See also: IRC log
kaz: until when?
dsr: till the Beijing meeting
kaz: the end of the
meeting?
... or maybe we should simply aim the end of July
<mkovatsc> Sebastian asked if it is possible to extend without expiration date, but to use "when re-charter becomes active"
sebasitan: possible to extend till the new IG Charter is ready?
dsr: our Charter is already expired
kaz: so we need to provide the
W3M a concrete date for our extension
... the IG charter we're working
on is for the working period of, e.g., 1-2 years, to finalize
the deliverable documents
... and after we launch the
expected WG, we can recharter the IG with updated scope
again
matthias: ok
... are there any topics to discuss quickly?
kaz: Dave is back with the W3M approval for the extension till the end of July
dsr: They've approved our
extension till the end of July
... next step is review by one of the W3Mers
kaz: who is the reviewer?
dsr: need to find a
candidate
... may be Philipp
kaz: and might be Judy as well from the accessibility viewpoint
-> http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-ig-2016.html draft IG Charter
dsr: compilation of various pull
requests
... main changes are the sentence on the introduction
section
-> https://www.w3.org/2016/05/wot-ig-2016-alpha3.html alpha 3 version
kaz: difference between this alpha3 version and the github version?
dsr: need to check the diff
... added "Industry alliances and standards development
organizations are looking to W3C to take the leadership in two
critical areas: semantic interoperability and end to end
security across different platforms." to the introduction
... scope section describes the relationship and the IG and the
expected WG
[[
The Interest Group will identify requirements for standardization by exploring use cases and requirements for a broad range of application domains, and through examining the requirements for integrating a broad range of IoT platforms into the Web of Things.
]]
dsr: bullet points describe the aim of the plugfest:
[[
* tests for conformity for recommendation track technology
* test-drive upcoming or proposed tech for the recommendation track
* outreach to other communities and new members (open day, demo track)
]]
scribe: should have discussion
now
... questions?
matthias: would agree with the
current scope section
... bullet points and summary too
... outreach through requirements for other SDOs
ari: sent an email right before
this call
... regarding semantic work
... we need to reuse existing mechanism generated by others
dsr: people would like to see
what this group do
... and why they need to join this group
matthias: I'm fine
... and agree it's kind of too much
... it's not that W3C would rule overall things
dsr: ok
ari: that would be much better
<dsr> I will change the wording to “ looking to collaborate with W3C in two”
ari: and another point of mine is
including semantic web groups
... would have discussion offline
dsr: ok
... what about the "Scope Summary"?
matthias: this is editorial
toru: my colleague raised an
issue
... would like to know...
... there are two things about testing
... plugfest and interoperability
... what is the difference?
-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/163 issue-163
dsr: the role of plugfest includes interoperability test
toru: deference between the roles by the WG and the IG?
matthias: different aspect of the
plugfest
... conformity of implementation
... demo-like approach
toru: interoperability test by WG is for fixing the rec draft?
dsr: in the W3C process, we need
implementation reports for exiting CR
... check implementation
kaz: in that case, it would be better to say "Testing for CR exit", etc., for the WG side in this figure
<dsr> we will change tests for conformity for recommendation track technology to testing for CR exit or words to that effect
kaz: would be less misleading
jhund: three points
... would make a good future candidate using plugfest
... testing for comformity is misleading
... from the WG perspective, plugfest would help
interoperability in public manners
... "conformity" is misleading
dsr: test suite by the WG will be
used for CR-PR transition
... maybe could replace the bullet by two ones
... e.g., one on CR and the other on interoperabiity across different implementations
jhund: maybe you could put it into one bullet
jhund: the difference is
maturity
... the purposes are different
dsr: test suites are very
comprehensive and different from what we're doing
... will update the bullet points and people can review it
matthias: the first bullet point
including "conformity" is misleading
... the first point is new staff coming up to the IG
... the second point is similar to what we've been doing
dape: plugfest is for the second
point
... everyone should understand the difference between the first
point and the second
... also the capitalization: PlugFest
kaz: we should be clear between the difference
dsr: will update the first point
so that people can review it
... let's move ahead
... "Deliverables"
... discussion with Matthias and Johannes
... Use Cases and Requirements
... Architecture
matthias: the first two
deliverables are included in the previous charter
... quite easy to fix the pub date
... also positive for the IG to produce them
... and can concentrate new work architecture and current
practice
... need editors' contributions
... who want to have the other two: end-to-end security acrros
IoT platforms, semantic models and APIs
... additional deliverables may be added
dsr: talking to other SDOs is one of our key values
matthias: semantic models and
apis
... this is a useful document
... why do we need another one here?
<Soumya> I will support the new two deliverables
dsr: important role of semantics
soumya: would support both the
two new deliverables
... there is a notion of semantic web
... what we're doing is linking to semantics, so need to define
some specific semantic model
jhund: we had discussion
yesterday
... how to see thin description, etc.
... the question is we have separate deliveralbles
... would be brought to a recommendation
dsr: work on ontology by other
groups
... what is the main constraint?
... we haven't done
... and we should take the lead for that
matthias: my question is who would take the lead for these two work?
soumya: me
dsr: and me
michael: interested in domain
model using RDF, etc.
