[TEST] Smart home: Leaving and Coming Home about wot-usecases HOT 4 OPEN

As a feedback from a reviewer perspective where I want to understand gap:

• I think that the gap is there and is not specific to one use case. Thus, it is a good idea to invest time in a feature to address this use case. There have been similar discussions in the WoT CG.
• The gap is hidden behind too much information and the information above does not motivate the gap enough. From a specification editor point of view, I want to understand the gap as quickly and as precisely as possible.
• The real gap is controlling multiple devices at the same time. This means we need TDs (or something similar) that groups multiple Thing affordances. This can be currently done with having a "virtual" TD where there are multiple affordances of other Things and with a writeallproperties operation, this orchestration can be done. This is not a very good solution though.
• It is not clear how complex the orchestration is. The description contains configuration, time aspect, branching of logic and possibly more (loops maybe?). If there is complex application logic, I am not sure how we can solve this in the spec level other than creating a new domain-specific language. I have some experience in this direction that I can share. In any case, the Scripting API is also a relevant deliverable.
• Given there is mention of ECHONET and it is not clear how to use WoT with ECHONET, that is also a gap. Plugfest experience demonstrated some experience but our specs do not document this. We need either a binding, profile or guidelines on this in a WG document.

from wot-usecases.

Thanks for your comments, @egekorkan !

As mentioned within the "Existing similar WoT use case already defined?" section (and partly within the title having "[TEST]", this use case entry is copied from the existing use case from the UCR Note.

However, I think your points are very important for our discussion on the new Use Case Template itself (and how to put the information into it), and would suggest we continue the discussion by creating separate Issues for the Use Case Template :)

from wot-usecases.

@egekorkan, your comments are important.

@ashimura, your comments are great. I agree.

@egekorkan, could you please create new issues for Use Case Template issues.

from wot-usecases.

Thanks for the comments @ashimura and @chachamimm . I am aware that this is already submitted. What I wanted to do with my initial comment was to do a test run of how a review can happen.

I am not sure if there is a problem with the template or simply with the content provided but I would personally not approve this use case submission since I do not have enough information to proceed with standardisation activities. Maybe we need more subsections in the gap section? I will open an issue about that.

from wot-usecases.