12:00:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot-uc
12:00:37 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/07-wot-uc-irc
12:01:16 <kaz> meeting: WoT Use Cases
12:01:35 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Luca_Barbato
12:02:01 <kaz> agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/IG_UseCase_WebConf#February_7th%2C_2024
12:02:05 <kaz> chair: Mizushima
12:04:25 <ktoumura> ktoumura has joined #wot-uc
12:05:17 <kaz> present+ Kunihiko_Toumura
12:05:45 <luca_barbato> luca_barbato has joined #wot-uc
12:06:17 <luca_barbato> scribenick luca_barbato
12:06:17 <kaz> scribenick: luca_barbato
12:06:44 <kaz> s/scribenick luca_barbato//
12:06:52 <luca_barbato> miz: I propose how to proceed
12:07:02 <kaz> i|I pro|topic: Basic plan about how to proceed|
12:07:13 <kaz> present+ Mahda_Noura
12:08:46 <luca_barbato> miz: Today we settle the discussion on the process
12:09:06 <luca_barbato> .. Next week we clarify basic templates: one for use cases and another for requirments
12:09:27 <luca_barbato> .. In 2 weeks we start to think about several concrete use cases and requirements based on the proposed template
12:09:38 <luca_barbato> .. Do we have consensus on this plan?
12:11:37 <luca_barbato> miz: Last week we approved the workflow and I prepared 4 issues on github
12:11:51 <McCool> McCool has joined #wot-uc
12:11:53 <kaz> i|Last|[approved]|
12:12:06 <kaz> i|Last|topic: Minutes review and GitHub Issue creation (with "Process" label)|
12:12:08 <Mizushima> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/main/TODO/20240207.md
12:12:31 <kaz> i|md|-> https://www.w3.org/2024/01/31-wot-uc-minutes.html Jan-31 minutes|
12:12:49 <kaz> s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/main/TODO/20240207.md|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/main/TODO/20240207.md What to do today|
12:13:47 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/263 Issue 263 - How to extract information, e.g., about requirements, from the UC description?
12:14:04 <JKRhb> JKRhb has joined #wot-uc
12:14:14 <Mizushima> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/264
12:14:15 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/264 Issue 264 - When/which level of UC description to be generated?
12:14:35 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/265 Issue 265 - Who/how to submit UCs?
12:14:49 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/267 Issue 267 - How to deal with gap analysis? Need clear definition for "gap analysis"
12:15:26 <kaz> i/Last week/subtopic: Workflow/
12:15:51 <luca_barbato> miz: if there aren't further questions on opinions, I'd like to approve the workflow
12:15:53 <kaz> i/263/subtopic: Four Issues created based on the discussion during the previous call/
12:16:01 <mjk_> mjk_ has joined #wot-uc
12:16:58 <luca_barbato> s/workflow/minutes/
12:17:34 <kaz> i/if there are/subtopic: Minutes approval/
12:17:51 <McCool> q+
12:17:56 <kaz> q+
12:18:00 <kaz> qq+
12:18:35 <kaz> ack k
12:18:38 <kaz> ack k
12:18:38 <Zakim> kaz, you wanted to react to a previous speaker
12:19:18 <kaz> present+ Michael_Koster, Michael_McCool, Jan_Romann
12:19:24 <luca_barbato> <minutes approved>
12:19:53 <kaz> subtopic: Issue 257
12:20:10 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/257 Issue 257 - [Discuss] Focus on Functional Requirements
12:20:36 <luca_barbato> mm: We had canceled security and discovery so I have time to attend this meeting
12:20:55 <kaz> i/We had cancel/topic: Discovery and Security/
12:20:56 <kaz> q+
12:21:18 <luca_barbato> .. next week I'd like to restart Discovery and Security meetings
12:21:31 <luca_barbato> .. I'd rather speed up the UC discussion
12:22:13 <kaz> ack m
12:22:28 <luca_barbato> kaz: The plan is to discuss this week and the next the process and the week after the next tackle issues, so yes, there is a bit of delay
12:22:55 <kaz> topic: Issue 257 - revisited
12:23:06 <kaz> -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/issues/257 Issue 257 - [Discuss] Focus on Functional Requirements
12:24:31 <luca_barbato> miz: I summarize the issue of functional vs technical requirements and I'd like to split further the discussion in further issues
12:25:07 <kaz> q?
12:25:09 <kaz> ack k
12:25:10 <kaz> q+
12:25:27 <luca_barbato> .. - We should continue the discussion about "Functional vs Technical Requirements" using the GitHub Issue 257.
12:25:42 <luca_barbato> .. - For that purpose, we need to clarify (a) what we mean by "functional" and "technical" and (b) what we expect for "user stories".
12:25:56 <luca_barbato> .. - We should create a separate Issue for Toumura-san's comment about the structure/category of the use case description.
12:26:26 <luca_barbato> .. - It seems there are some more different points included here, and I'd like to suggest we handle those points separately using three more different Issues
12:27:32 <kaz> [[
12:27:34 <kaz> 1. What level (technical, functional, business, etc.) to be described for use cases?
12:27:42 <kaz> 2. What would be the possible items for use case description?
12:27:50 <kaz> 3. How to deal with the feedback from the TFs working on each specification, e.g., possible bottom-up use case proposal based on necessary features?