... W3C should focus on document formats
... how the TD would be used for annotation
dsr: standardizing cross-domain
metadata
... how to be used collaboratively with other SDOs
kaz: wondering the difference between this semantic model and TD
dsr: sensor should define data
based on ontology
... select services, apply constraints
... which ontology uses which semantics
sebastian: basic idea of the capability
<jhund:> if TD is the HTML of the Web of Things, then we would not want to standardize the content of web pages
dsr: we need a common understanding
matthias: would repeat who representing which company would work for it?
michael: we need to see Thing
Description as the deliverable
... that's the role of this group
... to work properly
... common language layer
... not sure how much survey is needed, though
... annotating things
dsr: role of the model
... collaboration with the other SDOs
<dsr> It is not just about thing descriptions
matthias: why do we need this
work item which don't have enough people support
... we're interested in working on Thing Description
dsr: report is a deliverable and part of the culture of plugfest
<kajimoto> My audio has trouble now... (kajimoto)
dsr: there are various approaches
on semantic information for IoT
... very important to show scalability
... if we don't do this, WoT won't be successful
... likewise security we would get new members for this as
well
jhund: @@@couldn't hear well
matthias: how about include this into the current practices?
soumya: let me rephrase what Dave
is saying
... what we need here is generic framework/concept applicable
to various frameworks
sebastian: we have technology
landscape, current practice documents
... I think this would make people confused
dsr: don't think so
jhund: why we couldn't do this within the tech landscape work?
dsr: generic framework across the
platforms
... how ontologies could be used
nimura: @@@couldn't hear and asked him to type-in
<k_nimura> i dont think it is feasible because both are expecting some other oraganizations involvement.
dsr: as an IG, we need to
coordinate with other SDOs
... so it's something we do
<dsr> we invite talks from outside of the IG
<k_nimura> without understanding every specs we cannot do plugfest
<dsr> we give talks to other groups
<dsr> we invite orgs to participate in plugfgests
<dsr> we collaborate on joint reports
<k_nimura> nobody commited it yet.
kaz: Dave, maybe you also can agree we need some kind of basic survey for this purpose
dsr: yes, that's the study
matthias: we just have 15 more
mins
... currently more opposes to be included in the IG Charter
dsr: from the viewpoint of W3C
BusDev Team, we should keep it
... it's an IG
... we need this stuff
... we need to encourage more people to join the IG
<kajimoto> How do you think that IG charter dividing to IG1 for creating WG, IG2 for continuous input from other organizations ?
sebasitan: would propose to
remove this proposal from the deliverables section
... and have some description in the scope section
dsr: would harm to get new
people...
... this is important to recuruit people
... please look at the previous charter
-> https://www.w3.org/2014/12/wot-ig-charter.html#deliverables previous Charter
tibor: want to agree with
Dave
... important for a startup company as well
<kajimoto> Creating WG, technology landscape has power, IG1 charter includes important 4 deliverables that is use case, architecture, plugfest practice and technology landscape.
tibor: sent an email to the list about "decentralized..."
<kajimoto> On the other hand, as IG2, continuous requirement input by many organizations with the latest technology.
-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016May/0080.html Tibor's message
tibor: suggesting decentralised, peer-to-peer,
blockchain based Internet-of-Things in the charter
scribe: from business viewpoint, there are definitely use cases
<kajimoto> Reading IRC discussion, some of us insist IG1 to create WG, Dave and some guys says IG2 for continuous requirement input to WG,
kaz: Matthias, there're several different opinions and we need some more time to wrap up this
matthias: blockchain-based IoT
would be a possible solution
... but we should not charter for some specific solution which
is not yet analyzed
tibor: I put much effort on WoT
platforms
... who has the final vote for what should be done?
matthias: as I mentioned, we should not charter for some specific solution which is not analyzed yet
tibor: some of the IG
participants agree and some don't
... how to make decision in that case?
... my company and myself would volunteer to work for this
item
dsr: decentralized architecture
as the topic, and blockchain as an example
... will come up with some text for review
... also would see the timeline for each document
matthias: Kajimoto-san, do you
have any idea when we could have a stable version for the
architecture document?
... will check with him
... also will see the tech landscape, etc.
dsr: thanks very much
matthias: there are 4 bullet points open on the issue tracker
<kajimoto> Middle of Jun, we finalize stable document.
matthias: let's try to finalize
the pull requests
... by the end of this week
taki: would agree to take some
challenge for the new charter
... saw some keywords like semantic model
... having some new challenges would be good
... good for existing members too
matthias: you mean we should have that in the deliverables section?
taki: not sure, but just continuing the current work would be not attracting
toru: my colleague raised another
issue-162
... would discuss that
... on email is fine
... patent policy, etc.
... should be replaced by the text from the previous
Charter
... don't think IG's deliverables require IPP commitment
dsr: tx
... will replace the text
matthias: difficult to have
specific solutions for the charter
... not a good way
dsr: we need to discuss the level of solutions
<Soumya> have to leave for another meeting, bye
dsr: please look into the
background as well
... we don't have enough time now, though...
matthias: we'll close the
call
... until the end of this week, we'll try to wrap up the
discussion
[ adjourned ]