12:00:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot
12:00:10 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/06/22-wot-irc
12:00:14 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
12:01:51 <sebastian> sebastian has joined #wot
12:02:06 <kaz> meeting: WoT Next Charter Detailed Planning - Day 3
12:02:10 <kaz> chair: Sebastian/McCool
12:02:26 <McCool> McCool has joined #wot
12:02:27 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Michael_McCool, Ege_Korkan, Michael_Koster
12:02:31 <mjk> mjk has joined #wot
12:03:34 <cris_> cris_ has joined #wot
12:04:48 <Mizushima> Mizushima has joined #wot
12:04:58 <ktoumura> ktoumura has joined #wot
12:05:45 <Ege> Ege has joined #wot
12:06:49 <luca_barbato> luca_barbato has joined #wot
12:07:44 <Ege> scribenick: Ege
12:12:30 <Ege> topic: Liaisons
12:13:23 <Ege> sk: I gave a talk in the OPC UA conference
12:13:26 <Ege> ... also a podcast
12:14:16 <kaz> q+
12:14:53 <Ege> sk: we are working on a document to agree on the collaboration
12:16:06 <Ege> kaz: please explain the background why the liaison is needed
12:16:24 <McCool> q?
12:16:27 <McCool> q+
12:16:57 <Ege> kaz: So like for further deployments of WoT, e.g. smart factories
12:17:13 <Ege> mm: I think for each liaison we should have a use case or requirements etc.
12:17:52 <kaz> zakim, who is on the call?
12:17:52 <Zakim> Present: Kaz_Ashimura, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Michael_McCool, Ege_Korkan, Michael_Koster
12:17:58 <Ege> mm: even for internal liaisons
12:18:10 <Ege> sk: for opcua we have documents like slides and also use cases
12:18:16 <sebastian> q?
12:18:19 <cris_> q+
12:18:24 <kaz> present+ Luca_Barbato, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Jan_Romann, Kunihiko_Toumura
12:18:25 <kaz> q-
12:18:34 <kaz> present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima
12:19:01 <sebastian> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7066325889348694016-1ntV/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
12:19:18 <McCool> https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/9175989014285781856
12:21:47 <Ege> sk: Here are the slides, it starts with HMI23 and intro to WoT
12:21:52 <Ege> ... we can build mashups
12:23:42 <Ege> ... it is complex in IoT though
12:23:48 <Ege> ... then I have shown how OPC UA works
12:24:22 <Ege> ... with TD we can onboard devices into OPCUA
12:26:52 <Ege> ... those devices can have many protocols
12:27:02 <Ege> ... We will also have opcua bindings
12:27:35 <Ege> mm: WoT Connectivity WG is from OPCF right?
12:28:02 <Ege> sk: yes that is simply taking what already exists in WoT.
12:28:10 <Ege> ... However, the OPCUA Binding will be a collaboration
12:29:01 <Ege> sk: microsoft already has an open source implementation
12:29:18 <Ege> ... they use TDs to onboard devices
12:30:49 <Ege> ... they want TDs, otherwise you have to manually type a lot of stuff
12:31:34 <Ege> ... we can have TDs with OPC UA as well, it fits very well
12:31:41 <Ege> mm: so we need a protocol binding for this right?
12:31:43 <Ege> sk: yes indeed
12:32:14 <luca_barbato> q+
12:32:20 <Ege> ack m
12:32:51 <Ege> q+
12:33:08 <Ege> sk: we have to agree on the terms
12:33:16 <mjk> q?
12:34:22 <Ege> sk: security will be tricky, they need terms for that
12:34:40 <Ege> ack c
12:35:04 <Ege> lb: it shares the same problems as modbus
12:35:31 <Ege> ... we can address the binary payload problem for both
12:35:49 <Ege> ... you are blind if you have octet stream
12:36:24 <Ege> sk: in modbus, you can only exchange small data types
12:36:33 <JKRhb> JKRhb has joined #wot
12:37:37 <Ege> lb: seeing octet stream, you cannot use the data schema
12:38:07 <mjk> q?
