See also: IRC log
<seungyun> Hi all
<seungyun> I am Seungyun Lee from ETRI, Korea
<seungyun> I am only available on IRC sorry.
<jo> scribe: jo
<DKA> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20080717
adam: tried to fold in comments from F2F, tried to condense it a bit, a ways to go before a complete document but the goal of the doc is clear enough to go to FPWD. This week's doc is just a few typo fixes no major changes from last week
dka: what is incomplete at this point or need additional stuff where we need to draw attention
adam: additional bps from scott
on presentation issues and added a note to say we expect to see
more
... the section on User Identity is more than it set out to be,
can address this in future revisions
... most bits that need attention have editorial notes
dka: jo?
jo: think it is good to go
<jeffs> "should be retained"? user decisions?
jo: think we should kick this off now, not a complete doc but is just fine for a fpwd
<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the working group resolves to release a first public working draft of BP2 based on the current draft from 17 July.
francois: no need to worry about exclusion as it is non normative
<jeffs> +1
<francois> +1
+1
<DKA> +1
<jeffs> getting pub feedback fine
<Kai> +1
<DKA> okeydokey
RESOLUTION: the working group resolves to release a first public working draft of BP2 based on the current draft from 17 July.
<jeffs> +1
jo: well done bryan and adam!
francois: I am trying to coordinate the release of BP1 with XHTML Basic 1.1 etc. and I would like this to go with it which means that it would wait a week
dka: I don't see that as a problem ... francois can you explain @@@
<DKA> Can we talk about the press release and the rechartering?
<DKA> (as agendum 1)
francois: there is no news on the
rechartering - the AC review runs to end July so nothing can
happen on that front, at least there is no bad news.
... so far
... the press release, taking more time than we hoped it's
difficult to release more than one doc at the same time,
originally we were going to do a press release next week, -
either it will slip by a week, that is most likely, or it will
slip by 6 weeks to september - hoping that we will be done by
the 29th July, but can't be sure
<DKA> I sent in Vodafone's testimonial today, FYI.
francois: mcf is going to send a
reminder shortly on testimonials - already did this, now a
reminder with a more precise press release draft
... although we decided to move mobileOK to PR it may not make
it at the same time
<DKA> I will have to revise my rider then.
<DKA> I think it's much better to do it as one big bang release.
jo: I'd prefer if the checker announcement went at the same time as mobileOK Basic, rather than before
francois: I agree, basically, but
don't think it makes much difference
... the press release wont refer to the java library it will
refer to the online presence
... we'll do another press release in Sept when mobileOK goes
to PR
<DKA> go jo
jo: I think we need to discuss what status the online presence of the checker has
francois: yes, you man we should not talk about this in the press release
jo: yes, the group was not chartered to produce this and it is not a deliverable
francois: difficult to talk about the java library in the press release, I will talk to MCF about it
<jeffs> sorry, gotta go... must put out "fire"
<DKA> Scribe: DKA
<scribe> ScribeNick: DKA
Francois: I hope we can publish a last call in a few weeks' time.
<scribe> Scribe: DKA
<scribe> ScribeNick: DKA
Jo: I think we should publish a second public working draft next week.
Francois: Publish it as it is and get some feedback?
Jo: I think we need a new public revision whether or not it's a last call.
Francois: I'd prefer if we can do a last call. Let's see how many comments there are.
I agree - we should try to publish it as a last call.
<jo> [I think the document needs to be complete for last call, and it won't be by next week]
I have a commercially driven need to release the doc as a lc.
Francois: What's left?
Jo: It will need another task
force call to agree any changes.
... HTTPS stuff is a major issue.
<seungyun> Can I see some reference implementation of CT at the moment?
Jo: We don't have a reference implementation at the moment. The point of LC is to encourage people to go to implementation phase.
<seungyun> OK I see, thanks
Jo: We're as anxious as we can be to move the story forward to move to CR as soon as possible.
