<scribe> scribenick: Claes

Architecture document

http://w3c.github.io/wot/architecture/wot-architecture.html

Johannes presents the doc

Valuable for having the same vocabulary. Johannes thanks the authors

<jhund> contribuing: https://github.com/w3c/wot/edit/master/architecture/wot-architecture.html

Johannes encourages everyone to review and comment or directly contribute.

Kaz: Good starting point.
... suggest to update with input from best pratices doc and plugfest
... missing how to include non-servient components
... show deployments where only parts of ther components are used.

<scribe> ACTION: Kaz to add a Github issue based on this discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/09-wot-ap-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-34 - Add a github issue based on this discussion [on Kazuyuki Ashimura - due 2016-03-16].

DSR: Fine to have an architecture doc but currently does not represent implementations done.
... We need more discussion about the architecture
... What are the reponsibilities of each layer?

Johannes: Doc is based on discussion at latest F2F meetings.

DSR: Proposes e-mail discussion.
... for example misses in the doc description of role of proxies.

Johannes: Asks Dave to provide comments directly in the doc.

DSR: A more general issue. What do we want this doc to show?

Johannes: Proposes general points in section 3
... Different deployment scenarios in section 4.
... Section 5 describe the abstractions we made.

DSR: Show somewhere how it fits/integrates with existing platforms and deployments

Matthias: Suggests section 4 for Dave's proposal.
... Try to populate the terminolgy from the Best Practices doc. What is a Servients???
... need to use the same terminology!

Kaz: Completely agree with Matthias about those points
... on the other hand, have another question about the document structure. Section 5 should be before section 4
... wants the Servient description early in the doc. We can talk about this kind of document structure issue later when we publish this as a group Note, etc., though.

<michael> +1 matthias - first say what a servient does, then what a servient is

Johannes: Good starting point, initial doc
... other TFs should check if they see themselves represented by this architecture doc

<scribe> ACTION: Johannes to reach out to Sebastian [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/09-wot-ap-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-35 - Reach out to sebastian [on Johannes Hund - due 2016-03-16].

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: and talk about it at the next IG call

Sebastian: Will include this in the agenda for next TF-TD call

Draft charter doc

<kaz> https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/wot-wg-2016.html

Dave presents the doc

DSR: ... using new template where yellow marked text are comments and placeholders
... ideally section 1 scope could refer to the architecture doc but we are not aligned yet

<jhund> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/WG/wot-wg-items.md

Johannes: Sections 1, 1.2 and 1.3 cover the work done in TF-AP
... checking that everything decided at our latest F2F as reflected in the Github doc is covered by the charter proposal

DSR: Strive to get a short charter
... some bullet points from the Github doc is too cryptic
... people who are reviewing charters fell more comfortable if stuff has been implemented
... i.e. we should have "proof of concept" implementations of what we want to standardize
... in the charter reference for example working notes on what we have implemented
... major work to be done on 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3.
... need to provide more detail in the charter on access control and privacy

Johannes: Ok if we don't have "everything" in the charter but what we have should be convincing

kaz: regarding the information on "proof-of-concept" implementations, it should be easy to find information about "proof of concept" implementations but we don't have to have it in the charter itself. Instead it should be easily visible on the wiki.

Daniel: For available implementations, who proves the interoperability? Difficult to have a list of implementations.

DSR: We could cite reports from the plugfests stating the results.
... state in the charter where to find this information.

<inserted> WoT WG draft Charter on GitHub

Next plugfest

<kaz> April f2f wiki

Matthias: We want to collect what people have implemented so we can define the scenarios.
... in table at the meeting wiki page
... also add contributions to earlier plugfests
... referring to section 4 of the Best Practices doc, look at the questions and give feedback and use this as the starting point for the implementation.

DSR: Encourages people to document their implementations
... provide links to this information

<kaz> kaz: fine with putting information on the wiki first, and it would be great to have integrated list of "available components" on the best practice later

Matthias: No links to specific implementations in the Best Practices
... better to collect links at the wiki

Johannes: Wrap Up: People to fill in the table at meeting wiki on what they are bringing to the plugfest, features, sensors, etc

<inserted> plugfest section of the f2f wiki

<dsr> [Dave plans to add his work for the plugfest when he gets back from the W3C AC meeting]