11:58:37 RRSAgent has joined #wot 11:58:37 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-wot-irc 12:02:26 dsr has joined #wot 12:02:44 michael has joined #wot 12:07:32 present: Kaz, Daniel, Michael, Bowen, Dave, Frank, Taki, Uday, Xueqin, Yingying 12:07:49 zakim, pick a scribe? 12:07:49 I don't understand your question, kaz. 12:08:19 zakim, pick a scribe 12:08:19 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Taki 12:08:35 zakim, pick a scribe 12:08:35 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Kaz 12:09:16 present+ Joerg, Sebastian 12:09:27 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/IG_WebConf#Agenda_of_next_WoT_IG_WebConf:_17_August_2016 12:09:39 topic: quick updates 12:09:58 Xueqin has joined #wot 12:10:14 dp: goes through the agenda 12:10:28 sebastian has joined #wot 12:10:35 joerg has joined #wot 12:10:39 present+ Kazuaki 12:10:58 present+ Joerg Heuer 12:11:00 present+ Sebastian_Kaebisch 12:11:05 k_nimura has joined #wot 12:11:16 dp: would Yingying to talk about the joint call with oneM2M 12:11:38 yc: will have a joint call on 31 August at the ususal IG call slot 12:11:45 s/ususal/usual/ 12:11:57 dp: how to share the information? 12:12:04 agenda+ to ask for TPAC slot in WoT IG meeting on GSMA IoT security guidelines 12:12:13 yc: copied the information to the IG members 12:12:42 s/members/member list/ 12:13:06 dp: ok 12:13:28 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-ig/2016Aug/0004.html joint meeting with oneM2M 12:14:13 dp: we should collect comments/questions for the joint call 12:14:50 jh: not just questions but joint understanding would be good 12:15:22 ... one volunteer for oneM2M liaison, Yongjing from Huawei? 12:15:32 yc: yes, he is from Huawei 12:16:33 jh: we had controversial discussion on vocabulary for specific industry domain 12:16:58 ... we should explain our approach, e.g., Thing Description, to them 12:17:27 ... and we should be ready to understand their approach 12:17:56 dp: agenda of the joint call: TD, vocabulary in domains, check Beijing minutes 12:18:12 ... will collect questions to ask them 12:18:35 topic: WG preparation 12:19:09 dr: need W3M approval to bring the Charter to the AC review 12:19:16 ... will talk with Wendy and Alan 12:19:34 q+ 12:19:58 ... identifying candidate Chair(s) is one of the issues to solve 12:20:16 dp: Chairs need to be identified before TPAC? 12:20:23 dr: before the AC review 12:20:33 q- 12:21:23 ack kaz 12:21:42 ka: we got a comment from Wendy and need to respond to her about that 12:21:58 dr: will talk about that as well during the call with her 12:22:16 topic: TPAC 12:22:55 dp: demo setup 12:23:02 ... Kaz converted to PDF 12:23:21 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016Aug/att-0019/demo-setup.pdf demo setup 12:23:52 dp: if possible, would include the air conditioner and the curtain from Fujitsu 12:24:12 ... showing the demo step by step 12:24:23 ... each building block 12:24:26 ... any comments? 12:24:51 kaz: looks good 12:25:30 ... already talking with the meeting planner about this setup 12:25:46 ... the main contact is on vacation but will be back on Monday, 22nd 12:26:02 dp: ok 12:26:10 ... next idea is having roll-up poster 12:26:45 ... created a template for that purpose 12:26:55 ryuichi has joined #wot 12:27:11 q+ 12:27:23 ack k 12:27:45 ka: we need frames for the roll-up posters? 12:28:40 ... do we want the meeting planner team to provide the frames? 12:28:45 dp: yes, if possible 12:28:53 ka: will ask them about this as well 12:29:10 action: kaz to ask the meeting planner team about the roll-up poster frames 12:29:10 Created ACTION-74 - Ask the meeting planner team about the roll-up poster frames [on Kazuyuki Ashimura - due 2016-08-24]. 12:29:19 jh: how many roll-up posters? 12:29:21 dp: 4 12:29:52 ... maybe 5-6 12:30:06 ka: are all of them roll-up ones? 12:30:12 dp: same style would be better 12:30:57 ka: ok 12:31:17 dp: we'll have 4 tables and people on those tables 12:31:36 ... Sebastian volunteers to lead the TD part 12:31:44 ... still need 3 more leaders 12:32:00 ... Scripting API, Protocol Bindings and Full Scenario 12:32:18 ... Frank, are you interested? 12:32:30 fr: definitely interested 12:32:40 ... want to work with Matthias 12:33:07 ... for Protocol Bindings 12:33:21 ... still need somebody for ECHONET 12:33:39 ka: somebody from Panasonic or Fujitsu? 