See also: IRC log from Day1, IRC log from Day2
<kaz> scribenick: kaz
joerg: starts introduction on the IG
work
... (WoT IG Roadmap (1/2))
... discussion on Use Cases; atomic use case to bridge application
domains
... three building blocks: Script API/protocol mapping, Discovery,
TD and Security/Privacy
... meetings in Sunnyvale, Sapporo, Nice and Montreal
... generating a document, "Current Practice"
... compilation of demo experience
... and in parallel working on the WoT Architecture document
... (WoT IG Roadmap (2/2))
... we're about to prepare for a Working Group
... identifying particular work items for the WG
... also generating a draft Charter for the WG
... we'll update the current practice document
... we have some more topics
... discussion on the concrete scenario
... that is a snapshot of the agenda for this meeting
... we're preparing the release of the IG deliverable
documents
... also preparing for the WG expecting to start it by the end of
the year
... identified how the IG will work for further exploration of new
WoT building blocks
... comments or questions?
(none)
joerg: another slide
... (WoT IG Work in Iterations?)
... Use Cases/Requirements -> Identify WoT Building Blocks ->
Tech Landscape -> Architecture and Current Practice ->
External Communication & Collaboration
... particular discussion on the concrete scenarios
... iterating documents
... on the right side, we have more practical things
... demos -> PlugFest
... we'll have our next meeting in Lisbon during TPAC 2016
xueqin: resource on the documents?
joerg: on the group wiki
-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_Page WoT IG wiki
joerg: please see "Ongoing work documents" section
-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_Page#Ongoing_work_documents Ongoing work documents section
joerg: going through the agenda
-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_July_2016,_China,_Beijing#Wednesday.2C_13th_of_July.2C_WoT_IG_Meeting Beijing f2f agenda wiki
joerg: 9:30 Breakout Introductions:
Protocol Bindings, UC/Req, Type Systems, Resource Parameters, TD
lifecycle, Scripting API
... after coffee break, we'll have 2nd breakouts
... then lunch
... after lunch breakouts again
... and afternoon break
<kajimoto> kaz-san, the lady who asks on the documents of WoT IG is Xueqin Jia from China Unicom
joerg: and breakouts
... goes through Thursday
... we'll have a lot of breakout sessions
... below the agenda, there is "Input/Comments on the agenda"
... how we deal with these proposals
... discussion on "call for implementation" results
... follow up on IoT Open System Architecture discussion
... Kepeng Li: Contribution to WoT Security & Privacy
(Kepeng is not here at the moment)
joerg: do we have further contributions?
xueqin: China Unicom: information exchange on common aspects related to TD
joerg: right now we have TD-related breakout sessions, type systems and lifecycle
dsr: how long do we need for each breakout?
sebastian: resource parameters wouldn't take long
matthias: we'll have quick pitches during the breakout introduction
xueqin: would provide brief description
joerg: everybody can provide quick
pitch
... we also have follow-up discussion on the IoT Open
Architecture
dsr: yesterday's panel session was a good starting point
<dsr> we could make further progress in a smaller group
dsr: and we could make further progress in a smaller group
kaz: maybe their work is related to TD lifecycle as well
matthias: detailed dialogues by a smaller group would be better
+1
joerg: coming back to the breakout
introductions
... would like to have brief self introductions
... name, affiliation and background
... starting with myself
(everybody introduces him/her-self)
joerg: take a look at our
documents
... joint meetings with the W3C Automotive group
... also IRTF T2T group
... welcome for security/privacy discussion
... second point is implementations by open source projects
... testing against our own implementations
... we'll discuss our "call for implementations" tomorrow
... now would like to start the breakout introductions
matthias: Explicit Protocol
Bindings
... working on this after the Montreal meeting
<inserted> https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/proposals/explicit-bindings
<yingying_> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/proposals/explicit-bindings/binding-coap.md
matthias: explains the CoAP
binding
... who is interested?
... 8 people raise their hands
<yingying_> https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/proposals/subscriptions
johannes: proposal on resourceful
handling of subscriptions for REST (for Michael Koster)
... take a look at this during the breakout
... which solution would fit which issue
... what problems would be addressed
... who is interested?
... 10 people raise their hands
<yingying_> https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/proposals/type-system
taki: quick introduction
... (What is Type System?)
... (Type System in Human Communication)
... what kind of data you send to the counter part
... Date, Time, Number of people, Name, etc.
... (Type System in WoT)
... Semantics: Meaning, Intention, Purpose
... Type System: Abstract Type Definition
... Data Representation
... (Abstract Type Definition)
... Abstract Type Definition using JSON Schema
... representation binding with possible data formats: JSON, XML,
EXI, etc.
... (Example 1 - Simple Data)
... Type definition -> JSON/XML binding
... (Example 2 - Structured Data - Object)
... ID and name
... (Example 3 - Structured Data - Array)
... (Type System Breakout Topics)
... comments on incorporating JSON Schema as a whole into the spec
is too much
... but applications need to have type system anyway
... how to cooperate with deviation?
... semantic annotation by type system or external mechanism?
joerg: who is interested?
... 9 raised their hands
<yingying_> https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/proposals/resource-parameters
sebastian: next topic addresses Thing
Description
... (Resource Parameters)
... (Problem Statement)
... defining data model
... who is interested?
yongjing: not sure about the point
sebastian: resource description using
query parameters
... or payload data
... query parameters are popularly used today
yongjing: could join the discussion
sebastian: who is interested?
... 7 raised their hands
<yingying_> https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/proposals/td-lifecycle
matthias: TD Lifecycle
... (Thing Description Lifecycle)
... Thing Description will grow and change over the lifetime of the
"Thing"
... how to keep the information updated?
... who is interested?
... 16 raised
joerg: the last one is scripting API
<yingying_> https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/proposals/restructured-scripting-api
johannes: Breakout proposal:
Scripting API
... (Scripting API)
... portable script which could be transfered from WoT Servient A
to another WoT Servient B
... (ConsumedThing)
... (ExposedThing)
... (Script Example (Client API))
... (Plugfest Findings / Topics)
... how to do local discovery
... need some way to access TD
... extend the spec with optional parts/hints for runtime
implementers
... event handling and decorator
... some more points during the breakout session
... who is interested?
... 13 raised
joerg: we should ask China Unicom as well for short introduction
xueqin: Sharing China Unicom's Views
on things desciption in IoT
... (Background)
... would like to share our views on things description
... ITU-T SG20 work item Y.IoT-things-description-reqts
... initiated by China Unicom, CETC, China mobile, etc.
... (Overview of things description in IoT)
... (diagram)
... mapping between Physical Thing and object using the Things
description
... (Relationship between things description, information model and
description language)
... need to clarify the concept
... Things description is composed by the information model and the
description language
... (Things description methodologies in IoT)
... Semantics-based things description
... uses semantic description language like RDF
... relatively heavy and not popular for light-weight devices
... Abstraction-based things description
... JSON and XML are popular
... simpler and lighter, so widely used
... but weakness on the aspects of interoperability
... Hybrid things description
... special type of abstraction-based approach
... interested in working here
sebastian: tx!
