Minutes of previous meeting: OKW WG - Aug 12 / Rolling Agenda
Next worksession: January 2023; scheduling in process, via community poll on Slack.
Minutes - 9th of December
Agenda:
-
Welcome
-
Review of action points from May 26th
-
AOB:
- Overview of Open Supply Hub
- Discussion: OKW as initiative; OKW as standard and the pathway forward
Attendees:
Anna Sera Lowe (WG Chair) - @AnnaSera
James Butler - @Jbutler-helpful
Antonio Anaya - @kny5
Andrew Lamb - @AndrewLamb
Max Wardeh - @max_w
Sarah Hutton (Secretariat Liaison) - @schutton
Recap of Action Items
-
Anna / Sarah / Andrew / Max Meet to walk through OKW Operational Workflow (Butler; Schack; Lowe; Wardeh; Anaya; Hutton)
-
Sarah - Create a lightweight OKW application evaluation metric for shareback/review Dec 13
-
Sarah Schedule an OKW Data Awards Planning meeting (if it cannot be bundled with Dec 9 meeting), including discussion points: how to encourage applications, develop a case study/showcase, establish a review panel and compensate peer reviewers.
-
Sarah - Poll OKW channels to schedule January OKW WG meeting, include discussion points: oeprational workflow logic/decision, share documentation for review; status report/update on awardees R1 and call for R2.
Meeting Notes:
- New Business / Items to Discuss
-
Max providing overview of Open Supply Hub as example of data aggregator with a model similar to the IOPA’s
-
Hoping to provide clarity for the consequences that result from decisions to take varying directions, especially implications to the non-technical aspects, using Open Supply Hub as an exemplar and what they have developed as a model/exemplar.
-
Open Supply Hub https://opensupplyhub.org started about 2 and 1/2 years ago as open apparel registry; they started by mapping government facilities, then moved into a bigger initiative to map manufacturing facilities.
-
One of the critical components is the focus on sectors https://info.opensupplyhub.org/sectors; there is emphasis on who does this resource serve? Open Supply Hub - Sectors
-
They very clearly identify who they are and put forward some constraints about where they are and how to make direction - what are the personas, who is the community? Open Supply Hub - Governance and Policies
-
The way Open Supply Hub decided to solve the problem was to become an aggregator - they have many use cases identified, and sites mapped
-
and etc Open Supply Hub - Resources
-
Compared to OKW, Open Supply Hub is much simpler.
[end of demo]
-
-
What is the pathway forward for OKW?
-
There are implications for governance and policy - looking at how the platform itself is governed; we need to be more clear if we are going to be carrying on this work - for example, how do we define “facility” - what are the parameters?
-
The governance group should be the one to set out the framework for the communities of interest/WG define parameters, recognizing that governance decisions will have organizational impact - on workflow and DevOps; that is why these governance and WG meetings should be a shared conversation - decisions can’t me made in a vacuum - governance decisions must be well-informed by expert technical oversight.
-
This shared conversation in governance in collaboration with DevOps will inform what the “north star” is for the future of OKW, and on a practical level, what specifically will Antonio and Max be working on?
-
What operational challenges need to be addressed to be able to make this truly a world-class platform/operation?
-
Development of taxonomy for machinery is necessary - and, what is meant by ‘taxonomy of machines’? It could be on a model-by-model basis - Helpful’s work could lend well to this. Relating ‘locatability’ to ‘makeability’.
-
Levels of hierarchy need to be developed to make it robust enough to connect between the ‘bricks’ / standards - this is a big can of worms, a bigger research project - we admitted we don’t have the resources to address this. We agreed that the best hope at the moment was to use the Wikipedia references.
-
What’s missing (IoPA) - the acknowledgement that this thread exists, but we’re not necessarily working on - who else is working on it?
-
The idea of us hosting data just became a necessity - that wasn’t necessarily the original intent.
-
The original idea was that we would connect together the enormous amount of preexisting data/sites/platforms to get them all talking to each other through APIs.
-
That is, how can individuals/orgs communicate - “yes, I can make this thing, in this town - I have these resources/expertise available” - including alternatives in the BOM, to save on shipping costs, and use locally source/lower cost materials - more economically and environmentally sound approach.
-
The ambition - large scale, why not map every single machine on earth? (Andrew)
-
Equivalent of an IP address for each machines. What is answer, if not UUID?
-
Andrew is focusing on fundraising for OKW - looking at potential partnerships with ESRI ArcGIS Citizen Science Resources
-
-
Distinction(s) to point out:
-
existence of tool/what type of tool
-
capacity that the tool creates/delivers
-
-
A further distinction/clarification needs to be made:
- IoPA as a data aggregator is an effort that is separate from development of the standard, and we need to decouple it from the conversation about how the standard needs to be modified.
-
OKW is intended as a data collection/exchange standard - there are challenges in making it work for this purpose (refer to Antonio’s report data_insights.md · GitHub) - part of it is how things are labeled, part of it is strategic; what are the parameters for what information is being collected? In the instance of what was collected by Field Ready, for example; there were hair dressers and coffee shops included - there needs to be a clarity surrounding what is collected.
-
Validating whether a facility exists or not is vastly easier than verifying whether a machine exists in that space.
-
We could have thousands of data points to meet our KPIs - but is that in alignment with our goals? What type of data is being collected, and does it matter - is it useful to the communities we are seeking to support?
-
Concerning data migration and cleanup -
-
What is the process and approach for defining parameters, and differences between datasets - how are identities defined?
-
Should we include big factories? Are we losing details? Is it too much data?
-
This is another part of if/how we’re going to host data - how can we compress and prepare it for use in machine learning?
-
We need to (pre)define the taxonomy.
-
Currently scraping from two databases (U.S. and Mexico - will add EU). If we are to continue the same approach - will have 6 milliion points in the next few weeks (Antonio).
-
Depending on who’s involved and how they’re involved:
-
In order to move forward productively w/ data aggregator - use cases, how are people going to use them, what could/should (or shouldn’t be included in that dataset). When something regarding the platform comes up - having a conversation with API access. Identifying the people in the community who want to use the data and why - how can we identify the people in the community who could use this information
-
People who want to use the standard and engage in the data exchange.
-
Helpful’s goal - both machine readible and human readible.
-
HUGE question - what is a required field, and what is not?
-
-
-
Weighing in on prioritization question (Anna) - we should go for the different models approach; time investment otherwise isn’t reasonable.
- Action Items / Next Steps
-
@max_w, @kny5, and @schutton meet on Dec 16th to establish call for community engagement, which will speak to each of the following threads:
-
Steps/channels/opportunities for engaging in OKW
-
Helpful data exchange @Jbutler-helpful interested in moving this forward
-
Taxonomy for machines and tools; @Jbutler-helpful is interested in joining the discussion;
-
-
@schutton prepares OKW Data Award strategy for review by Anna et. al.
-
@schutton will circulate poll to schedule OKW WG meeting for Jan
Minutes of previous meeting: OKW Rolling Agenda