12:33:41 dp: yes 12:34:45 ... how about air conditioner and curtain by Fujitsu? 12:34:51 kn: possible 12:35:08 ... (couldn't hear) 12:35:17 dp: only ECHONET support? 12:35:40 kn: as far as I know, Panasonic and Fujitsu support only ECHONET 12:36:03 present+ Ryuichi 12:36:27 dp: add contributors for Full Scenario 12:37:05 rm: the facility for the demo will be available for TPAC too 12:37:28 dp: add Nimura-san and Matsukura-san to the wiki 12:37:34 ... still not sure about Panasonic 12:38:23 -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_September_2016,_Portugal,_Lisbon_Demo Demo wiki 12:38:43 dp: Sebasitian, could you show what you've done? 12:38:59 sk: put the roll-up image on the wiki 12:39:25 -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/File:TPAC-2016-roll-up.jpg TD roll-up design 12:39:34 sk: pictures there 12:40:01 ... Thing Description is used to understand what "Things" provide, how to interact with each other, etc. 12:41:45 ... you can propose alternative design, etc. 12:41:50 q? 12:41:58 dp: any comments so far? 12:42:26 sk: good to show this kind of poster to explain what "Thing Description" is like 12:42:58 dp: ok 12:43:08 ... please send your comments 12:43:48 jh: do we have a chance to put information on the demo? 12:44:09 ... maybe we could have 3 sections 12:44:27 ... issues, building blocks and demo description 12:44:47 ... may put another figure in the demo section as well 12:44:58 ... what do you think? 12:45:22 dp: split the poster area into 3 parts? 12:45:24 jh: yes, 3 sections 12:45:56 ... semantic silos, Thing Description as the building block to solve the issue, and demo description 12:47:04 sk: should put one demo for the poster? 12:47:14 jh: maybe some abstract information 12:47:49 ... a kind of guideline 12:48:39 dp: will add the information to the template 12:48:56 ... my question is contact information for W3C 12:49:06 dr: will check within the Team 12:49:50 sk: would be nicer if we could get the original files 12:50:57 dr: we can contact the Comm Team about them 12:51:22 ... including the red "Fragmentation & Siles" picture 12:51:43 dp: used Photoshop to create the template 12:51:53 ... can provide the photoshop file 12:52:39 ka: yeah, providing the vector graphic would be better 12:52:48 dp: ok 12:53:04 action: daniel to provide the SVG version of the roll-up poster template 12:53:04 'daniel' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., daniellux, dpeintne). 12:53:32 action: dpeintne to provide the SVG version of the roll-up poster template 12:53:33 Created ACTION-75 - Provide the svg version of the roll-up poster template [on Daniel Peintner - due 2016-08-24]. 12:54:21 dp: what about the WoT presentation during the AC meeting? 12:54:33 ka: talking with the Meeting Planner Team proposing Tuesday 12:54:42 dp: ok 12:54:57 ... next PlugFest 12:55:11 ... not actual PlugFest other than the demos 12:55:58 ka: the joint scenario part is PlugFest, isn't it? 12:56:01 dp: right 12:56:52 ... my question is whether we want to have another PlugFest on Thu/Fri 12:57:11 ka: we can concentrate on feed back from PlugFest on Thu/Fri 12:57:26 jh: discussion on evaluation and next step as well 12:58:23 dp: we might want to put remote PlugFest topic on the agenda too 12:58:47 ... (adds online PlugFest to the agenda) 12:59:02 ... next joint meetings with other groups 12:59:27 -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_September_2016,_Portugal,_Lisbon#Outreach_and_Ad-hoc_meetings list of joint meetings 12:59:35 I have to go. cu 13:00:02 dp: progress? 13:00:12 ka: have talked with MMI and they're interested 13:00:38 ... will talked with other groups (Accessibility, AUtomotive, DAS, TV Control) 13:00:49 dp: Spatial Data group? 13:01:01 ... Sebastian has left... 13:01:16 ... what about Web Bluetooth? 13:01:22 ... who would contact them? 13:01:46 ... anybody in that group? 13:02:06 q+ 13:02:12 jh: we should think about topics for the joint meetings too 13:02:23 ... Automotive: 13:02:41 Max has joined #wot 13:03:13 ka: Automotive WG working on WebSocket-based network I/F 13:03:21 ... should be integrated with the WoT framework 13:03:38 ... also security as mentioned 13:04:08 ... vehicle signal definition might be of interest too 13:04:58 s/definition/definition (Vehicle Signal Specification)/ 13:05:22 dp: DAS: 13:05:32 ... recall several discussions 13:05:39 ... on mailing list and during TPAC 13:05:52 ... Tobie was the main contact 13:06:05 ... any other topics? 