... we should organize a session to synchronize with each
other
... maybe query parameter topic would not take long
dsr: tx to introduce this work
... would like to explore the heavy approach and the hybrid
approach
darko: very interesting
... we're thinking about similar things
... schema org, domain specific information
... discoverability, etc.
<dsr> Dave: I have initiated a joint white paper across many organization on semantic interoperability, and see a great deal of interest in lightweight approaches and the need for agile processes for standardizing vocabularies and models
<dsr> Dave: I look forward to fruitful discussions to progress this further
sebastian: I'd like to propose we talk about query parameter because it would not take much time
kaz: many people are interested in
many topics
... do we really want to have these sessions as breakouts?
joerg: good question
... need some more adjustment on the agenda
... shows the updated agenda on the screen
(some discussion on the agenda building)
(moving TD contribution by China Unicom after the TD Lifecycle session)
joerg: how to identify the breakout rooms?
kaz: we can call this room the Big Room and another room the Small Room (or "Not so Big Room")
joerg: adds the room assignment (with "Not so Big Room")
[ 15-min break ]
<scribe> scribenick: kaz
matthias: shows example TD
... how the document should look like
... at the time of design, there are properties already
... name, uris, encodings
... interaction properties which are rather stable: name,
valueType, writable, hrefs
... remember that Panasonic had a question on the time of
manufacturing, product sold, etc.
kazuo: shows his slides
... (Things Description Template Concept)
... instances depending the owners and locations
<dsr> scribenick: dsr
Kazuo presents a slide for thing description template concept
Layers with CE category, subcategory and product catalog name
plus particular instances of these templates as actual devices
It is kind of like an inheritance mechanism
Each kind of product has its unique id, e.g. Panasonic SX226
When you install a device, you can assign a human meaningful name and the platform can assign a machine id
Matthias: this involves a means to copy and extend a thing description
Darko: we can define an ontology for such templates and how they relate to lifecycle
It is unclear to me how to deal with what you call the extended context
Matthias: this import of vocabularies underscore the lifecycle
Kazuo: we have many product types, and manufacturer should provide a template for each product
Matthias: I see a need for tooling, one way is to request a description from the device, another is to request it from outside
We need to do more work on domain models
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to ask about produced year/month/date and serial number and to ask about "how to dispose" and to ask about "modification/repair"
Kaz: I wanted to ask about produced year/month/date and serial number and to ask about "how to dispose" and to ask about "modification/repair"
This info is often on the warranty sheet
we need to consider the end of life
Dave: In my work I have come across three approaches: a) device provides TD directly, b) device is queried by gateway enabling gateway to generate TD, and c) gateway uses device ID to get TD from cloud and combine with local communications metadata for the specific device.
Some discussion around scripts that when installed either extend a TD or generate a new one
Johannes: it is a good idea to support modular TDs with inheritance
inheritance can make things complicated …
Taki: we can use ontologies for this
and import at run-time
Darko explains his understanding
Dave: we need to support lightweight ontologies for semantic models and constraints, and to make these into easy to process descriptions for WoT devices. Note that the RDF open world model has implications, e.g. complicating overriding of defaults
Matthias does a recap
Sebastian: what can we standardise here?
Matthias: we need to drive this from the use cases
Darko: we can provide best practice based on different lifecycle use cases
one is adding a new script and changing a TD at run time
we should identify lifecyle phases and look at best practices
Matthias: we need to scale to handle industry requirements on a large scale
Dave: some interesting timing issues when starting a thing that depends on other things
I solved this in my NodeJS project last year
Matthias starts to collect some lifecycle phases: design time, run time, manufacturing, delivering, commissioning
Dave: at run time both the software and the hardware may change (e.g. when a new device is plugged in that extends an existing one)
Yongjing: unclear about binding vs run-time
Matthias: binding needs to be complete before things can interact
Yongjing: design time changes may only be internal to a company
Dave: software depending on a thing will need to be aware of versioning where the kinds of things they depend upon evolve over time
Yongjing: we can look at existing work on templating
Matthias: please send a point to the mailing list
Taki: vendors may offer two versions of TD, e.g. one for free use, and another with an extended set of features for paying customers
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to mention there are several levels here, device/service level and application level
Kaz mentions there are several different levels of lifecycle here, e.g., device/service level and application/session level. so this list includes smaller loop (e.g., Thing2Thing binding and Operation/Runtime) in the bigger loop
Frank: we need updates as part of the lifecyle
Dave: we need to discuss how this relates to the APIs, e.g. events signalling changes
Joerg: we should look at changes such as change of owner and change of service provider
It would be helpful to collect some examples of use cases to guide discussion
Joerg: we should include a use case for simulation
and more generally a use case for each lifecycle topic
Darko: changes such as new firmware updates
and software updates
Kazuo volunteers to maintain a document on lifecyle
<Yongjing> Home Gateway Initiative Smart Device Template. Available at https://github.com/Homegateway/SmartDeviceTemplate/tree/7c890b69d9764e341ef1768c5a0e7d53a47cff5c.
<Yongjing> Some state of the art for your reference
Discussion around ITU-T’s work in this area and its relevance to the web of things for thing descriptions
We can make use of the liaison to avoid conflicts and misunderstandings
<Yongjing> HGI SDT3.0 defines modularized way to describe devices, it allows inheritance of device types and module classes as well.
ITU-T can focus on high level concepts and terms, while W3C focuses on more technical treatment
<Yongjing> oneM2M adopts HGI SDT3.0 for home appliance information modeling
This would encourage Chinese companies to join the W3C activities
Dave: we have had some liaison with ITU-T, but we need people to join the W3C groups to help drive the liaisons as the W3C staff are too few to do this all themselves
Kaz: we can collaborate on common use
cases and vocabularies, how would you like to proceed? as Dave
mentioned, there are several possible approaches, e.g., W3C
Liaison, your direct participation in this WoT group or simply
joint technical discussion.
... use cases and requirements would indeed be valuable to
share
There is a need to track liaisons
Joerg: in the short term we can identify particular use case and see how the concepts map
It can be difficult for the W3C group to process documents from other external groups without the relevant context, so we need help
It is really important to have a person who is really active in the ITU-T to help us in that respect
Xueqin: we will try to join future meetings
Darko volunteers on behalf of WoT IG to act as liaison point for the ITU-T
<Yohsumi> quit
<kaz> [ lunch till 1:45 ]
<ying_ying> breakout session: Type System (at the Bigger room)
<kaz> the minutes from the breakout session on Subscription at the smaller room are also available
<ying_ying> scribenick: ying_ying
taki went through the proposal on github
taki: this is currently we have in
the current practice document.
... this is currently we have in Beijing meeting.
... first point is incorporating JSON schema as a whole spec is too
much.
... second is related with the first one. What is the best way for
apps.
... third is what's the best way for semantic annotation.
... last point flexibility.
... is there any other point you want to discussion.
dsr: is there any time to study some requirements that are independently with specific types?
taki: do you mean alternative of JSON schema?
dsr: I think we need something
lightweight.
