Meeting minutes
Preliminary
presentations will be uploaded after the session to https://
use cases repo is here, issue numbers will be relative to this repo if not fully qualified: https://
Opening
<kaz> Opening slides
today will mainly discuss use cases; only a 2h session
<kaz> i/Presentations/topic: Preliminary/
Sebastian: mccool to take minutes the first hour, raggett the second hour
Sebastian: (presents opening slides, reviews agenda)
McCool: no guests today, all IG members
Use Cases and Requirements IG Note
<kaz> [slides tbd@@@]
Process
Lagally: start by reviewing process
… then I will present and walk through the current Use Cases and Requirements document
… which we plan to publish in two weeks
… we also have an ITU-T topic, but have to shift to next Monday due to avaliability
… note that we plan to have a resolution to publish on April 7, this is a review of the candidate draft. Has been stable for a while, but seeking input before publication
… there has also been some cleanup, including commenting out sections that were incomplete
Lagally: objective of UC IG TF is to collect use cases and identify requirements, including collecting use cases from other SDOs
… and also collaborate with other TFs on requirements
Lagally: process is as followed
… collect use cases proposals, have a shortlist to filter contributions (although most have been high quality and have been accepted), then identify gaps, etc.
… eventually analysis of use cases should result in a set of requirements for other TFs
Lagally: we don't have a strong formalism on use case description; have focused on getting input rather than being formal
… so want to keep the barrier low
… have a simple MD template, although eventually need HTML; Kaz created a convertor
… github repo is here: https://
… under USE-CASES, usecases that have been incorporated into the document are under "processed"
… we also have some guidance as to appropriate terms to use, for instance, to refer to stakeholders
… these are given in the template
Lagally: (walks through template)
… there is both a requirements and a use cases template
… we also need eventually to distinguish between "horizontal" and "vertical" use cases
Lagally: note introduced i8n requirements late, still not much content there
Lagally: driven by contributions
McCool: suggest that we see if we can get wide review... i8n and privacy, although we have talked to accessibility
Kaz: wide review is for normative docs, though it would be useful to get early feedback from them if possible
McCool: understood, but at least we can ask
Sebastian: nice if we can have a todo-list, especially for topics that are not covered yet
… e.g. opc-ua, automotive, etc... so we know what's expected
Lagally: we collect these in issues, I have attached labels
… did try to make a guess at which ones we may be able to finalize
… but we are also dependent on contributions
Lagally: although I just noticed there is no issue
Sebastian: there is a PR though
Lagally: while we are talking PRs, there are a couple that should go into the current document
Lagally: can create OPC-UA issue, can you be owner?
Sebastian: yes, but we may also have other contributors to Shaeffler
… no specific name however
Lagally: note that requirements was moved from architecture to usecases, so if you see an old link to architecture note that they have been moved to use cases
… and will be in that document
McCool: reiterate that the doc is "Use Cases and Requirements" and will be informative
Document status
Lagally: let me review the structure of the actual document
… first talk about application domains and the purpose of collecting use cases from various domains
… by the way, looking at the doc in PR https://
… this PR removes empty sections left over from template but not filled in; just commented out, however
… some things have been labelled differently or renamed
… also removed affiliation of people with companies, W3C policy clarification need
Kaz: did talk to legal team about affiliations, esp for non-members. first, we can include use case contributions from non-Members into the use cases doc. second, we should not mention the non-Member companies' name within the use case description because authorship of the W3C TR is entitled for the W3C Members. third, however, we still can acknowledge their work mentioning their name and affiliation within the Acknowledge section.
McCool: I think we should raise this with W3M directly and ask to put affilliations in, since the purpose of UCs is to collect external input
… and what if this was considered a CG document?
Kaz: ok to put all the affiliations down in the acknowledgements, however
David: there is a strong connection to market, and while sensitive to issues of company promotion, but in this case the company affiliations are in fact very important for marketing reasons; "in good company"
Lagally: my personal take is that no-one reads appendices
McCool: ok, let's do another round with Wendy S.
<kaz> Preview of PR 114 - 4. Domain specific Use Cases
Lagally: going back to the doc, did not delete anything except a total duplicate section
… also took out some editorial notes about "add something here", instead we have issues for this now
… some of these todo are still in comments, however
McCool: just wanted to clarify that main use case should be simple and concrete and raise a requirement; please put variations under "variants" rather than complicating the main use case
Lagally: should also mention in many cases we just have placeholders for references but the details need to be filled in
… but this is just homework
Lagally: let's now look at the document; note that terminology is pulled entirely from Architecture
McCool: should "stakeholders" be terminlogy?
Lagally: hard to make consistent, and also openended, prefer to keep those terms informal
Lagally: then we have vertical, domain-specific use cases
… then have "horizontal" use cases that span multiple industries
McCool: VR/AR maybe belongs under Smart City, and 5.6.2 maybe belongs under 4.10.2... smart home vertical
Lagally: please make a PR
McCool: ok
Lagally: also "target users" -> "target stakeholders"... everywhere?