13:06:33 ka: generic sensor API and other APIs 13:07:04 dp: EXI: 13:07:13 ... recall discussions on JSON representations 13:07:38 dp: MMI: 13:07:43 ... had a call with them 13:08:47 ka: we could reuse MMI as advanced UI for WoT framework 13:09:06 uday: regarding DAS, should we include device description? 13:09:30 dp: if you mean semantic description, maybe it would be included in spatial data 13:09:45 uday: maybe from the viewpoint of device too 13:10:09 ... another question is time slot for the joint meetings 13:10:22 dp: our group will meet on Thu/Fri 13:10:32 ... and we can visit their meetings on Mon/Tue 13:10:58 -> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/schedule.html TPAC schedule 13:11:22 ka: we need to talk with the group Chairs about the concrete time slots 13:11:31 dp: let's see 13:11:51 ... next Spatial Data: 13:11:57 ... will check with Sebastian 13:12:05 ... TV Control: 13:12:10 ... similar to MMI? 13:12:55 ka: they're working on API definition for TV tuners/recorders 13:13:16 ... how to integrate the TV Control API-based tuners with WoT is the key 13:13:24 dp: next Web Bluetooth 13:13:32 s/Bluetooth/Bluetooth:/ 13:13:43 ... put "protocol bindings" as a keyword 13:14:02 ka: yes, one of the possible legacy protocols 13:14:53 dp: GSMA liaison? 13:15:05 dr: Natasha is the liaison contact 13:15:15 ... they're working on IoT security guideline 13:15:40 ... maybe 20-min slot or less 13:16:13 dp: add "GSMA IoT security guidelines" to the TPAC agenda wiki 13:16:36 ... any other comments? 13:16:51 dr: Google is getting more interested 13:16:57 q+ 13:17:02 ack d 13:17:14 ... maybe we might want to reserve a slot 13:17:47 q? 13:18:47 ka: Dave, who from Google are you talking? 13:19:06 ... we had discussion with Scott Jenson 13:19:34 ... he is talking within Google 13:20:13 dr: talking with Danbri 13:20:39 ka: maybe talking with multiple contacts from Google might be confusing... 13:21:53 dp: Dave will keep us updated 13:22:46 ka: regarding schema.org, we'll we talk with Max Senges? 13:22:57 dr: yes, and Dan 13:23:11 mc: Max and Dan are representing the same effort 13:23:47 topic: IG Deliverables 13:24:07 dp: people are still on vacation 13:25:04 ... how to proceed? 13:25:22 ka: we've already got group consensus for publication 13:25:44 dp: what about the tech landscape 13:26:16 ka: Soumya will come back shortly 13:26:26 ... let's check with him 13:26:38 ... regarding the tech landscape document 13:26:44 dp: ok 13:27:18 ka: regarding other three documents, I can work with the editors for publication 13:27:39 dp: can we publish those documents before TPAC? 13:27:42 ka: yes 13:28:21 dp: Content/Technological discussion 13:28:27 ... Hydra vs TD? 13:28:41 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2016Aug/0010.html Bergi's comment 13:28:58 mc: a comment 13:29:21 ... Hydra and TD are both sort of description 13:29:54 ... Hydra is rather build-in hyper media control 13:30:23 ... interested in further investigation 13:30:32 ... can come back with some more information 13:30:56 dp: looks like there is some similarity 13:31:14 mc: can respond on the list as well 13:32:01 topic: AOB 13:32:12 dp: would like to clean up the remaining actions 13:32:18 ... next week 13:32:47 ... there are lots of actions remaining 13:33:08 jh: suggestions/comments for the agenda of the next call? 13:33:21 ... input contributions to the f2f 13:33:45 ... please send your comments on the list 13:35:25 [ adjourned ] 13:35:31 rrsagent, make log public 13:35:35 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:35:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:36:22 s/uday:/ud:/g 13:36:22 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:36:22 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:36:28 Max has joined #wot 14:00:11 dsr has joined #wot 14:01:58 RRSAgent has joined &wot 14:01:58 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-wot-irc 14:02:03 present+ Kaz 14:02:03 present+ jeff 14:02:07 present+ Karen 14:03:48 dom has