... there is similarity to JSON schema but not only it.
taki: do you have something to show to us?
dape: maybe we don't need all the things in JSON schema. We can just identify what's needed and missing and base on something to create our own type system.
dsr: I agree on Daniel on studying usecases. but W3C is not in good position to standardize JSON schema related.
dsr went through his slide.
dsr: we need to study late timing. We
need to study contraints.
... compound type can be specified in a similiar way.
... in place of TD or provide the URI of the type. Store it
externally is very valuable.
sebastian: I don't see much
difference from JSON schema.
... I think we should ask the experience in PlugFest..
... I don't like one thing of JSON schema. We need to specify the
types many times in TD.
... of course it provides a lot of things we need.
taki: do you see anything that JSON schema is missing.
dsr: not standardized so we could not
reference them normally in our specs. We may ask other org to
standardize it or we abstract what we need.
... from spec point of view, what do you want to reference?
... or you can specify it in our document.
... choice 1: if we use JSON schema, we need to ask other SDO to
standardize it or we launch WG to standardize it.
... my recommend we include it in our WG charter.
... let's use the terms and define the terms.
<dsr> Dave: the current draft working group charter scope would allow us to define our own vocabulary definitions for data types
dape: in corporation with JSON schema, some spec just use JSON schema.
<dsr> and I believe that this would be the lowest risk and the least work
dsr: do we have any understanding on
restriction for the first step of recommendation?
... enumeration can be not only string.
... could you use types in enumeration?
sebastian: then it becomes
complicated.
... should we only have javascript in mind?
... whether we would like to make our own type system. We need to
be as simple as possible. 500 pages of JSON schema types.
... look on existing approaches and make some mapping
dsr: schema language define complicated languages. We need something very simple.
taki: we can start from JSON schema. another point is there is already implementation.
dsr: define the type independently from the schema languages.
sebastian: I like to make something
like optimized JSON schema.
... example: "valueType" : {"type" : "number"}
or "valueType" : numeric
scribe: in the background they should be the same.
dsr: my proposal we have the type name or you have an object when you want to include annotations.
ganesh talked about experience on property of TD and suggest value type other than RDF type.
taki: are you talking about implementation complexity issue?
ganesh: yes. Another question is when
should we depend on RDF type.
... the client has to bridge the two types of semantic type and
@1.
sebastian: should we have the default schema or should we be open to any type of definitions?
daniel: how powerful is the RDF types?
ganesh: xml complex type can be done
by RDF types.
... I believe RDF types are much more rich than xml complex
types.
... with JSON schema I am struggling.
dsr: with WoT we have to work with
existing platforms. Simple approach will cover most of scope.
... keep simple until there is use case required.
... semantic level constraints are needed.
... relate the domain model to the types as ganesh suggested.
... we need to start modeling current existing devices and
services.
... we should support existing use cases and devices.
sebastian: to ganesh, binding a class in RDF or other complex types?
ganesh: one use case is to create RDF
class, reusable and linkable in domain.
... I can use regular search with regular SPARQL
dape talked about experimenting on some type definitions.
dape: I think maybe we need to go back to study what we need on type system.
dsr: I agree we should go back. We
also need to study use cases.
... types of compound property should also be studied.
taki: ideas to proceed?
... any other points?
ganesh: view use cases from consumers' point of view.
taki: thx.
dsr: we should justify the type
system we need from use cases.
... that's up to the companies which use cases are important and
need to take into accounts for standardization work.
ganesh: why property value type is different from that of action and event?
<dsr> I second that, and believe we should have a common type system for properties, actions and events
sebastian: defined in Nice long time
ago. property should have the same type as we read and write on it.
that is the reason the value type is different from input type and
output type.
... we can discuss it in more details on the upcoming breakout
sessions.
matthias: get request with query
parameter of a great range.
... what is the procotol we are currently using, similiar with OCF
doing.
... subscribe to something and receive notification later.
... hope someone to look for MQTT
<ganesh> is it possible to bring the camera closer to the screen? difficult to read the screen..
matthias: to see the changes for the next PlugFest
-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/proposals/explicit-bindings/binding-coap.md
Matthias went through the CoAP binding github document.
matthias: this shows the defaults of
CoAP method.
... we don't create action.
... better name to catch the interaction.
... start to define the new basic interaction.
dsr: is it target the RESTful community?
matthias: these basic operations are what we are talking about.
dsr: don't carry explicitly but just two different URIs, one for turning on another for turning off.
matthias: you shouldn't put addresses in payload.
dsr: msg contains info on payload,uri with parameter.
matthias: we need to be able to talk
about all these information.
... TD and all the information in it, as a factory to create the
msg.
<dsr> Three choices: state in message payload, state as URI query parameters, or state as part of URI path, we need to be able to describe all of these
ganesh: can this knowledge be put to RDF type of property or action?
johannes: explicit binding would not
be implicitly in the TD.
... since you have to reason if that way.
ganesh: advantange is to offer alternative way to subscribe and could be more efficient.
matthias: if you want to extract
something quickly it should be in TD. type should be somehow stable
because they are part of vocabulary.
... we need to keep the identifier of type very stable.
... we can specify any detailed information in the TD. we can
explicitly have the in one document.
ganesh: there will be many TDs. it
could become overhead to update and keep it up to date on the way
of protocol binding.
... need not to be in type but some other choices.
matthias: TD will change
frequently.
... any other comments on it?
dsr: we need to provide stable short
name for common things for convenience of developers.
... reference to some external definition of types.
matthias: UI does not need to
understand the semantics but can still retrieve the messages.
... "retrievable":["GET"]
... "writable":["PUT"]
... "writable":["PUT", "PropertyWrite"]
... parameterized the TD itself. if you list everything there, it
becomes too much.
... not only RESTful need to be considered to support.
sebastian: many stuff now in the
additional info that may be not necessary to be there?
... different combinations are available?
... not need to be explicit in that way.
... could you show example?
matthias: here is it:
{
"@id": "colorList",
"@type": "RGBColor",
"name": "myColorList",
"valueType": {"type":"array","items":{"type":"integer","minimum":0,"maximum":255},"minItems":3,"maxItems":3},
"writable": true,
"hrefs": ["list"]
}
scribe: if you want to complement other standards, you need to do it explicitly.
matthias: that is the default information for common simple case.
<yingying_> scribe: yingying_
matthias: if it comes to protocol binding, no need to go to semantic level and we can directly externalize it from TD
<kaz> kaz: so we're talking about how to handle protocol binding capability within the Thing Description, and I'm wondering about the opinions of Matsukura-san and Kajimoto-san because they were wondering about how to specify protocol binding during the Montreal meeting
<kaz> matthias: we'd like to have same image about this
[some discussions on who initiate the interaction]
<kaz> sebastian: how to specify "writable", e.g., PUT or GET, is a question
ganesh: property readable=>property readable by GET. clear in ontology. no need to specify in TD.
<dsr> Dave: I’ve seen cases where thing exposed by a cloud server is a proxy for a thing in a smart home, and HTTP is used to push property updates to the cloud from the home hub.
matthias: keep TD short.
... proposal from Michael.
<dsr> This shows that it is challenging to determine who is responsible for the thing description
matthias: who would like to work on
the table?
... for instance MQTT?
-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/proposals/explicit-bindings/abstract-transfer-layer.html
yongjing: I can post a reference done in oneM2M.
matthias: thx.