Kaz: as one of the authors of the VR/AR use case, I believe this should be kept within the horizontal use cases, though we can add some more additional use cases or descriptions under the domain-specific use cases like smart city./
McCool: propose that we do some cleanup on the VR/AR topic (possibly splitting it up into a vertical and a horizontal use case) AFTER the proposed publication
McCool: maybe we could add horizontal/vertical tags?
Lagally: that's what we had before, would rather not revert at this point
Kaz: really just need a process where we collect use cases and then capture requirements; whether the use case is horizontal or vertical does not matter so much
<kaz> PR 114 Preview - 6. Requirements
<kaz> REQUIREMENTS area on the wot-usecases repo
Lagally: note that under REQUIREMENTS there are a set of additional contributions that have not yet been merged; and the current document is relatively light
McCool: should we be merging some of these? Discovery has been around for a while, for example
Lagally: don't think we can merge this now.
McCool: agree, too much extra content to deal with now
Lagally: also, acknowledgements should not be 6.3 but a new section or appendix; editorial change
proposal: merge PR114 https://
<mlagally_> https://
proposal: merge PR114 https://
Resolution: merge PR114 https://
PR 117
<kaz> PR 117 - Add liaisons
Lagally: there is another pull request that is on top of this one that adds a liaison chapter
Lagally: add a section on liaisons
McCool: we should add at least Conexxus and IETF
Kaz: and also OGC
<dezell> Conexxus is working on a WoT POC demo for our Annual Conference the week of April 26.
Lagally: feel uncomfortable about joint activity in the document
Sebastian: I think just mentioning that there is a liaison
… am fine with the current text, but can also point to existing liaison
… can add link
Lagally: David, can you provide a PR on Conexxus?
<mlagally_> https://
David: ok, can do
<kaz> Preview of proposed section "7. Liaisons"
Lagally: let's then keep the PR open, work on it
McCool: let's to an email call and point to this PR as well as the main
… but email on the liaison PR can wait until a week before
Kaz: have two questions
… would like to understand main intention of this section; already contributed, or future?
… IEC, ECHONET, ECLASS are in second category
… second, there is an official table but we can mention that, and we should link to other press releases too if we include one for one SDO
McCool: is fairness a problem? If we link to one press release, should be link to them all?
<kaz> W3C liaison table
Lagally: there is an issue for really old things?
McCool: either we point to a table, or have a cutoff date
Lagally: would rather have them in the doc then in a table somewhere else (so cutoff date approach ok)
Sebastian: we need an overview of liaisons... is something that should be on the marketing TF task
Lagally: yes, let's discuss in the marketing call
Issue 111
<kaz> Issue 111 - Automotive Use Case based on VSSo
Lagally: ok, let's look at the issues now
Lagally: automotive use case https://
… is there someone who can contribute on this?
Sebastian: Daniel Wilms is our contact at BMW
Kaz: Benjamin Klotz from BMW have also been participating in WoT workshops, etc.
Kaz: thought Benjamin was the original author of the VSSo. so maybe he might be working with Daniel.
Lagally: closing issue about deleting sections no one uses
Issue 108
<kaz> Issue 108 - Finalize the section 4.6.3 of Manufacturing
Lagally: next https://
Mizushima: this is an old issue and should have been closed
Lagally: for now... will label it wontfix, will remove it in a month
Sebastian: agree in general that in manufacturing we should list standards
… but other use cases don't
McCool: I would ask sebastian to provide a list for manufacturing...
Lagally: ok, will remove wontfix, will assign sebastian
Issue 107
<kaz> Issue 107 - Finalize the section 4.6.2 of Manufacturing
Lagally: propose closing, have fixed in PR we just merged
Lagally: (closes issue)
Issue 106
Lagally: Mizushima, can you take this issue?
<kaz> Issue 106 - Finalize the section 4.6.1 of Manufacturing|
Mizushima: yes, I can look at it, but it seems the section was moved
Issue 105
<kaz> Issue 105 - Finalize the section 4.5.1.2 of Health use case
Lagally: number has changed to 4.6.1.2
<kaz> 4.6.1.2 Interconnected medical devices in a hospital ICU
McCool: (proposed some text, added into the issue)
Mizushima: proposed by taki, should it be checked by matsukura-san
Lagally: will assign it to both of you, please handle offline
<kaz> https://
Kaz: think Mizushima-san meant there were several subsections within several use cases (when he generated his issues)
McCool: note we might have missing sections in some use cases if they are old and those sections where added to the template later
Lagally: will send an email then to all use case contributors
Call for review again
<mlagally_> https://
Lagally: since we are almost out of time, I would just add at this point for people to look at the issues and call for contributors
Lagally: probably still have significant editorial work
wrapup
Sebastian: monday will be arch and profiles, plus ITU-T use case discussion at the beginning
Sebastian: please upload your slides beforehand to: https://
Sebastian: thanks a lot, and talk to you again on Monday!
[adjourned]