned there are specific task forces, do you have them to share?
jörg: won't define what is "wot" but rather go from the buiding blocks
<kaz> list of proposed TFs so far
dave: tasks force being
discussed: see the agenda link, security & privacy, some
specific sectors
... e.g. question to daimler: is it time to think about
automotive task force?
Andreas: security is clearly
important
... not clear to me yet: how can the integration into WoT be
done?
... that is an important question for the car
... in a town you have connectivty, you get music from the
cloud - but how about rual areas?
dave: so e.g. you need intelligent services that can predict than you are driving, using some gsp data, then downloading something
sebastian(bmw): many technologies discussed today relevant for automotive
scribe: automotive business is
slow, so we are not ready to join jet
... but interesting discussions. protection of data is
important
... then reliability, e.g. funcitonal safety
... in cars low engergy state is also important, you might use
in certain situations
... so there is place for tasks forces, but we need more time
at bmwi to discuss internally
<inserted> scribenick: kaz
kaz: not sure if we really need
an Automotive TF within the Web of Things IG at the
moment
... would suggest the WoT IG should collaboratively work with
the Automotive WG to see what should be done within the
Automotive WG and what should be done within the WoT IG
<tidoust> scribe: tidoust
Joerg: I think we can do this in
3 parts
... 1. Look back at what we discussed today
... 2. Look at upcoming two IG F2F days
... 3. Gather inputs from today's participants
... Most comments are from the Smart Home arena, but it was
nice to see the integration. Amazing video from Panasonic.
We're really wondering how to enable this.
... Use cases around the public space, parking (smart city
related), etc.
... Of course, our task is to collect these use cases, but also
to start to use them
... in particular to derive requirements for the WoT
framework.
... Question is what is common from all these domains?
Dave: W3C work needs to meet the needs of actors. What kinds of use cases will help drive the work? I'd like to ask Alan from W3C to say a few words on that.
Alan: I think that when we look
at moving this work ahead, there are a couple of dimensions to
look at. One is by the industry, but also use
communities.
... I agree with the notion that security in building blocks is
needed.
... If there's a topic that you care about, you need to step
up. It could be around smart home, or around something else
entirely. What does the WoT mean to the mobile space? That
could be a task force.
... One group that is not here today, Boeing, has use cases
around network at airports and within airplanes, for
instance.
... The task forces control their own pace. How fast can we
move? That's how fast task forces move.
... It's based on interest that things moves on.
... Someone mentioned 70 IoT organisations that they contribute
to, that's one figure too many.
... Managing liaisons is important.
... We work in a Royalty Free pace but we need IPR to build the
standards. Your companies have the IPR. Which of those are you
willing to contribute so that we can spin off working
groups?
... The IG will produce use cases and requirements, no IPR
contribution there, but you need to think ahead about IPR for
possible follow-up working groups.
... I would encourage you all to raise your hand if there's
some group that you would want to start.
... If something is missing, just let us know as well.
Dave: We all heard about how hard
the WoT is going to grow in the coming years. We cannot do
everything, we have to focus on a few building blocks that can
progress rapidly.
... We talk about some of those today, and hopefully we can
make them more crisp over the next couple of days.
... Are there things ready to move?
Joerg: Looking at the agenda for
next two days, we have to do some work to get us organized and
started, that's the use case discussion in my view.
... Also the beginning of the second day fits in that
category.
... Besides that, we have the core of our activity, the
building blocks of our framework and our landscape.
... I think it will be interested to start with a plenary
discussion and then have some break-outs.
... The discussion of which Task Forces and how to organize
them will be on the second day.
... Probably we will have time on Wednesday morning to discuss
security and other related issues.
Dave: With respect to the number
of F2F the IG could have, I heard some companies willing to
move fast, which translates into more meetings.
... We're planning one for Summer. W3C TPAC will take place in
Sapporo, Japan, end of October.
... How many F2F meetings? What is the best way to work? We try
to alternate calls at friendly time for different parts of the
world. Is that good enough?
Joerg: To provide some
perspective beyond next two days, a question came up about
defining the Web of Things. Maybe it's more expressive to start
listing building blocks that would make a first version of the
Web of Things framework.
... [showing lists of proposed task forces]
... If you want to get involved in discussions of some of these
building blocks or want to assign priorities, please say
so.
<kaz> list of proposed TFs
Joerg: Even if you do not participate in the next two days, you can review the minutes of these discussions and look at the IG material to understand the focus.
[ End of the open day ]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/IT/IP/ Succeeded: s/wunsook@/wonsuk/g Succeeded: s/Fran's/Frank's/ Succeeded: s/them/them as well/ Succeeded: s/RFID/Components: RFID/ Succeeded: s/video/video on "Your Life in 2020"/ Succeeded: s/(1)/(2)/ Succeeded: s/[ break and demos ]// Succeeded: s/engineer/engineer from Eurecom/ Succeeded: s/micro controller/Siemens/ Succeeded: s/in/at/ Succeeded: s/;/,/ Succeeded: s/kenpen@:/benedikt:/ Succeeded: s/... 2. Decorate the metadata with semantic reasoning, based on knowledge of domains, to create a high level abstraction.// FAILED: s/... 2. Decorate the metadata with semantic reasoning, based on knowledge of domains, to create a high level abstraction.// Succeeded: s/He/He_(University_of_Passau)/ Succeeded: s/He/Daniel_Schreckling/ Succeeded: i/Soumya: In terms of/scribenick: tidoust2 Succeeded: s/FZI/Benedikt Kämpgen, FZI/ Succeeded: s/Speaker:/Benedikt:/ Succeeded: s/WoF Use cases and solutions at Benedikt Kämpgen, FZI/WoF Use cases and solutions at FZI by Benedikt Kämpgen, FZI/ Succeeded: s/Daniel_Schreckling_(University_of_Passau):/Henrich_Pöhls:/ Succeeded: s/@@@:/Claes:/ Succeeded: s/YYY:/Benedikt:/ Succeeded: i/I'm oging to/scribenick: JAB Succeeded: i/behind the scenes/scribenick: Alan Succeeded: s/...behind the scenes/Carlos: behind the scenes/ Succeeded: s/I'm oging/I'm going/ Succeeded: s/swasdl/SAWSDL/ Succeeded: s/QQQ/Daniel_Schreckling/ FAILED: s/Daniel_Shreckling:/Henrich:/ Succeeded: s/Daniel_Schreckling:/Henrich:/ Succeeded: i/not sure if/scribenick: kaz Succeeded: s/Jorg:/Joerg:/ Succeeded: s/stefan// Succeeded: i/Let's start by/scribenick: JAB Succeeded: s/... Even/Joerg: Even/ Found ScribeNick: kaz Found Scribe: tidoust Inferring ScribeNick: tidoust Found ScribeNick: tidoust2 Found ScribeNick: Alan Found ScribeNick: JAB Found Scribe: fsasaki Inferring ScribeNick: fsasaki Found ScribeNick: Alan WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Alan> ... Found ScribeNick: JAB Found ScribeNick: Alan Found Scribe: fsasaki Inferring ScribeNick: fsasaki Found ScribeNick: kaz Found Scribe: tidoust Inferring ScribeNick: tidoust Scribes: tidoust, fsasaki ScribeNicks: kaz, tidoust, tidoust2, Alan, JAB, fsasaki Present: many many people Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting:_20-22_April_2015_in_Munich#Open_Day_.28Monday.2C_April_20.29 Got date from IRC log name: 20 Apr 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/04/20-wot-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]