<dsr> For instance, how does the cloud server invoke an action on the thing, perhaps can am HTTP POST to the hub via an open port on the home’s firewalll/NAT gateway
sebastian: BT LE should also be there.
Matthias: there are already some works on BT LE and could be transferred to the table.
<kaz> WoT-AP Proposal for Interaction Model mapping to an Abstract Transfer Layer (Michael)
<ying_ying> scribenick: ying_ying
dsr raised his hand.
matthias: where are you on plugfest?
dsr: give me people
<dsr> answer: very busy on my day job for W3C
<Yongjing> MQTT binding reference: http://www.onem2m.org/images/files/deliverables/TS-0010-MQTT_Protocol_Binding-V1_5_1.pdf
matthias: I will copy the coap and
http to the table.
... to show what protocols we are targeting on.
... sebastian will continue on parameters.
kajimoto: for thing server supporting coap or http, same app can work almost the same. protocol binding is very important
<yingying> scribenick: yingying
matthias: app needs to talk with
scripting APIs. what do we need to modify in resource model then
come to the protocol binding
... I would suggest to do experiments to see how far we will go to
TD for legacy device
sebastian: e.g. two device supporting echonite can recognize each other and communication directly.
ohura: I will show you one
slide.
... 2 kinds of protocol bindings: red one is for WoT protocol
binding. the other blue one is the binding for legacy
devices.
... we think red area is our scope of WoT IG.
... blue area: there are so many legacy devices we need to leave
them to each industy.
... what do you think?
matthias: this part should be red in
gateway for WoT interface.
... BT LE is very close to resource model.
... we started experimentation how far we could go there.
... ganesh is working on it on BACNet.
... I think it's hard to draw the line here. I would encourage
people to do experiments. Evaluate the complexity and
benchmarking.
... legacy box coupled with the specific legacy protocol in WoT
Servient diagram.
<yingyingchen> scribenick: yingyingchen
[some discussion on BT LE]
kajimoto: the scope of protocol binding?
...we try to map http, coap, mqtt, etc.
...if it's related to Web API, it's better.
joerg: third party
could be there. blue one is proprietary. but it could be a GW that
has blue on left side and you have a chance on right side red
one.
...it could be a
generic one that can translate the models between WoT and Legacy
parts.
...could minimize the efforts on GW.
kajimoto: GW and WoT are written by us and we understand.
matthias: my understanding of our
consensus: we want to communicate in the red area. Legacy parts we
are not clear. ideally we do not need GW.
...new device connect and agnostic to apps
... it's very demanding.
... we can push the TD the most to this blue area.
... we are working on BACnet ip. you can experiment others.
... considering the scope, we can extend TD to the legacy
devices.
kaz: GW is also a WoT servient based GW.
matthias: from right side yes. from left side it's legacy based.
joerg: how to simply access the
legacy device
... should be considered.
-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/proposals/resource-parameters
sebastian: it should be have
semantics in there.
... parameter should be part TD.
... you has to add parameters to payload when requested.
johannes: where would you see to fill
in the value for parameter ?
... option field on API call is needed?
sebastian: no, can be generated on the API level.
matthias: parameters, payload separated in protocol binding level. should be more option on scripting API level?
sebastian: in that case yes we need another option field and hope it's not difficult.
<inserted> scribenick: yingying_
ganesh: 1. defaults: payload or parameters default values. there are some difficulties.
2. binding with parameter of URI and without URI.
sebastian: very interesting use
cases. thx.
...href field assigned there for default value. can override the default
values.
johannes: like the idea of default sets. some parameters are optional. API level can be optional.
sebastian: agree,
just where to put it, in parameters or in href?
...any other questions?
<kaz> scribenick: ying_ying
joerg: we still have another
agenda.
... next plugfest preparation.
... plan to take group photo. why not use several minutes to take a
photo and go back to the next agenda and close the day.
<kaz> scribenick: kaz
joerg: shows a slide
... (Documentation of Current/Preparation of Next PlugFest
... Compile current PlugFest setup
... slide pitches on the demo scenario
... ok to put them on the wiki?
-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_July_2016,_China,_Beijing#PlugFest PlugFest section of the f2f wiki
joerg: would be useful to add links
to the PlugFest participants table
... local setup and group work after that
... need to think about the network situation
sebastian: got demo scenario
perfectly
... network had issues always
... regarding the demonstration, having multiple screens would be
useful to show multiple locations/devices
kajimoto: almost same opinion
... PlugFest went very well to see Proof-of-Concept
... on the other hand, would see multiple locations at once, so
would agree
... seeing simultaneous changes would be useful to understand the
demo
... how to show-up our PlugFest at TPAC is important
matthias: improved pitches were
useful for easier understanding
... but maybe we could have even nicer structure
... 1-2 slides on things
... another on background and protocols
... how it was implemented
... in the end the overview of the showcase
... still have problem to get addresses
... some ideas on how to improve
kaz: environmental setting was not
perfect
... would like to work with my Team mates and improve the setting
for TPAC in Lisbon
johannes: great experience to work
together
... good if we could start the process earlier
... discuss what people can see in the early stage
... for the joint activity
joerg: further comments?
taki: in addition to the slides, we might want to have some English description should be provided
dsr: if we could put some message together, that would be a good tool for recruiting Members for WG
joerg: Matthias has some idea on
scenario, etc.
... we could generate a few sentences based on what we did
... joint task by the group
... make sense?
matthias: interesting to have brief profiles by different participants
<yingying> +1
matthias: small profiles with
pictures
... connection with ECHONET and BACnet
... overall scenario and one page profile
dsr: very compelling to have interoperable testing by many countries
joerg: what kind of implementations,
e.g., client-side and server-side
... some text to clarify the mechanism
... do you come up with any ideas?
... the scenario is already some joint work
taki: ok
joerg: tomorrow afternoon we'll
elevate this topic some more
... (shows slides again)
... test cases compiled by Matthias
matthias: people have filled it up
joerg: certain coverage for different implementations in the Current Practices document
sebastian: (shows the test cases sheet)
joerg: please fill out the table
sebastian: everybody should be able
to do this
... I have a servient for consuming and exposing
... tried to fill each of the use case
... not be able to do scripting
... Matthias has already set up all the devices
... e.g., IoT 2000, Raspberry Pie, Panasonic, Fujitsu, ...
matthias: green or red
... green is successful
... red is having trouble
... if not implemented that is not an error, so just blank
... there are two columns
... on the one side, you need a client
... another side is a server
... TD repository is just exposing TD
... this is the first time
... would like everybody to know about this
sebastian: maybe we should add more description to avoid confusion
matthias: e.g., you implemented client and I implemented server, in that case your client can be green and my server can be green
nimura: depends on the Current
Practices document
... so should clarify the version of the document
matthias: right
... so we call the current version "for Beijing"
... if needed you can introduce other colors, e.g., yellow for some
specific version
... the first row is the name of the demo
... maybe would be better to have some specific procedure to get
the name
joerg: is this practical?
... to provide this kind of overview?