12:38:16 <McCool> (time check, 20m left in the hour, roughly)
12:38:44 <McCool> q+
12:38:45 <Ege> lb: leveraging the data schema or not will be interesting
12:39:12 <McCool> (let's drain the queue, then I intend to suggest moving to the next topic)
12:39:57 <Ege> ek: we can still represent octet stream, I can explain later on
12:40:00 <kaz> q+
12:40:19 <sebastian> ack l
12:40:19 <sebastian> ack E
12:40:21 <Ege> ek: also, in the slideset of yesterday you can see an example of how cert security is extended for opcua
12:40:28 <sebastian> ack M
12:40:44 <Ege> mm: we should move on, we should explain why the liaison is needed in general
12:41:27 <Ege> kaz: thank you for the background but I am confused. It seems like a proposal from OPC UA side
12:41:31 <mjk> +1 queue up later discussion on data schema and protocol-specific structured data
12:41:54 <McCool> (for each liaison, we need to collect certain information - how the liaison is structured, what the technical goal is, what collaboration is needed, etc)
12:41:59 <Ege> ... we have to discuss what is for WoT
12:42:34 <Ege> sk: I can share slides about it, they were communicate in the past
12:42:38 <sebastian> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/liaisons/opcf/2021-11-30-WoT-OPC-UA.pdf
12:43:37 <McCool> q?
12:44:51 <Ege> kaz: what is our view? What are your expectations as WG co chair?
12:44:59 <McCool> q+
12:45:17 <Ege> sk: we have to find good entry points to enable cross domain applications
12:45:53 <Ege> sk: I would like to move on the next topic
12:46:20 <Ege> mm: the goal is to have an opcua binding and them to use TDs for that
12:46:34 <Ege> subtopic: Asset Administration Shell
12:46:35 <Ege> q?
12:46:38 <Ege> ack k
12:46:38 <Ege> ack m
12:46:39 <kaz> ack k
12:47:27 <Ege> sk: there is activity about having digital twins of assets
12:47:55 <Ege> ... it is standardized by IEC 63278 as well
12:48:00 <kaz> q+
12:48:08 <McCool> q+
12:48:20 <Ege> ... there is a working group about asset interface description there, it follows the TD
12:48:47 <kaz> -> https://reference.opcfoundation.org/I4AAS/v100/docs/5.2
12:49:05 <Ege> kaz: I am confused as well. AAS is part of OPC Foundation right
12:49:12 <Ege> ... why did you bring this up?
12:49:21 <Ege> sk: they have nothing to do with each other
12:49:30 <kaz> s/5.2/5.2 OPC AAS information model
12:49:32 <Ege> ... AAS is not a protocol, it is more like a data structure
12:50:08 <Ege> kaz: OPC Foundation people mentioned it when we met a year ago
12:50:24 <Ege> mm: AAS need to describe non-OPCUA information as well
12:50:48 <Ege> ... we have to think of them as a separate liaisons
12:51:04 <Ege> ... we should think of how to handle different liaisons
12:51:43 <Ege> kaz: if you want to talk about a new liaison, you should make it clear
12:52:02 <McCool> q+
12:52:57 <Ege> sk: I have the impression that you do not approve these liaisons
12:53:21 <kaz> ack k
12:53:48 <Ege> mm: sebastian has shared that this group is adopting our standard. The question is whether they need more our support
12:54:32 <Ege> mm: let's make sure to clarify to situation
12:56:15 <Ege> subtopic: Smart Cities
12:56:46 <Ege> kaz: smart cities refers to a set of technologies, which includes WoT
12:58:07 <Ege> ... I have organised a workshop with multiple stakeholders, SDOs and companies like Takenaka
12:59:17 <Ege> ... we have seen use case like ECHONET in Smart Home, Takenaka Smart Buildings, Siemens via OPCF on manufacturing
13:00:07 <Ege> ... so I have proposed an architecture where WoT, DID and VC can work together
13:00:17 <McCool> q+
13:00:46 <Ege> ... after talking with W3M, we have decided on an Interest Group
13:01:18 <Ege> ... we should launch it soon and it will be related to WoT
13:01:19 <kaz> q?
13:01:51 <JKRhb> q+
13:02:11 <Ege> mm: what is the goal of the collaboration? Do they need our support or just point to our deliverables?
13:02:21 <Ege> kaz: expected deliverable is use cases and requirements
13:02:55 <McCool> q+
13:03:02 <Ege> ... IGs are also chartered for 2 years
13:03:03 <Ege> ack m
13:03:17 <Ege> mm: so start around november is planned?
13:03:22 <sebastian> q+
13:04:08 <Ege> ... so they will start after us, it would be good to get input from them
13:04:20 <JKRhb> q-
13:04:41 <Ege> ... I do not want to push geolocation and have a suboptimal solution
13:04:47 <mjk> q?
13:05:51 <Ege> luca_barbato can you take over scribing?
13:06:07 <Ege> kaz: we should not wait for their results
13:06:12 <Ege> mm: can they fast track?
13:07:15 <Ege> kaz: there are many relationships
13:07:27 <Ege> mm: so this group is more to organize
13:07:34 <Ege> kaz: like a central hub
13:08:22 <Ege> mm: we will keep things flexible but it would be good to lock down some features
13:10:11 <McCool> q?