+1
<jo> [the point of CR is to get implementation experience so we are really keen to push forward to get to that point and we have to go to last call first]
<seungyun> The reason why I ask is that we may need CT implementation for our mobileOK trial service in Korea.
<jo> scribe: Jo
jo: I believe, in response to Seungyun's point, that the document is very nearly stable so it is about time to start implementations
<seungyun> If there is no, we will try to implement it by ourself followed by W3C's CT spec I think.
<seungyun> I agree.
francois: I agree, but we won't be producing any reference implementations
<seungyun> ok
francois: people have until Tuesday to make comments on the current draft - assuming everything is fine we can recommend to go to last call on Thursday next week. If on the other hand we were not ready we could do a 2nd PWD
dka: I'd like to see us getting
the work done before everyone goes on holiday
... so we need to be in LC asap
<seungyun> +1
<seungyun> I have a short report for KoreanTF.
dka: anything to report from Korea?
<DKA> Anything to report from Korean Task Force, Seungyun?
<DKA> Thanks go ahead on IRC if you wish.
<seungyun> nothing special, but I have short report
<seungyun> thanks
<DKA> Ok - do you want to paste it in or link to a document or do you want to join us on audio?
<seungyun> 1. We have updated some TF members for NHN, TTA.
<seungyun> As a result, all of TF members are BPWG members at the moment.
<DKA> That's good news.
<DKA> So this addresses the issue that some Korean Task Force members were not W3C members?
[noted that Soon-il Cha, Dongjin Choi and Jae-kyung Shin have joined the group - Welcome!]
<seungyun> I believe it is starting point to encourage them to join the W3C as a potential member: TTA, NHN
<francois> Scribe: francois
<DKA> Great.
<seungyun> 2. We are now preparing the Gap Analysis documents.
<DKA> Anything further from Korean TF at this point?
<DKA> ok sorry!
<seungyun> in order to make more relevant document, we will discuss about again our document framework.
<scribe> scribe: Jo
<seungyun> there was one open issue for our document work, which is about how to reflect our Gap analysis document to W3C BPWG standards in future?
<DKA> I think we (the main group) needs to review your document and apply it to future work (e.g. BP2).
<DKA> Make sense?
<seungyun> I agree in personally :)
<DKA> Ok - what is the expected time-frame for finishing that document?
<seungyun> maybe this october or november
when do you expect a first draft?
<DKA> Would be better earlier - as the earlier it comes to us the more influential it will be over BP2.
it would be useful to have an understanding of the direction asap
<DKA> And we are expected to be quite well along on BP2 by November.
<seungyun> BTW, In the next meeting, I am able to speak more clear plan for our document.
so it can influence both BP2 and BP 1.5
<seungyun> I agree
<seungyun> I really hope so.
<DKA> Ok thanks - can you communicate to the other TF members that getting a draft of that gap analysis to the main group earlier would be desireable?
<seungyun> So we will do our best.
OK, so can we ask if you would report on timescales on the list, or on the next WG call?
<DKA> Ok thanks!
<seungyun> sure
<seungyun> 3. Mobile Web 2.0 Forum is now preparing the Preparing Trial Service
<seungyun> It is expected that we will start it from next month and many players including network operators, portals, vendors will join it.
<seungyun> we will explore BP, DD standards and MobileOK schemes.
<DKA> Sorry Seungyun --
<seungyun> after our trail service, we also publish the report document to BPWG.
<seungyun> this is all of report for Korean TF today.
<DKA> Ok thanks, Seungyun - much appreciated you joining us so late in your day to deliver that report.
<seungyun> any question about our trial service?
<seungyun> thanks
[seungyun, suggest we take comments on the mailing list as we are a bit short of time now, thanks for the report]
kai: hoping to go to last call on
most things in a week or tow [?]
... mobileOK ...
<Kai> There some minor changes to the mobileOK vocab and example that Phil had sent to the group. As such we should use the latest version of this example.