... if there is any issues, we can use additional colors to express
that
... so please make your contributions
frank: looking at TPAC page
joerg: two actions
... to describe the demo
... and to fill the test cases
... TPAC is a great opportunity to show our work to the other W3C Members
... becoming more demonstration mode rather than PlugFest mode
... with concrete scenario
... maybe could try again adding basic token-based security support
... communication with the other W3C Members outside the IG
... how to make the WoT scenarios easily understandable?
... also how to display system setup and communication?
<scribe> ACTION: PlugFest demonstrators to descibe their demos (once the PlugFest template is available) [ recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-wot-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: PlugFest demonstrators to fill the test case excelsheet for their demos [ recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-wot-minutes.html#action02]
kaz: this is not only the work for the Communications TF but the whole IG is encouraged to join
joerg: yes
... this work has technical side as well
... the Communications TF can help, though
matthias: what kind of media can we
use?
... components of slides
... small pictures of devices
... prepare our scenario beforehand
... and nice to show ad-hoc mode of the WoT work
... smaller poster on new setup
... print it out beforehand, etc.
kaz: the Communications TF and the whole IG should work together for that purpose
joerg: wondering about the setting
during TPAC in Lisbon
... e.g., can we get a breakout session in the afternoon on
Wednesday?
kaz: will check that
<scribe> ACTION: kaz to check (1) if the WoT IG can get a breakout session including PlugFest demo on Wednesday durint TPAC in Lisbon, (2) if multiple displays/projectors are available for multiple locations for PlugFest and (3) if a small room for demo prepration is available [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-wot-minutes.html#action03]
johannes: one thing
... focus on working together
... so some more visualization so that people can easily understand
the demo, e.g., nicer UI
joerg: updates the slides based on
the discussion
... posters per thing which can be mashed up
... individual monitors/projectors to show the status of multiple
locations
... PlugFest demo during breakout sessions on Wednesday
... and then shows tomorrow's agenda
... goes through the agenda
-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_July_2016,_China,_Beijing#Thursday.2C_14th_of_July.2C_WoT_IG_Meeting Thursday agenda
joerg: would like to thank for Team Contacts who took notes :)
(our pleasure :)
[ Day 1 adjourned ]
<scribe> scribenick: kaz
joerg: discussion on WG
deliverables. we have a draft Charter document
... next breakouts: Scripting API and Home App Vocabulary
dsr: shows his slides
... (Web of Things - Web Scale Interoperability)
... semantic based interoperability
... (Scott Jenson's comments on 16 June 2016)
... work on smart homes
... (Francois' list)
... (Summary)
kajimoto: it's out of scope of
this group, isn't it?
... there are so many industry areas
... and why do you pick up only home appliances?
dsr: we need practical
example
... and home appliance is a good area
... a lot of interest in this area
kajimoto: there are many
proposals already
... we have already done some survey
... as a case study, it's ok
... however, our WG scope is a horizontal framework
dsr: that is an open question
kajimoto: if it's just a case
study or an example, it's ok
... but if some standard vocabulary is provided by the WoT WG,
that would be out of scope
dsr: the IG's work include
semantic work
... it's up to the Members
joerg: comment from my side
... I believe the WG charter draft has a clear statement
... we're not going for domain specific work
... we won't invent yet another domain specific framework
... may be some study case
... that should be clear
dsr: I was talking about this as an IG item
joerg: interesting in this
... we had discussions within the IG
... we won't go for domain specific things
... we're not experts on smart grid, automotive or smart
house
(some more discussion)
-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016Jun/0067.html Scott's message
kaz: sounds like we're mixing topics for the IG and the BG
dsr: let's have the detailed discussion during the breakout session
joerg: will come back to the
agenda review
... Matthias will talk about the WG Charter
matthias: explains the WG roadmap
-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Roadmap WG roadmap
matthias: AC reps think about the
Charter review
... after Baijing end of July, planning to get group resolution
for the WG Charter draft
... encourage you all to outreach for p2p review by Members
<scribe> ACTION: all the IG participants to outreach Member stakeholders and ask them to review the draft WoT WG Charter in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-wot-minutes.html#action04]
joerg: important to get feedback
from outside of the IG as well
... would like to ask you to take some action to outreach AC
reps
... if you see the AC review result of the IG Charter, you can
see we got comments from the AC
matthias: we'll fix the draft WG
Charter to get group resolution on July 27
... and get W3C Management approval for the AC review
... we'll start the AC review on Aug. 24 until Sep. 21
... this is a tight schedule
... if we get many comments from the AC, the WG launch might be
delayed
... so if you have contacts from other Members, please contact
them
dsr: it's kind of vacation season, so we should do that quickly
matthias: any questions?
(no questions)
matthias: so we should dive into
the issues on GitHub
... got a response from Ericsson
... coordination with the HW security group
... charter draft of the HaSec WG
-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2016AprJun/0005.html
kaz: WG proposal had
objections
... and the resolution was creating a CG instead
-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues WoT IG issues
matthias: next object security
-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/210 object security issue
matthias: a pull request from Ari
as well
... we have consensus to add this
... next coordination issue
-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/207 coordination issue
matthias: IG has a long list of
organizations
... the coordination for the WG is checking the specs
... initial proposed list here
kaz: we can start with this list and add some more later if needed
dsr: how about Web Crypt WG?
matthias: could you respond to the issue 207 and mention the resource?
dsr: sure
<dsr> The web crypto WG is at http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/
matthias: next intro/concept illustration issue
-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/206 intro/concept issue
matthias: editorial changes
... next still lots of issues on the obsolete repo
... raised by Sebastian and Michael but all of them have been
transfered to the new repo
kaz: will close all of them
<scribe> ACTION: Kaz to close all the remaining issues on the obsolete GitHub repository for the Charters (=charter-drafts) in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-wot-minutes.html#action05]
matthias: last one
... issue on interoperability
-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/174 consistency issue
matthias: still waiting for response from Jonathan, but we should be able to close this
(no objections)
matthias: so let's close
this
... closes issue 174
... the other thing is wording
-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/104 wording issue
matthias: time series instead of streams
dsr: use cases are business driver
matthias: high impact to
implementations
... want to be safe
dsr: streaming is already on the Current Practice document
matthias: we can easily include existing scheme
dsr: quite common to use
streaming for small devices
... depends on what kind of device you're using
... streaming is quite popular for IoT
joerg: we had discussion during
the breakout yesterday
... we'll restart our Use Case work
... good to have explicit links on your proposal
matthias: on the other hand, we're talking about the WG Charter
dsr: the IG should do more than Use Cases
joerg: we had discussion during
the breakout yesterday
... and the discussion was kind of controversial
... we need experts' references
... to better understand the use cases
... we need to make progress
... may need links to reference implementations
... provides very precise expression on his idea
matthias: we need to be very careful about the working for the WG Charter
dsr: several companies require
streaming
... we should generate some concrete wording so that people
outside this IG can understand it
... we have to clarify our intention
nimura: terminology on streaming and pub/sub is confusing
matthias: shows the draft WG
Charter document
... we want editors and contributors
-> http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-wg-2016.html draft WG Charter
matthias: deliverables section
-> http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-wg-2016.html#deliverables deliverables
matthias: would like Kajimoto-san to take care of Architecture
kajimoto: ok
matthias: and TD by Sebastian
sebastian: ok
matthias: if you are also
interested, raise your hand
... Scripting APIs by Johannes
johannes: ok
joerg: also we should identify
who is active on which topic
... thought Fujitsu was interested in scripting api
matthias: the last item is
Protocol Binding
... I myself
... also Michael should be interested
... something we need to work on is Test Cases
... for test suites
(no objections or questions)
matthias: ok we'll move forward to the next agenda item
nimura: interested to join the Scripting API work
joerg: we've done the first
agenda item
... we'll switch the topics and talk about the Home appliance
Vocabulary topic first
dsr: shows his slides again
... (Web of Things - Web Scale Interoperability)
... interoperability based upon metadata
... need to start work on semantic vocabulary
... home appliance is a good starting point
... (Scott Jenson's comments on 16 June 2016)
... (Who is working on Smart Homes)
... list of SDOs
... home gateway initiative, allseen, cenelec, ...
