<joerg> do we have a volunteer for scribing?

<scribe> scribenick: kaz

<scribe> scribe: Kaz

joerg: let's start the call for the whole IG and the TF-AP
... support for the WG items
... also logistics for the upcoming f2f meeting
... those are for the IG whole
... and contribution from Louay on WoT API in WebIDL (TF-AP topic)
... useful for the plugfest during the f2f in Jan.

Next steps WG topics

-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Proposals_for_WoT_WG_work_items WG item wiki

joerg: discussion during the f2f meeting in Sapporo
... got request for extension
... so extended the deadline till last week
... covering different items
... the first is: Linked Data Vocabulary For Describing Data Models
... significant number of support
... also there are comments
... Siemens and Panasonic
... kind of focus on domain-specific topics
... also comment from Dave

dsr: agree with the restriction to horizontal metadata. The choice of schema language will impact serialization, especially for resource constrained devices. Serialization formats could be dealt with as a separate work item (see content types).

sebastian: agree should define minimum vocabulary
... also domain-specific vocabulary
... minimum set which would fit any industry
... also a vocabulary for small devices with limited capability

dsr: what about serialization?

sebastian: should stuck with existing serialization formats
... seems we're close with each other

dsr: one spec for vocabulary and another for serialization
... should be handle with separate two specs
... would propose we should have a narrow scope
... we could extend the scope later

joerg: maybe we can take this as an initial proposal
... we've got significant number of supporters
... next steps should be discussed at the upcoming f2f meeting in Jan.
... we can make conclusion on the description there
... supporters could clarify what their expectations are
... we can share opinions on each topic

dsr: would see objective sentence block for each topic
... should not be a lot of effort

danh: people consider constrained devices
... similar to SSN ontology?
... the comment from Siemens/Panasonic seems correct to me
... simple open ontology which could fit devices with different capability
... when you design ontologies, people might think about serialization format

joerg: state to be connected
... more discussion to authorize should happen during the f2f meeting
... how to move on this topic within the 6 weeks from now?

<dsr> Some existing text: This will specify a data modelling vocabulary for describing things in terms of events, properties and actions, and links to domain models and protocol specific API descriptions. This work item will include provision for late bound data types, re-use of data type definitions, and labelled opaque data types for data to be handed on to entities that understand it. This vocabulary will be designed to supplement the RDF core datatypes, including enume[CUT]

<dsr> and numeric ranges.

joerg: supporters listed here should provide clarifications
... by providing bullet points

darko: this sort of discussion could be done on the mailing list
... or during a telco
... and we should have discussion during the f2f meeting as well

dsr: idea to discuss on the ml is good
... discussion on each item
... issue tracker on GitHub would be good as well

joerg: ok

<dsr> see early draft on github https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/WG/charter.md

joerg: using GitHub would be convenient

dsr: if the proposers of each topic could manage the issues
... would be great
... would be happy to update the document

joerg: would start with bullet points

dsr: we could manage the issues using the GitHub issue tracking mechanism

joerg: each item can be discussed individually
... we have 9 items

kaz: so each proposer would create an issue based on their proposal
... and supporters add their clarifications

joerg: yes
... we have some more comments
... sebastian?

sebastian: make sense to have description what has access to the server
... and interaction model
... all the scopes are related to each other

dsr: combine items or modular items?
... two buckets
... common things or modularizing horizontal metadata

joerg: next one would be content type for serialization
... metadata is JSON-LD
... significant number of serialization formats
... in the objective section here

<scribe> ... new one or existing one?

dsr: if we use JSON-LD, how to encode to JSON-LD?
... if we define content types, what kind of mechanism to support various devices?
... default context and minimum capability
... need to know content type

victor: what you have to discuss is communication between devices need to know actual data exchange

dsr: you're getting the default context
... maybe would be better to continue on the ML

victor: we're talking about serialization

dsr: need longer discussion...

mike: looking at here is for constrained devices
... might have fixed codes
... for interaction

joerg: yeah, we have to revisit scope discussion
... some comments not clear enough
... again, the group should prepare your understandings for the GitHub document
... next: Web of Things scripting API
... supportive comment
... don't see points to discuss here
... please get prepared for your contribution
... next: Bindings to Common Protocols

jhund: my point is on the wiki

Siemens + Panasonic: W3C excels in defining models, payloads and APIs. The actual protocols are mainly driven by the respective consortia and standardization bodies. Therefore, a possible deliverable should be rather a model and a guideline on how to create a protocol binding rather than the binding itself, which might better be provided in the scope of the actual protocol definition. The inputs for this should be drawn from both the APIs and the thing description.

