See also: IRC log
<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
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
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: joerg to invite Scott Jenson to the WoT IG call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/07/14-wot-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-69 - Invite scott jenson to the wot ig call [on Joerg Heuer - due 2016-07-21].
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> ?+
<jhund> Action on Siemens to reach out to Scott Jensen and invite him to a webconf call
<trackbot> Created ACTION-70 - Siemens to reach out to scott jensen and invite him to a webconf call [on Osamu Nakamura - due 2016-07-21].
(no objections)
joerg: 1. Yongjing to provide on oneM2M, 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
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
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 ]
s/report on oneM2M/report on oneM2M and the whole IG will talk about semantic interoperability during the web conf/
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
... updatd 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#action02]
<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
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
(and thanks to our friendly Chair :)
[ f2f adjourned ]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/topic: Discussion on WG Deliverables/topic: Review of today's agenda/ Succeeded: s/we have/discussion on WG deliverables. we have/ Succeeded: s/we got/you can see we got/ Succeeded: s/raised/raised by/ Succeeded: s/Michael/Michael but all of them have been transfered to the new repo/ Succeeded: s/of/on/ Succeeded: s/Johhanes/Johannes/ Succeeded: s/suties/suites/ Succeeded: s/interoperabilty/interoperability/ Succeeded: s/@@@/oneM2M/ Succeeded: s/@@@/EU project, OpenIoT/ Succeeded: s/demonstrate/investigate/ Succeeded: s/templates/domain templates/ Succeeded: s/THing/Thing/ Succeeded: s/... got comments from Cindy from W3C, Intel, ...// Succeeded: s/vallues/values/ Succeeded: s/behavior definition for state machines/support for behavior definition by event-driven state machines/ Succeeded: s/synchronous/asynchronous/ Succeeded: s/"// Succeeded: i|discussion with|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/173 Succeeded: s/IoT/1. IoT/ Succeeded: s/take/taking/ Succeeded: s/Type Systems/type systems/ Succeeded: s/provide tech report/Yongjing to provide/ FAILED: s/report on oneM2M/report on oneM2M and the whole IG will talk about semantic interoperability during the web conf/ Succeeded: s/invite Scott Jensen to the IG web conf/Joerg to invite Scott Jensen to our IG Web conf and the IG exchange opinions with him/ Succeeded: s/gerated/generated/ Succeeded: s/how to/regarding the other Comm task, how to/ Succeeded: s/a few/3/ Succeeded: s/ans/and/ Succeeded: s/@@k/how about creating dedicated TFs for each deliverable document?/ Succeeded: s/regular/IG/ Succeeded: s/call/call?/ Succeeded: s/streams/streams -> UC&term/ Succeeded: s/updtes/updates/ Succeeded: s/@@@:/jenny:/ Succeeded: s/meeting/meeting, would like to appreciate the host, CETC, again/ Succeeded: i/we should see/joerg: updates the slides and put "Jan. 30-Feb. 3" as the candidate for the January meeting Found ScribeNick: kaz Inferring Scribes: kaz Present: DarkoAnicic WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list! WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 14 Jul 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/07/14-wot-minutes.html People with action items: dape joerg[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]