yongjing: please include
oneM2M
... home appliance model
... quite similar to the Thing Description
... the concept is same
dsr: more extensive survey is needed
kajimoto: ECHONET has clarified
vocabulary for smart home appliance
... also for the automotive area, Google and Apple promote
their work
... the leader is Toyota in the auto world
... they also define some semantic information for
automotive
... this is an area of industries
... the other is IIC
dsr: (Home Gateway Initiative)
joerg: we have several people on the queue
sebastian: generic approach on industry domains within EU project, OpenIoT
dsr: this is an initial list
kaz: Dave, are your suggesting we should try some more extensive survey about this for the Tech Landscape doc?
dsr: let's talk about that after the presentation
joerg: there are so many
organizations working on semantic vocabulary
... we're interested in interconnection rather than each
industry area
... afraid open survey is impossible
... also if we look at the original Scott's email, his original
intention was different
... contributions on interexchange is our target
... wondering what would be the reasonable approach
... what would be your recommendation?
dsr: we don't have to create
concrete vocabulary
... and we should investigate some specific area as an
example
(some more discussion on the objective of the proposal)
joerg: need clarification on our target, interexchange or specific industry area
kajimoto: my understanding for
Scott's message is quite similar to the one of Joerg
... there was not any strong intention for the WoT IG to handle
specific industry vocabulary
dsr: right
kajimoto: we should not jump in a
specific industry domain
... home appliance manufacturers themselves should work on the
issue
... meaning the necessary semantic vocabulary for their own
specific industry area
... Thing Description is a good candidate as the mechanism to
describe that
dsr: agree
... but we need to demonstrate how to use the semantic model
using Thing Description
... continues his presentation
... (Gateway)
... (Google Smart Home)
... bluetooth, wifi, ...
... (Apple Homekit)
... (Samsung SmartThings)
... (Francis Daoust's List)
... (Smart Home Appliances)
... very few people will want to be locked to a single platform
provider
... (Francois says...)
... (Common Device Categories)
... (Common Characteristics)
dsr: brightness, ...
... (Summary)
<Yongjing> this is the latest oneM2M Home Appliances Information Model
dsr: semantic models of devices
and characteristics
... further work is needed to study the details
... how to work with other industry alliances/SDOs
... PlugFest demos for services that work with devices
<Yongjing> oneM2M also did some survey on existing home appliance models: http://www.onem2m.org/component/rsfiles/download-file/files?path=Draft_TR%255CTR-0017-Home_Domain_Abstract_Information_Model-V1_0_1.doc&Itemid=238
dsr: should the WoT WG Charter scope enable standardization of such models?
matthias: several comments
... really confused
... Scott didn't raise this proposal itself
<Yongjing> how to get in the queue?
matthias: we have to be
careful
... we should not build any industry specific vocabulary
ourselves
... should rather use linked data mechanism for existing
ontologies
... this is already available for smart home
... we're working on horizontal framework to interconnect with
existing industry ontologies
(some discussion between Matthias and Dave on interexchange framework vs vocabulary)
matthias: this kind of work
should be done by a BG or a CG
... and this work should not stop our technical work
yongjing: has just put links for
oneM2M resources
... regarding the semantic interoperability, we could think
about the mapping mechanism with existing ontologies
... Sara is RDF and could be easily integrated
dsr: proposed whitepaper is still in early stage
yongjing: oneM2M has survey document on existing SDOs as well
<Zakim> jhund, you wanted to emphasize the work on tooling and process rather than content
jhund: wanted to emphasize the work on tooling and process rather than content
dsr: we have the data model,
i.e., Thing Description
... also have an idea of domain templates
jhund: what is your concrete use case?
dsr: demonstrate cross-domain
interoperability
... for service composition
joerg: what would be the next step?
kajimoto: totally agree with the
motivation and the goal
... however, each specific industry stakeholder, e.g.,
Panasonic, has already studied vocabulary for this
purpose
... and this work should be done outside of the WoT IG
... we WoT is not an authority to handle the expected
vocabulary
... why don't you create another group to handle this?
... the "Standard" we as the WoT IG should do is different from
defining vocabulary
dsr: agree
kajimoto: each specific domain stakeholders themselves should create vocabulary for their own industry
dsr: this is demonstrating the
expected semantic interoperability
... not defining the vocabulary itself
joerg: wondering what the best
way to proceed...
... what can be the possibility?
... maybe you can look into the work of oneM2M
... we can look at the survey result during one of our
teleconfs
... and Scott joined our meeting in Sunneyvale, we should try
to talk with him again
... and see their intention
... why don't we invite him to our teleconfs?
(ok)
<scribe> ACTION: Yingying to invite Yongjing to the WoT IG call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/14-wot-minutes.html#action06]
<scribe> ACTION: joerg to invite Scott Jenson to the WoT IG call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/14-wot-minutes.html#action07]
sebastian: we should rely on
existing ontologies
... nice to get more experience
<Yongjing> oneM2M base ontology: http://www.onem2m.org/component/rsfiles/download-file/files?path=Release_2_Draft_TS%255CTS-0012-oneM2M-Base-Ontology-V0_10_0.doc&Itemid=238
joerg: can we make the two points as the conclusion?
<DarkoAnicic> q+
(no objections)
joerg: 1. Yongjing to provide report
on oneM2M and the whole IG will talk about semantic
interoperability during the web conf
... 2. Joerg to invite Scott Jensen to our IG Web conf and the IG exchange
opinions with him
yongjing: have already provided
resources on oneM2M work
... and happy to explain them
... on the other hand, would like to invite W3C experts to the
oneM2M call or f2f
jhund: how to do local
discovery?
