W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT Discovery

26 June 2023

Attendees

Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura, Luca_Barbato, Michael_McCool, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
McCool
Scribe
kaz

Meeting minutes

Minutes

May-29

McCool: (goes through the minutes)

approved

Planning

wot PR 1094 - Discovery Planning

McCool: (goes through the proposed plan for Discovery)

Discovery/work-items.md

McCool: possible work item on sort-by filtering (was taken out at the last minute, but relates to query filters)

wot-charter-drafts/wot-wg-2023-details.html

McCool: (add some more updates to work-items.md based on the items within wot-wg-2023-details.html)
… right now, the information model is based on the TD
… around "break 'improvements' into smaller individual work-items so they can be prioritized"
… "validation"
… "TD versions"
… "version selection"
… not sure how to handle that at the moment, though
… then "improve security"
… would like to put some placeholder item to the "Prioritized List" as well

Kaz: Technically, we should be able to get clarifications based on the new use cases and requirements for the next Charter

McCool: yeah
… we should think about how to deal with the use cases within the WoT Architecture spec too

Kaz: right
… the description about use cases within the WoT Architecture spec can be transferred to the Use Cases document

McCool: (goes through the discussions on PR 1094)

wot PR 1094 - Discovery Planning

McCool: (goes through the "Prioritized List")
… (makes "9. "Linting mechanism for TD" lower priority)

Toumura: another proposal on a work item
… we could improve the interoperability with different protocols

McCool: would be a good addition
… (adds an item for "Prioritized List" as item 19)
… Additional Introductions
… to be researched but support additional ecosystems
… examples: MQTT, OPC UA
… (commits those additions)
… let's now prioritize the things
… need some query mechanism because downloading everything would not make sense
… would be high-priority and make it the highest

Luca: btw, you don't need to specify concrete number for enumeration
… we could get away from the JSON query mechanism and think about some basic query mechanism instead

McCool: we could have some query filter function instead
… very simple package of query mechanism
… or search for some particular ID

Luca: could use JSON Pointer

McCool: "sort by" functionality might be necessary
… also need to see how bit/expensive the mechanism would be
… note that currently, we can do is downloading everything from the Directory
… but if the data is huge, it would not make sense
… Directory works as a hub for a small area with a few devices or for a big area with a large number of devices

Luca: mostly depending on the implementation

McCool: the feature would impact the implementations

Luca: related to how we constrain the resources
… my mental model is that my DNS could answer the DNS query

McCool: we need to consider various possible mechanism all over the world

Kaz: I tend to agree with McCool
… However, we need to look into concrete use cases including a larger environment with many devices from various industries before diving into the detail
… so for today, I'd suggest we define two big categories, (1) higher priority and (2) lower priority, and then put this item into the higher priority category

Luca: think this is a "Nice to have" feature

Kaz: maybe we can say "This is nice to have" today
… and should see if it's necessary after clarifying actual use cases and requirements

McCool: (reorganize the items into "Higher priority" and "Lower priority")
… parsing and validation should be higher priority
… since we don't have concrete mechanism so far
… what about Geolocation?

Kaz: "Geolocation" itself is part of properties rather than the mechanism
… so I think it would make more sense to handle this as part of the smarter query mechanism

McCool: geolocation has two parts, metadata and discovery; the second depends on the first

Kaz: and I'd agree handling geolocation would be important and should be part of the Higher priority category

McCool: then next, "Onboarding"
… could be handled as part of security
… would put this under "Middle priority"

Luca: "Onboarding" should be handled differently
… not part of the Discovery mechanism itself

McCool: myself wouldn't disagree
… but so far, we've been discussing Onboarding as part of Discovery
… let's put it under Middle now

Kaz: agree
… and as usual, we could clarify how we should handle it after clarifying use cases a bit more

McCool: (commits changes so far)
… would like to continue to work on this work-items.md a bit more before merging it

Kaz: that's OK
… but maybe it would be easier to manage the discussion if we merge the current PR 1094 today
… and then create another PR for further discussion

McCool: yeah, that's possible
… but would prefer continuing some more discussion on this PR 1094 itself

Kaz: ok

[adjourned]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 210 (Wed Jan 11 19:21:32 2023 UTC).