12:27:51 <kaz> ]]
12:27:56 <luca_barbato> q+
12:28:00 <kaz> ack k
12:28:55 <kaz> kaz: OK with adding those three issues
12:28:55 <luca_barbato> lb
12:29:04 <kaz> i/OK/scribenick: kaz/
12:29:06 <kaz> s/lb//
12:29:27 <luca_barbato> lb: I agree that the current issue 257 is not descriptive and we should edit it and link the 3 subissues from there
12:29:29 <kaz> i/lb:/scribenick: luca_barbato/
12:29:39 <luca_barbato> q-
12:30:08 <kaz> q+
12:30:25 <kaz> ack k
12:30:26 <luca_barbato> miz: I'd create the issues after this meeting if there is consensus
12:30:44 <luca_barbato> kaz: It is 4 new issues, including Tomura-san's proposal for categorization
12:31:02 <kaz> s/It is/There are/
12:31:29 <luca_barbato> miz: objections on this?
12:31:39 <luca_barbato> <no objections>
12:32:06 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
12:32:09 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:32:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/07-wot-uc-minutes.html kaz
12:32:18 <Ege> Ege has joined #wot-uc
12:32:18 <luca_barbato> topic: Basic structure of UC documents
12:32:25 <kaz> present+ Ege_Korkan
12:32:52 <kaz> topic: Need to clarify the basic structure of the Use Cases and Requirements document
12:33:30 <luca_barbato> miz: How to organize UC and Requirements?
12:34:36 <luca_barbato> .. Sometimes a UC may lead to multiple requirements, so I'd split the UC template from the Requirements template
12:34:40 <Ege> q+
12:34:42 <luca_barbato> q+
12:34:49 <kaz> q+
12:36:39 <luca_barbato> ege: I agree it should be separated, but we should make sure that the requirements that bring a specification change should be a separate document
12:37:04 <luca_barbato> , requirements that aren't as precise can be part of their UC document
12:37:34 <kaz> s/, re/... re/
12:39:26 <luca_barbato> mm: We do already have separate templates
12:39:56 <luca_barbato> ege: I guess we should see in practice, since I'm not sure we agree on the definition of requirements
12:40:03 <kaz> q?
12:40:08 <kaz> ack e
12:41:07 <Ege> +1 to the fact that we have a many to many mapping
12:42:09 <kaz> ack lu
12:42:11 <luca_barbato> lb: I agree with Ege we need to see in practice what we currently have, in general we have many to many map between UC and Requirements, so we should have interlinked documents for both
12:43:11 <luca_barbato> .. we should also make so that for each UC accepted we have cross-links with the Requirements document it covers and issues tracking both so for the next UC accepted we have to update the links to the pre-existing Requirements it covers
12:43:17 <kaz> -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/ WoT Use Cases and Requirements
12:43:43 <luca_barbato> kaz: As Michale McCool mention the current document has separate sections
12:44:11 <luca_barbato> .. but as Mizushima-san suggested we should split the documents, as also Ege and Luca suggest
12:44:52 <luca_barbato> kaz: We might have to thing of two levels of requirements: one for the UC, that are functional, and one for the specification, that are technical
12:44:56 <McCool> +1 to kaz's two-level requirements, related to func/tech
12:45:04 <Ege> q+
12:45:06 <luca_barbato> ... we need to clarify those two level first
12:45:07 <kaz> ack k
12:45:42 <luca_barbato> ege: A more detailed example is really needed to make clear this separation
12:45:54 <ktoumura> +q
12:45:59 <kaz> ack ege
12:46:11 <kaz> q+
12:47:15 <kaz> ack kt
12:48:10 <luca_barbato> ktom: I think depending on the functionality, we might start from the functionality and then link it to multiple UC (so bottom up vs top down)
12:49:33 <luca_barbato> kaz: I think part of it is already covered by Mizushima-san proposal
12:50:38 <luca_barbato> kaz: We should probably open an additional issue to clarify what to do in the case of bringing in a Requirements before UCs and provide more examples
12:50:47 <kaz> s/san proposal/san's proposal: How to deal with the feedback from the TFs working on each specification, e.g., possible bottom-up use case proposal based on necessary features?/
12:50:56 <Mizushima> q+
12:51:03 <kaz> ack k
12:52:05 <kaz> q+
12:52:10 <kaz> ack mizu
12:52:54 <luca_barbato> miz: I think stakeholders might bring UC (bottom-up) while we might bring first Requirements (top-down)
12:53:24 <Ege> q+
12:53:30 <kaz> ack k
12:53:49 <kaz> q+
12:54:21 <luca_barbato> ege: our current UC tend to be too high level to bring a specification input as they are
12:55:21 <McCool> time check - 5m left in meeting
12:56:12 <luca_barbato> ege: We should avoid to end up as in the previous charter situation in which the submitted UC require lots of effort to extract requirements
12:56:13 <kaz> q+ McCool
12:56:15 <kaz> ack e
12:56:16 <kaz> ack k
12:56:27 <luca_barbato> .. we cannot do consulting service for free
12:56:36 <luca_barbato> q+
12:56:39 <kaz> q+
12:57:10 <luca_barbato> .. I do not want to drive the specification with overly generic UC
12:58:15 <kaz> ack mc
12:58:28 <kaz> s/to end/ending/
12:59:44 <luca_barbato> lb: We can reject UC that are overly generic and w/out Requirements so we can survive
13:00:20 <McCool> ntd - see you in main call
13:00:23 <luca_barbato> kaz: I agree Luca and Ege that we should reject UC and next week we should clarify the criteria for that
13:01:18 <kaz> s/reject UC and/reject UC if the description is too generic and not enough./
13:01:28 <kaz> s/next week/next week or in two weeks/
13:01:42 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:01:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/07-wot-uc-minutes.html kaz
13:05:15 <mjk_> mjk_ has left #wot-uc
14:58:53 <mahda-noura> mahda-noura has joined #wot-uc
15:15:25 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wot-uc
15:18:32 <Mizushima> Mizushima has left #wot-uc