... need read access to the Thing Description, i.e.,
ConsumedThing.getTD();
... event handling and decorators
... extended sepc with optional parts/hints for runtime
implementers
... optional arguments / default values (and overriding
them)
... syntactic sugar: operator overloading, getter/setters
... synchronous wrappers
... directly access the results
... any questions? unclear points?
sebastian: query parameters
nimura: relationship between "exposedThing" and WoT API
kaz: support for behavior definition by event-driven state machines
jhund: Results
<Max> Dapeng Liu, my nick name is Max
jhund: local discovery
... need to discover all the voters for PlugFest
... can be misleading and complicated
... visits thingweb/plugfest-scripts
... shows the discover api
... "WoT.getLocalThing();"
... any objections?
dsr: better to have one API
... probably questionous to have asynchronous api
sebastian: not sure about local
vs global
... good to have that as parameter
... WoT.discover('local', {'name' : 'voter'})
jhund: good point
... we need to define additional behavior
nimura: the purpose is to mash up
jhund: discover expose thing?
nimura: maybe part of Thing-to-Thing interaction
jhund: WoT.getExposedThing(); returning ExposedThing
(ok)
jhund: "returning Promise
resolving to" instead of "returning"
... next, Getting TD from Object
... opinions?
dsr: returning actual objects
max: comment on the agenda
... can share some ideas using 1-2 slides
joerg: have discussion with Max
dape: would agree to simply return the JSON object
jhund: Dave's proposal was not to own interface but runtime's parsed JSON object
dape: ok
nimura: fine
jhund: any objections?
(no objections)
jhund: consensus to return
runtime's parsed JSON objects
... ExposedThing and ConsumedThing should offer getTD(); to
retrieve a parsed JSON object of the TD
... regarding event handling
... not sure if we have enough experts here
... visits wot repo
<inserted> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/173
jhund: discussion with Tobie from
Generic Sensor (by DAS WG)
... maybe would put this topic on the agenda of our call
... Event handling postponed to a Web call
... next, Optional arguments / default values
... add function parameter for RequestParams as given in TD to
invokeAction, get/setProperty, possibly events
... next, Relationship between ExposedThing and WoT API
-> https://github.com/thingweb/plugfest-scripts/blob/master/beijing072016/counter.js counter.js
(some discussion between Johannes and Nimura-san)
jhund: we should define event for TD change
nimura: ok
jhund: next, Support behavior definition by event-driven state machines
kaz: Apache Web server has a module as an implementation of SCXML processor
jhund: can you outreach some of the SCXML experts?
kaz: will do
jhund: Kaz to outreach for experts about state chart XML
<scribe> ACTION: kaz to outreach SCXML experts for scripting discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/14-wot-minutes.html#action08]
joerg: yesterday we had breakouts
on Type System and Subscription
... and we talked about them this morning
[ 15-min break till 12:15 ]
max: (Use Cases - Why we need a
trust ID?)
... device-based charging
... remote control
... keys provision
... (Flow Example)
... IoT device - IoT service platform - ID management
platform
... 1. IoT device sends ID and request random seed of sid to
the ID management platform
... 2. ID management platform send the seed back to the IoT
device
... 3. IoT device generates AuthCode
... 4. IoT device signs the AuthCode with device's private
key
... (The IoT ID Management Ecosystem Example)
... many different roles here
... 3rd party service works as the "ID and Data Management
platform"
... Max explains the data flow of the ecosystem diagram
... security requirements are relatively high in some use
cases
liu: in your flow example, what
kind of key was used?
... how to provide the key?
max: how to protect our private keys?
liu: right
max: private key will not be transferred
liu: what is your method?
... using UACC?
max: cryptography itself is out of scope of this diagram
jhund: using semantic encryption?
max: the platform needs to know the public key
jhund: the ID will allow me to generate the key?
max: this ID is just an index for the key
jhund: regarding the ecosystem example
<yongjing> request q
max: hardware vendor is responsible to the communication between the vendor itself and the others
sebastian: each device
trustable?
... the real problem is how you could trust the data and
devices
... we're considering the application layer not the hardware
layer
max: each layer should have different level of security
mingyu: this is related to
service security?
... seems like the point is certification rather than ID
max: this is just one example
mingyu: how can you prevent copying IDs
max: ID management platform
handles that
... if public key is stolen, private key is safe
mingyu: your point is verification of ID rather than ID itself
max: how to manage the ID itself is out of scope
(detailed discussion to be made offline)
joerg: intensive security/privacy
discussion
... the mechanism you put here is similar to the work by IRTF's
T2T group
... taking this proposal as input for our use case work is
good
max: great
... will also join IRTF meeting myself
matthias: would suggest you talk with Oliver (the security TF moderator) as well
taki: optimized JSON Schema
... possibly explore the possibility of mapping the optimized
JSON Schema to JSON Schema
... what is the objective of Type System on the WoT
layer?
... need to allow the use of existing type systems like
RDF
... property needs to have both input/output definition
joerg: next steps?
taki: Dave and Sebastian start their investigation on the Optimized JSON Schema
<scribe> ACTION: Dave and Sebastian to investigate on the Optimized JSON Schema [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/14-wot-minutes.html#action09]
jhund: report on the GitHub
-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/meeting-results/beijing-f2f/wot-f2f-beijing-subscriptions.md Report from the Subscription breakout
jhund: self-containing vs
delta
... severity of loss / ensured delivery
... equidistance in time vs spontanous occurence
... history/buffer vs only most recent value
... Micro Use Cases
... 5 type of clusters
... 5 different types of application patterns
dsr: reading several data topics
at the same time
... we should use more time to collect use cases
jhund: ok
kaz: had similar discussion
yesterday during the breakout
... our strategy is collecting this kind of micro use cases
first
... and think about how to manage multiple data at once
later
sebastian: what does "delta" mean?
jhund: one of the distinctive
requirements
... "delta or not" means "whether a single sample make sense or
not"
sebastian: ok
jhund: the whole idea of this practice was how to handle implicit subscription
joerg: we'll take this as the
starting point
... and continue the work
... any further comments?
(no comments)
[ lunch until 14:00 ]
joerg: ToC
... report from the Comm TF
... IG Charter
... WG Charter
... Deliverables documents
... PlugFest prep
... Meeting logistics
-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/images/f/fd/W3C_WoT_Logistics_160413.pdf Joerg's slides
sebastian: regarding the deliverables, how to handle the outcome of the group meeting?
joerg: adds that point
... Yingying can you talk about the Comm TF?
yingying: 6 topics here
... IG blog
... Testimonials on the WoT landing page
... Call for Implementations
... todo: restructure the wiki
... Liaisons
... no one responded so far
... todo: speicific contact person per each liaison
... Events
... todo: identify the key eents
... need resources
... Flyers and Salessheet
... whitepaper generated
joerg: tx
... comments?
sebastian: collections of
Implementations
... just listing implementations wouldn't make much sense
... we should have discussion on this
dsr: how to handle the results is
important
... which one would fit with the Current Practices document,
etc.
joerg: we could go through each
entry of this list
... and see how to handle each entry
... into several categories
dsr: sounds like a reasonable
idea
... possible key point is what kind of protocol they're
using
... would like to build good relationship
... regarding the other Comm task, how to encourage people to
blog the group's work, etc.
-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Implementations WoT implementations list
jhund: it might be quite
confusing if they are working with us
... so should clarify who are working with us
... what kind of approach is used on their side
... outreaching to the people behind the implementations
themselves would be helpful
dape: we do have a list of
categorized participation in PlugFests
... we could refer to that
kaz: can you put the resource of that information?
joerg: we discussed outcome from
PlugFests
... using an Excel sheet
... the first step could be putting the information
together
... who participates in PlugFests
dsr: @@@
joerg: PlugFest online?
dsr: some people could join online
jhund: we can somehow arrange to
contact people who implemented these implementations?