jhund: need abstracted layer
... we WoT group should show how existing protocols should be integrated
... the people defining the protocols should think about the best practices

dsr: this is what W3C and IETF work for WebSocket
... similar model would work for WoT
... other groups work for XMPP or MQPP
... W3C need to work with those external groups

jhund: you mentioned the successful story of WebSocket
... it is more on the protocol implementers
... taking up the WoT stack as the starting point would work

dsr: the key thing is communication metadata should be interoperable
... you want a minimum set of abstract messaging?

jhund: yeah, we should keep the level abstract here

dsr: wondering which to do: W3C spec, IETF spec or W3C/IETF joint spec

<dsr> Let’s not fix this now, and rather leave it to discussions with the respective SDOs

joerg: let's move on: Uniform and Technology Independent Discovery
... just a few supports
... discussion within the discovery group?
... and outcome here
... support to consider?
... louay, soumya?
... related to protocol mapping?
... if so, should be combined

louay: related to API for me
... uniform API to access all the technologies
... not sure if you've already looked at my proposal on WebIDL
... unified interface or technology for discovery

joerg: maybe we should take this into smaller group discussion
... next: WoT Security and Security-Enabling APIs

<jhund> we had to switch agenda points to progress on the WG topic before F2F, the topic of Louay's contribution is next up on the agenda

<Zakim> dsr, you wanted to ask whether it makes sense to merge this with the scripting APIs work item

dsr: given the strong supports for APIs
... should be merged?

joerg: similar to how the security group works
... need to think about what would be the best structure
... for Authorization for Things Discovery
... and Things Metadata for Security and Security-Enabling
... discussion to be done at the f2f
... let's discuss the next steps for the 9 items on the GitHub
... using bullet points of description
... and discussion during the f2f meeting
... would volunteers from the active supporters

Next F2Fs logistics (France in January and MIT in April)

joerg: f2f in Nice

-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting_2016,_January,_26th_%E2%80%93_28th,_France,_Nice f2f wiki

joerg: the host can't cover all the cost
... would like to ask you follow the link here to get registered
... there are two registration forms
... meeting registration and payment
... would appreciate Eurecom's help
... any comments?

dsr: Soumya is looking after people's interest in the OpenDay on Jan. 25

victor: John Davis's participation?

dsr: suggested to Soumya

victor: preparation for the plugfest?
... talked with Soumya and the logistics team, but seems we can't have a room on 24th
... would be helpful if we could use a room for preparation on 24th

dsr: one option is hosting a room within INRIA
... another possibility is a room at a hotel nearby
... can ask
... my concern is people's travel
... will come on Sunday?
... INRIA would be closed on Sunday
... so the choice might be a hotel room

joerg: please check the possibility
... maybe 8-9 people
... please do your registration by Christmas
... and would see the possibility of the preparation meeting
... further comments?

(none)

joerg: the next meeting after this will be the one at MIT in Boston
... hotel booking should be made asap
... for the April meeting
... would be quite expensive if in March, April

dsr: need to pin out the date
... precisely

joerg: would say 12-14
... without openday

dsr: ideally would have an openday
... unfortunate if we couldn't have an openday

joerg: openday or plugfest?

dsr: or combine them perhaps?
... how about having a 4-day meeting?

joerg: would stuck with 3-day
... unless we get further comments
... is it ok by people to make reservation now?

kaz: it's difficult for JP participants to make reservations for April meeting now, because JP fiscal year changes
... will ask them for their opinions and let you know about the responses next week

<Zakim> dsr, you wanted to ask for confirmation in respect to location for July face to face

yingying: is the date confirmed?
... for July meeting

joerg: 12-14 is the proposal

dsr: is CETC in Beijing?

yingying: yes

joerg: great

-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_Page#Face_to_Face_Meetings WoT wiki (f2f plan)

joerg: that's it for the whole IG

Louay's contribution, a sketch for a WoT API in WebIDL

jhund: not much time
... but would acknowledge Louay's contribution
... would have a longer slot during the next call
... useful to our plugfest

louay: don't think need to share my screen now

<jhund> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/TF-AP/thing-api/thing-api-webidl.md

louay: already shared the link above
... discussion in Sapporo
... how to have unified API for discovery
... even registration remotely
... this is an initial idea and need your feedback/contribution
... maybe missing security/privacy aspects
... put concrete scripts for each interface description

jhund: thank you very much!
... would everybody to look at it
... and have email discussion
... maybe easier to have GitHub issues
... ok if people add proposals?

louay: of course
... we need contributions from different aspects
... link between APIs and TD, etc.
... actions, events, etc.

jhund: would raise this topic before the upcoming f2f

joerg: ok
... please make sure to get registered for the f2f
... and remind yourself to add clarifications for the WG proposal

[ adjourned ]