13:10:49 <luca_barbato> scribenick: luca_barbato
13:10:56 <Ege> brb
13:11:01 <luca_barbato> seb: Which kind of stakeholders do you want here
13:11:04 <luca_barbato> ... ?
13:11:29 <luca_barbato> kaz: Ideally getting representatives from related group:
13:11:44 <luca_barbato> ... iot companies representatives,
13:12:02 <sebastian> I need to go
13:12:26 <sebastian> MM please take over moderation
13:12:32 <luca_barbato> ... industry stakeholders and w3c groups and external sdo
13:12:57 <JKRhb> q+
13:13:10 <luca_barbato> ... concretely: intel, siemens, hitachi and other from the WoT group
13:13:28 <luca_barbato> jan: also cities
13:13:55 <luca_barbato> kaz: yes, many cities got previously contacted and more are getting involved
13:14:49 <kaz> -> https://w3c.github.io/smartcities-workshop/draft-charter/index.html draft charter
13:14:53 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/smartcities-workshop/blob/main/draft-charter/updates.md latest updates
13:14:54 <luca_barbato> (e.g. Singapore, Korea, Japan, Brazil, Sweden)
13:15:36 <luca_barbato> lb: Do we want to do more outreach on other nations?
13:15:53 <luca_barbato> kaz: It is in scope, we need more use-cases
13:18:51 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:18:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/22-wot-minutes.html kaz
13:19:23 <luca_barbato> mm: let's look at the other liasons
13:20:13 <kaz> s/use-cases/use cases from even more areas/
13:20:28 <luca_barbato> mm: We have a list of other groups
13:20:39 <luca_barbato> ... and external organisation
13:21:15 <luca_barbato> mm: we need to have some structure way to indicate how we are going to interact with them
13:21:23 <Ege> q+
13:21:29 <Ege> ack s
13:21:31 <Ege> ack j
13:21:40 <luca_barbato> ... we can use the experience with OPC UA and try to replicate it with the other groups
13:22:18 <kaz> q+
13:22:23 <kaz> ack e
13:22:24 <luca_barbato> ege: I support the idea and if we have a joint deliverable with the other party we could
13:22:43 <luca_barbato> ... highlight it different from org that just use WoT.
13:23:13 <luca_barbato> ... or if we have a dependency on them (e.g. ietf)
13:23:59 <luca_barbato> mm: we should coordinate with them regarding 2.0 if they already adopted 1.1 to make sure we avoid a python2 vs python3 situation
13:24:39 <luca_barbato> mm: We can use the OPC UA experience in this regard
13:25:19 <McCool> https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/main/liaisons/opcf
13:25:39 <luca_barbato> mm: I wonder if we can do the same to track our interaction with other orgs such as ietf
13:26:40 <Ege> q?
13:26:40 <luca_barbato> <adds a template entry based on opc>
13:27:59 <luca_barbato> kaz: I'm ok with this and it should be useful, but on the other hand we should use more categories based on their interest (e.g. industry::broadcast, standard::ietf)
13:28:37 <luca_barbato> mm: What should we put in the template?
13:28:55 <kaz> q-
13:31:43 <luca_barbato> lb: We should create issues and link the issue from there
13:32:50 <kaz> s/but on the other hand/and just want to suggest/
13:32:56 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:32:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/22-wot-minutes.html kaz
13:34:05 <cris_> looks good to me
13:34:48 <luca_barbato> <pr created>
13:35:48 <kaz> q+
13:35:50 <McCool> q?
13:35:56 <luca_barbato> mm: Do we need anything else for liason?
13:36:36 <luca_barbato> kaz: Given this template, how to proceed and in which call to fill the information about liasons?
13:36:59 <luca_barbato> mm: I think different TF have different interaction with different orgs
13:37:25 <luca_barbato> ... we can have a volunteer and review each group during the Main call
13:38:17 <luca_barbato> kaz: At some point we need yet another TF dedicated for liasons
13:38:57 <kaz> s/liasons/liaisons. Note that the official Liaison Contact from the W3C side is the W3C Team Contact./
13:39:09 <luca_barbato> topic: Discovery
13:39:56 <luca_barbato> mm: I prefer to work on md files on github
13:40:12 <Ege> q+
13:40:14 <luca_barbato> ... while ege prefer shared slides
13:40:16 <kaz> ack k
13:40:36 <kaz> s/to work/working/
13:40:40 <luca_barbato> q+
13:40:58 <luca_barbato> ege: I'm fine with md
13:41:15 <kaz> q+
13:41:18 <kaz> ack e
13:41:40 <kaz> i|I prefer|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1094 wot PR 1094 - Discovery Planning|
13:41:57 <McCool> ack e
13:41:58 <cris_> q+
13:43:49 <luca_barbato> lb: We can use hackmd for interactive editing, marp for presenting and rendering
13:43:56 <McCool> ack l
13:44:11 <luca_barbato> mm: I'm more into having the content well tracked and less on presentation
13:44:14 <Ege> q+
13:44:31 <kaz> ack k
13:44:32 <luca_barbato> kaz: I also prefer having the changes tracked in git
13:44:33 <McCool> ack k
13:45:01 <kaz> s/in git/on GitHub/
13:45:05 <kaz> ack c
13:45:45 <luca_barbato> cris: I think depends on the purpose. some tools are better than others
13:46:18 <kaz> q+
13:46:19 <luca_barbato> ege: +1, I assumed we'd have discussion and brainstorming, so I went for slides
13:46:31 <kaz> ack e
13:47:09 <luca_barbato> mm: <present the markdown for the Discovery detail plans>
13:47:23 <luca_barbato> ege: is it a goal to prioritise the work items?