... joint activity is good
... some people may not join f2f and need to join online
dape: we could have opened the
port to report participants
... but there was a difficulty
... during the next meeting, we should set up remote
configuration and make sure it will be stable
joerg: for example, IRTF T2T guys
could join remotely
... why not to try to find out a convenient day for them?
... maybe we could even try a completely online PlugFest
<DarkoAnicic> +q
joerg: 2 step approach
... do the excersise within the group and @@@
jhund: it would be hard to understand the mechanism/technical issues if completely online
darko: would agree with
Johannes
... how to make sure the demo scenario is already
difficult
... using a template (as Matthias suggested) would be
useful
sebastian: maybe we should use not only one day but some more days for preparation
yingying: how could we reachout these guys?
darko: maybe we could start with Members
sebastian: we could see how other groups manage this kind of work
<yongjing> have to leave early. Nice meeting you all this week. bye :)
jhund: maybe I could take out an action to reachout an expert
joerg: shows the Status page
again
... updated the TODO list for "Call for Implementation"
... restructure te collections on wiki, outreach to the people
to get engaged, conduct also PlugFests online
yingying: there are only limited people in the Comm TF
joerg: these actions are for the
whole IG
... we as the IG will do the categorization of
implementations
... Daniel, can you check the descriptions on the list?
dape: will do
joerg: and we'll discuss this based on that
<scribe> ACTION: dape to check directly with the implementers and see who have participated in the PlugFests so far [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/14-wot-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-71 - Check directly with the implementers and see who have participated in the plugfests so far [on Daniel Peintner - due 2016-07-21].
joerg: move forward
... IG Blog
dsr: would encourage more people
to contribute to the Blog
... suggestion is
... would like to have blog posts by the PlugFest
participants
joerg: even with pictures
... taki on template
... as we need the scenario template document anyway
... to contact the participants and compile the scenarios
... we have pitch slides and could have some more text (based
on the template)
... and we could have some pictures
... those could be input for the possible blog post
<scribe> ACTION: taki to generate a template of PlugFest description [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/14-wot-minutes.html#action11]
dsr: Daniel is working on the
Flyers
... would some sponsorship for printing
joerg: updates the Status
slide
... IG Blog: Draft a blog entry reporting about the last
PlugFest (including a picture) [PlugFest Participants]
... and about the Flyers?
dsr: yes
joerg: do we need to add anything here?
(some more discussion about flyers)
yingying: reports the cost for printing
joerg: todo: review in IG, check
the cost and make them ready before TPAC
... there is a link on the Status slide
... any other concerns?
(none)
joerg: next, Liaisons
... need care takers for each liaison
... shows the wiki
-> @@@l
joerg: comments?
... discussion on ITU-T yesterday
... this is something the Comm TF bring to the main group, and
the main group can review it
... we need to go through the list
... let's say in 3 weeks
... and ask for volunteers
... for the contacts from our side
... August 3
... 3 weeks to check with
(no more comments)
joerg: further comments?
dsr: maybe people here are not
enthusiastic with outreach
... but there may be somebody from your company who work on
outreach
joerg: next is IG Charter status
-> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/wot-ig-2016/results AC review results (member-only)
joerg: 31 positive votes so far
dsr: may be sent to W3M next week
joerg: complementary to upcoming
WG Charter
... next steps
... looking for a co-Chair
... will reorganize work on the deliverables
... we have some outcome from the meeting discussion
... some probably prefer the Architecture and the Current
Practice
... and some more in scenarios
... we had controversial discussion on subscription
... scenarios behind
... important to handle Use Cases/Requirements and
Scenarios
... what would be the best way?
kaz: how about creating dedicated TFs for each deliverable document?
<sebastian> ack
sebastian: there are many existing solutions and we should see those practices
dsr: some regular slots could be assigned during the IG call
joerg: during the last several
months, we've been working on the Charters
... having said that it's important to have technical
discussion
... also we should ask others for contributions
liu: I'm not an expert of Web but maybe how to deal with IoT technology is an important question
jhund: we're discussing how to
make the Web accessible to the devices
... for constrained devices, we may use EXI as the data
format
liu: for the application layer some optimization is needed (?)
jhund: we're still keeping the design
liu: we should think about
optimization (on each layer?)
... on the application, there are so many message handlers
joerg: cross-layer optimization
is important
... and it's a trade-off
... simplicity of application vs cost
... we need to experiment how high the cost would be
dsr: in the architecture of WoT,
a lot of communications are allowed
... CoAP, HTTP, etc.
... we should do what kind of protocols are used
joerg: how do we arrange our
calls and actions?
... reserve certain time for technical discussion is good
... we need responsible persons for these deliverable
documents
... next, WG Charter draft
... we discussed it this morning
... p2p feedback
... on track wrt the WG roadmap
... comments?
(none)
joerg: next, Logistics
... work setup
... fix time slots
... restart on 20 July
... agenda includes: open actions, technical discussion,
housekeeping deliverables, focus of next call?
jhund: follow-up on subscription/events/streams -> UC&term
joerg: one other topic is
sketching out the TPAC meeting
... share ideas how to setup (technically) the demo at
TPAC
... then, time to discuss the next f2f
... IETF 96, RIOT Summit in Berlin
... and TPAC 2016 in Lisbon on Sep. 22-23
... expected demo session on 21?
... preparation on 20 afternoon?
... is a small room available for that purpose?
kaz: will check with the Meeting planner team
joerg: WoT IG f2f on Sep.
22-23
... joint meeting with IRTF on Sep. 24-25
... may be different place than the TPAC venue
... meeting after TPAC?
kajimoto: April would be a very
good season for Japan :)
... Panasonic can host a meeting
joerg: have idea on a concrete date?
kajimoto: let me check
joerg: updates the slide
... January, idea in US?
... April, in Osaka, Japan
-> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/schedule.html TPAC schedule page
dsr: regarding US, possibly could get a company instead of MIT
joerg: all are encouraged to see the possibility of hosting the January meeting within the upcoming three weeks
kaz: the expected place for January is US?
joerg: yes
... the expected date is Jan. 23-27
dsr: if we have a WG at that time, how do we want to arrange the meeting?
joerg: maybe we might want to
keep the current configuration
... WG guys might be going to join the IG meeting as well
... let's keep the initial proposal as 4 days
jenny: not a good idea to hold the meeting at that time due to the Chinese New Year holidays
<inserted> joerg: updates the slides and put "Jan. 30-Feb. 3" as the candidate for the January meeting
joerg: we should see if there are
any other conflicts
... Kaz, please conduct a poll to see people's
availability
... July, possibility in Europe/Germany
... before closing the meeting, would like to appreciate the
host, CETC, again
... there were many activities during the meeting
... would appreciate the W3C Beihang Team
... also other W3C Team colleagues who took minutes
... have a nice time and travel back home
<scribe> ACTION: kaz to conduct a WBS poll to see people's availability for the January-February meeting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/14-wot-minutes.html#action12]
(and thanks to our friendly Chair :)
[ f2f adjourned ]