joined &wot 14:03:49 Alan has joined &wot 14:03:56 present+ Dave 14:04:19 scribenick: Karen 14:04:30 Jeff: There are two topics today 14:04:47 …first is scheduling of PTC meeting in Needham on Monday 14:05:01 …And call to talk about our WoT Strategy 14:05:13 …We decided to get back together to discuss more 14:05:21 …so this is follow up for that call as well due to scheduling 14:05:34 …Also in WoT land, Dave, you and I were supposed to have a call with the chair 14:05:56 …It seems like the meeting was cancelled and only Joerg did not know it 14:06:03 …Maria is trying to reschedule that 14:06:07 …Let's start with PTC 14:06:12 …this should be pretty straight forward 14:06:21 …I had a call with several people on PTC management several weeks ago 14:06:28 …Call went quite well, they were very interested 14:06:37 …It was a short call, more about boiler plate overview of W3C 14:06:54 …We did not go too deeply into the details of where we stand in WoT IG 14:07:09 …They also had some folks on call interested in VR or AR 14:07:17 …we decided to have a f2f meeting for this Monday 14:07:25 …I don't anticipate having a presentation myself 14:07:40 …Because I already had a presentation; if there are some new people, I may do a verbal update without slides 14:08:02 …The main purpose is to spend 20-30 minutes on a deeper dive on what we are trying to achieve on WoT; 5-10 minutes on VR topic with Dom 14:08:07 …then leave rest of time for discussion 14:08:11 …First question is attendance 14:08:14 …I will be there in person 14:08:21 …Assume Dom and Dave will be there on the phone 14:08:24 …Busdev, Karen, Alan? 14:08:57 wseltzer has joined &wot 14:09:13 Alan: Yes, I will be there 14:09:28 Karen: Yes, I expect to attend as well, provided plane is on time 14:09:32 Dave: What time? 14:09:38 Jeff: 11:30am EDT Monday 14:09:47 …Dom, news to you? 14:09:50 Dom: On my calendar 14:10:10 Action Jeff: find out call-in number 14:10:30 Jeff: Maria says she sent information; will have her resend 14:10:52 …In terms of Dave's presentation, do you know what you are presenting? 14:11:05 Dave: not yet, want to hear more about focus in order to cut back my slide deck 14:11:15 Jeff: Let me find my email that I sent 14:11:26 …on July 25th or 26th 14:11:59 Andres said that he had heard our story at my San Diego keynote. He thought the keynote was great. And synergistic with what his CEO Jim Heppelmann has been saying. 14:11:59 Eric said that they like to join standards organizations to show thought leadership, so W3C was attractive. 14:11:59 Joe summarized by saying that ETSI's work on IoT is too focused on Telco. IETF is too focused on transport and QoS. Noone is looking at ontologies or structure of the messages. What is the payload that goes into the IETF message? Getting this done correctly is key to Thinkworx and their strategy and business. Glad to see we are working on it. 14:12:02 That sounded pretty good to me. 14:12:04 For the next meeting, Dave, we'll need to provide a deeper description of what we are planning to do. Also, Dom, it would be useful to have 10-15 minutes on our AR history, and what we want to do with VR. Perhaps they want to be on the program committee. 14:12:25 …First of all, one of their execs was in San Diego where I gave a keynote talk 14:12:32 …They thought the keynote was great; a bit out of date 14:12:42 …but from a messaging POV we should not stray too far from that 14:13:02 …Eric who was their corporate marketing guy says they like to be involved in standards orgs because it shows thought leadership 14:13:10 …Anything we can do to accentuate that point 14:13:18 …Karen is good at describing those intangible values 14:13:28 …Karen, feel free to sit next to Eric 14:13:37 …with thoughts about thought leadership 14:13:57 …Key point was input from Joe Byrum (sp), leader of platform technology 14:14:11 …They watch IETF, more about transport; wonder about transport stuff 14:14:19 Note: PTC is well known for the IoT through its work on thinkworx, see https://www.thingworx.com 14:14:20 …Thinkworx is their branded platform for IoT and it needs that 14:14:41 …That is pretty much what our messaging is, motivation for why we need a web layer, data layer, semantics layer above the transport 14:14:49 …and unifying stovepipes, that is our usual message 14:14:54 Dave: How long should the talk be? 14:15:04 Jeff: I would go with 20-30 minutes or so 14:15:11 …We'll have to see who is actually there 14:15:27 …When I met there were a lot of executives in the room; Karen had started at top to get high-level people 14:15:30 …I think we go with that 14:15:39 …They have this thing called Vuforia 14:15:43 …where they are doing their AR work 14:15:49 …Dom, are you familiar with Vuforia? 