[ref the mobileOK vocab, the sooner the better but we have a log jam on mobileOK scheme, so timeliness is not holidng us up]
<Kai> http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/Group/powder-dr/20080711.html#evidence
kai: the referenced doc needs to change to note that there is no Pro any more
<DKA> "There is One MobileOK"
<Zakim> jo, you wanted to observe that we don't have a mobileOK ovcab doc any more
[discussion about whether the claim is for mobileOK or for mobileOK Basic Tests]
[there was a resolution at Sophia that apparently has been ambiguously interpreted]
Issue: Need clarity on the meaning of a mobileOK Claim, Basic Tests or not?
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-269 - Need clarity on the meaning of a mobileOK Claim, Basic Tests or not? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/269/edit .
<Kai> Here is the current text of the example (excerpt thereof)
<Kai> <descriptorset>
<Kai> 13 <typeof src="http://www.w3.org/2008/06/mobileOK#Basic" />
<Kai> 14 <displaytext>The example.com webiste conforms to mobileOK Basic</displaytext>
<Kai> 15 <displayicon src="http://www.w3.org/ICONS/mobileOK-basic.png" />
<Kai> 16 </descriptorset>
dka: I thought we had clarified that we were going to minimise the use of the word Basic in all the material but I am not emotional about that kind of thing
kai: the salient sections are
pasted above - the type of claim, the description, and so
on
... and also the icon
dka: do we need to make this an issue and discuss further?
jo: think we should discuss on list and deal with it next week
kai: no progress
... back to mobileOK basic, I think the group would be more in
favour of Basic, but that is just a subjective view
dka: have we already decided this, is this 2008? Am I dan?
<francois> Poll results
<DKA> :)
francois: no we haven't made a
decision
... no strong views expressed
... Aug 14 and 21 fewer people around, suggest we drop those
calls as we are chairless for those days anyway
[yes]
scribe: rechartering review
period is done on 28 we need a call on the 31st
... in case there is anything to discuss
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: No calls on 7 and 14 Aug, review on 31 July need for a call on Aug 7
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: No calls on 14 and 21 Aug, review on 31 July need for a call on Aug 7
dka: makes fun of jo
jo: preserves a dignified silence
<DKA> :)
<DKA> +1
RESOLUTION: No calls on 14 and 21 Aug, review on 31 July need for a call on Aug 7
<DKA> way
<Kai> regrets for Aug 7th :-)
<Kai> I am on vaction .. yeahh!!
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BPWG welcomes the liaison request from ETSI and wishes to proceed with it. BP notes that it works in public and asks Chairs/Team to progress this discussion
<francois> ETSI liaison document
dka: ETSI wishes to exchange
documents and wishes to reference work of the BPWG
... don't see any reason not to accept this, benefit may be
wider reference to our work
<DKA> +1
<seungyun> +1
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BPWG welcomes the liaison request from ETSI and wishes to proceed with it. BPWG notes that it works in public and that documents from ETSI would need to be in the public domain. BPWG asks Chairs/Team to progress this discussion
<Kai> +1 to welcoming ETSI
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BPWG welcomes the liaison request from ETSI and wishes to proceed with it. BPWG notes that it works in public and that documents from ETSI would not be private when discussed by BPWG. BPWG asks Chairs/Team to progress this discussion
<DKA> +1
dka: public domain may be
misconstrued
... ok let's take it, any dissention?
+1
<Kai> +1
<seungyun> +1
RESOLUTION: BPWG welcomes the liaison request from ETSI and wishes to proceed with it. BPWG notes that it works in public and that documents from ETSI would not be private when discussed by BPWG. BPWG asks Chairs/Team to progress this discussion
<DKA> Rockin.
<scribe> ACTION: DKA to get back to ETSI in accordance with above resolution [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/17-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-814 - Get back to ETSI in accordance with above resolution [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2008-07-24].
dka: let's call it a day and do ISSUEs and ACTIONs next week
<DKA> AOB?
<DKA> Hearing none...
there being none the call closed at 1615+1
<seungyun> goodbye all, I am going to bed :)