13:48:19 <luca_barbato> mm: This document is about building a priority list and add notes on the detail item
13:48:32 <luca_barbato> q+
13:48:51 <cris_> q+
13:50:04 <luca_barbato> kaz: When we make planning meeting the aim is to reach consensus
13:50:23 <luca_barbato> kaz: and record the remaining issues
13:53:11 <kaz> q+
13:53:15 <kaz> ack k
13:53:16 <kaz> q+
13:54:08 <luca_barbato> lb: if we want categories we are better of with a github project/issues
13:54:13 <McCool> ack l
13:55:08 <luca_barbato> cris: One downside of using issues is that we need to make sure the issue alone is that we need good labels, gh project solves it
13:55:33 <mjk> +1 using github project when needed
13:55:48 <luca_barbato> q+
13:55:54 <kaz> ack c
13:56:06 <luca_barbato> mm: I'm afraid we could be locked with gh
13:56:24 <luca_barbato> kaz: We can use the best tool for the job
13:56:41 <kaz> s/use/choose/
13:56:43 <luca_barbato> mm: back on the needs we have
13:56:46 <kaz> s/best/best fitting/
13:57:16 <luca_barbato> ... in architecture we have  REQUIREMENTS/ template
13:57:40 <luca_barbato> ... I'd defer to tomorrow, but I'd like to review how we capture requirements
13:58:53 <Ege> q+
13:59:22 <kaz> q-
13:59:24 <McCool> ack k
14:01:15 <kaz> q+
14:01:19 <kaz> ack l
14:01:32 <luca_barbato> mm: Would be nice to see a prototype for project usage
14:01:35 <McCool> ack l
14:01:59 <luca_barbato> ege: We have a prototype to show based on the experience with the TD group
14:02:53 <kaz> ack e
14:04:05 <luca_barbato> kaz: The more important part is the content for Discovery and TD
14:04:10 <Ege> I need to leave
14:04:17 <Ege> see you tomorrow :)
14:04:39 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/projects/2 Strategy Funnel as an example (but Kaz suggests we work on the content first)
14:05:18 <luca_barbato> mm: one more thing before we close the meeting
14:05:50 <luca_barbato> topic: Policy Process
14:05:50 <McCool> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1093
14:05:54 <luca_barbato> mm: This is a proposal to streamline how to propose new policies
14:05:58 <kaz> s/for Discovery and TD/on the planning for our deliveralbles like Discovery and TD/
14:06:10 <kaz> ack k
14:06:21 <kaz> s/I need to leave//
14:06:31 <luca_barbato> ... look at the PR offline and give feedback
14:06:43 <mjk>  the project feature may be a more structured way than using only labels to track progress and dependencies across existing issues and PRs
14:06:52 <luca_barbato> ... any final business before closing the meeting?
14:06:54 <luca_barbato> <closed>
14:09:14 <kaz> i/The more important part is/There is one example of the Strategy Pipeline using the GitHub Projects capability to manage the progress of chartering groups. However, what is more important here is clarifying/
14:09:24 <kaz> s/<closed>/[adjourned]/
14:09:28 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:09:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/22-wot-minutes.html kaz
14:12:12 <kaz> i/There is one/kaz: There is one/
14:12:14 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:12:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/22-wot-minutes.html kaz
14:12:39 <kaz> s/see you tomorrow :)//
14:13:41 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:13:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/22-wot-minutes.html kaz
14:21:14 <kaz> s/kaz: There is one//
14:21:23 <kaz> s/There is one/kaz: There is one/
14:21:32 <kaz> i/There is one/scribenck: kaz/
14:21:51 <kaz> i/The more imp/scribenick: luca_barbato/
14:21:54 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:21:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/06/22-wot-minutes.html kaz
15:09:14 <kaz> kaz has joined #wot
16:31:58 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wot