14:15:59 Dom: That name has crossed my path but will re-look into it 14:16:09 Jeff: Vuforia and Thinkworx, anything we can say 14:16:18 …which can relate the work that we are doing 14:16:25 http://www.vuforia.com 14:16:27 …with their branded efforts, that will be a big plus 14:16:39 …Remind me, Dave about time frame; what is thinking to bring WG proposal forward? 14:16:56 Dave: Having call with Wendy after this call and Alan as second reviewer, then to AC 14:17:11 …have not gotten all the feedback from various companies, but just do that in review 14:17:18 …Have a candidate chair from Intel 14:17:40 -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Roadmap WoT WG roadmap (fyi) 14:17:51 Jeff: Your presentation about WG formation will be important to establish the urgency to get on board right away 14:18:04 Dave: And Alan will be able to talk about the BG which is important 14:18:17 Jeff: yes, as part of internal strategy discussion later on this call 14:18:39 …Talk about Mr. McCool (sp), is he in Mo's organization? 14:18:51 Dave: He is based in Japan, where Mo is in California 14:19:14 Jeff: I think it will be useful to talk to him to see if we can get Mo personally involved, especially with his contact with other large firms 14:19:19 …he could be a very helpful facilitator 14:19:35 Dave: yes, make sure we have Intel listed on the draft charter as a chair 14:19:46 Jeff: I guess Karen is wondering about new AC Rep intro with Ryan Ware 14:20:02 …should she be talking to Ryan specifically about chairing the WG, or is it premature? 14:20:19 Dave: I don't know how well connected Mo and Ryan are; I don't think it's premature. Ryan can talk to Mo for details 14:20:30 Jeff: In terms of meeting on Monday 14:20:43 …I think a lot of stuff will be upcoming from me, Alan and Karen will be more informal in nature 14:20:52 …30 min on WoT, 10 mins on VR 14:21:03 …and if we can get a draft presentation to group, that is a good thing so we can provide feedback 14:21:04 q+ 14:21:46 ack Karen 14:22:03 Karen: Are we going to address verticals that map to W3C and Security? 14:22:11 Jeff: The presentation speaks to those at a high level 14:22:23 …not have industry solutions be in silos; what Thinkworx tries to provide internally 14:22:33 …and a set of components related to security 14:22:40 …Did you anything more specific underneath that 14:22:55 My most recent presentation http://www.w3.org/Talks/2016/0614-iot-security.pdf as given last week at the Open Data Institute 14:23:07 That included several slides on security 14:24:00 Karen: Mainly that there is increasing media emphasis on stories about IoT security breaches with physical threats like auto, home 14:24:11 Dave: Would be valuable to have some security input 14:24:33 Jeff: Looking at your current presentation 14:24:40 Dave: It needs to be cut back 14:24:52 Jeff: It is a bit long, but it's missing some of my favorite slides; tell me more, or by email 14:25:04 Dave: tell me more, or by email 14:25:13 Jeff: Try to describe them; find them 14:25:26 …a few slides; one that talked about the five layers 14:25:30 …of the comm stack 14:25:42 …network transport; where app developer cares about lower three 14:25:48 Dave: I provided the wrong link, sorry 14:26:02 http://www.w3.org/Talks/2016/0811-wot-intro.pdf 14:26:15 Jeff: you put in the security piece one 14:26:22 Dave: Security one I gave to Tech Expo in Berlin 14:26:32 …one I just pasted was from Open Data Institute 14:26:51 Jeff: yes, this one looks more familiar. This with some shortening and making it relevant to PTC 14:26:56 …it has the right content 14:27:00 …I think we are pretty much set 14:27:03 …for the meeting on Monday 14:27:08 q+ 14:27:25 [I am available to attend, if we're not overwhelming htem with people] 14:27:39 dom has left &wot 14:27:42 dom has joined &wot 14:28:19 ack Karen 14:28:29 . Andres Rossello, Director, Corporate Brand & Thought Leadership 14:28:29 . Will Kohler, SVP Corporate Strategy 14:28:29 . Michael Campbell, EVP Vuforia 14:28:29 . Jane Wachutka, EVP ThingWorx R&D 14:28:30 Karen: Do we know who will be in the room on Monday? And who is the decision maker? 14:28:53 Jeff: Looking at titles, it will likely be corporate strategy guy or the Thingworks R&D 14:28:58 s/Thingworx 14:29:12 …The reason the meeting slid out is to make sure everyone is at this meeting 14:29:16 …we'll see how that goes 14:29:23 …also have to be relevant to the engineers 14:29:55 …Certainly Joe B seemed to be the most outspoken engineer; has to buy-in that this is worthwhile for them 14:30:02 …spend some time speaking to Joe as well 14:30:05 q? 14:30:35 https://www.w3.org/2016/07/26-WoTStrat-minutes.html 14:31:05 Jeff: Let's move to the broader WoT discussion 14:31:15 …Kaz did a good job in his presentation 14:31:19 …Wendy had some questions 14:31:22 i|https|topic: WoT Strategy| 14:31:31 …why has group not started; relationship to Hypercat 14:31:39 …where are we in terms of getting companies like Google involved 14:31:41 agenda+ chairs 14:31:47 agenda+ participating companies 14:31:51 agenda+ BG 14:31:56 i/in is presentation/to take the minutes/ 14:31:59 agenda+ Hypercat 14:32:30 different perspectives from different people 14:32:30 ... after the IG call, let's clarify the next steps 14:32:30 ... all the gaps, opportunities 14:32:30 ... not obvious what the next steps to me 14:32:31 ... IG is on track 14:32:33 ... why don't keep going? 14:32:34 Jeff: At the end of the last meeting Kaz scribe me 14:32:35 ... discussion with Hypercat as well 14:32:37 ... we need to have some regular conversation over the several weeks 14:32:42 i/Let's start with PTC/topic: PTC meeting/ 14:32:56 …with Intel guy 14:33:05 …you said you were making progress, but not completely closed 14:33:12 Dave: I guess it's up to W3M to appoint the chairs 14:33:20 …he looks like a good guy, assertive, well-informed 14:33:35 …Tokyo time zone will not make it easy for him, but he can live with that. Intel will bring lots of useful contacts 14:33:51 Jeff: A a lot of Japanese and Chinese members are interested. May be hard for you! 14:33:56 Dave: I will do whatever is appropriate 14:34:12 Jeff: there is a current charter in front of W3M; does it have the Intel and new Siemens guy? 14:34:19 Dave: It does not; we were trying to sort it out 14:34:35 …Joerg Heuer put his name forward 14:34:44 Jeff: It would be Joerg? 14:34:48 Dave: That is the current plan 14:35:00 Jeff: Can we update the current charter with Mike and Joerg? 14:35:08 Dave: Yes, if W3M approves 14:35:15 -> http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-wg-2016.html draft WG Charter 14:35:34 Jeff: It is now under W3M review; at some point in time…reviews are overdue…it comes back to W3M from reviewers saying it's great and W3M would approve or not 14:35:44 Dave: that will happen soon. Wendy had some criticisms/comments 14:35:50 …I will talk with her after this call 14:35:56 Jeff: And I think she is on this call 14:36:02 …or on irc 14:36:09 …why don't you guys work that out 14:36:23 …W3M is not meeting next week, so W3M will review on 30th 14:36:35 …suggest you put the names on the charter now; should be part of Wendy and PLH's review 14:36:46 i|And I|-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/w3mreq/2016Aug/0026.html Wendy's comment| 14:36:51 Dave: I had brief chat with Philipp and I think he agrees 14:36:55 Jeff: that is point about the chairs 14:37:18 …Wendy, did you want to discuss anything more on this call about the audience and how to appeal more for developers? Or is that handled offline in your next call? 14:37:36 Wendy: Question to me? 14:37:39 Jeff: yes 14:37:51 Wendy: If it's of interest to others on this call to discuss 14:38:05 …My high-level comments/questions on the charter I reviewed were is this 14:38:26 …is it the way we want to go, and the way we expect everything to go, or is this part of one of many WoT efforts 14:38:42 …this group is to produce Recs in one of several areas; others that W3C will host? 14:38:54 Jeff: That is a great point. I always felt there is much more we can and should be doing in this area 14:38:58 …We converged on this space 14:39:06 …there are a whole bunch of TFes that WoT sponsored 14:39:16 …current charter only represents a scope of those Task Forces 14:39:22 s/is it the way/is RDF the way/ 14:39:31 …We tended to converge on this piece because that is the greatest center of interest 14:40:01 …if your comments are of the form that this is a first step and not the be all and end all of what we are going to do, that would be a good enhancement to scope description 14:40:13 …Only question on my mind is whether at this stage you are going to advise 14:40:19 …we are down this RDF related path right now 14:40:24 q+ 14:40:25 …however we got here, this is where we are 14:40:59 …the strategy question is, do you expect to recommend whether W3M consider if that is the right path, or did you expect to recommend that this is a path and ok to proceed with it, as long as we also proceed simultaneously 14:41:05 q? 14:41:05 …if there are other things we are doing as well 14:41:07 ack WEndy 14:41:17 adk w 14:41:21 ack w 14:41:21 Wendy: More the latter. As long as there is some industry interest in this path as a potential solution 14:41:22 ack w 14:41:26 …one not to rule out or avoid 14:41:26 s/adk w// 14:41:33 …Talk with Dave about how to clarify naming of the group 14:41:50 …not saying this is the exclusive way that WoT works, that we are open to chartering and incubating further alternatives 14:42:15 …I will talk with Dave more about how we talk about some of this R&D potentially competing…vocabulary management and the stack 14:42:30 …reach into the Web developer community with technologies they are happier doing 14:42:47 …As with Social WG is it fine to have several ways of solving the problem, or is it the one way we recommend 14:42:58 …If we recommend the one way, I would want to have a deeper discussion 14:43:06 Jeff: that sounds like a great conversation for you and Dave to have 14:43:36 …We certainly have enough scar tissue in Social group that suggests that framing this properly would go a long way to preventing downstream angst so that is does not become a political footbal 14:43:49 …in other subcommunities; sounds logical 14:44:10 …good that you are going to discuss with Dave; may result in different scoping or naming of charter. I look forward to hearing the result of that conversation. 14:44:27 …Does that sound like good enough coverage on that question for now. You and Wendy will follow up? 14:44:31 zakim, move to next item 14:44:31 agendum 1. "chairs" taken up [from jeff] 14:44:38 Dave: keep in mind this is also related to reaching out to Google. 14:44:38 zakim, move to next item 14:44:39 agendum 1 was just opened, jeff 14:44:45 …not to share files; I am not allowed to 14:44:52 zakim, close agendum 1 14:44:52 agendum 1, chairs, closed 14:44:53 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:44:53 2. participating companies [from jeff] 14:44:58 …when we get to the item on Google 14:45:02 Jeff: We are up to it 14:45:06 Topic: Google 14:45:06 zakim, take up next item 14:45:06 agendum 2. "participating companies" taken up [from jeff] 14:45:20 Dave: We have had people take a business perspective 14:45:33 …Scott reached out to IG a few weeks back to have common core models 14:45:40 …we also have DanBri, former team member 14:45:45 …and tech lead for Schema.org 14:45:50 s/Scott/Scott, from the Physical Web/ 14:45:56 …Dan and I have been having a series of dialogs; further call tomorrow 14:46:02 s/people take/Max Senges, who takes/ 14:46:05 …Michael Kosta from Samsung 14:46:15 …looking at IoT and category development for Schema.org 14:46:34 …Question is how that is developing and how that relates to specific plans from Siemens and other Japanese companies 14:46:42 -> https://www.w3.org/2016/08/03-wot-minutes.html#item06 Discussion with Scott Jenson 14:46:50 …General direction seems to be compatible, but the devil is in the details. 14:46:55 …I could screen share 14:46:58 q+ 14:47:11 s/Kosta/Koster/ 14:47:51 Dave: Begin work in IoT…[Dave reads from slides] 14:48:00 …have done survey 14:48:09 …we can come up with proposals for next steps 14:48:17 …hope to talk about that further with DanBri tomorrow 14:48:34 …Find a way to get Google behind what we are doing in WoT, even if that means significant changes to the technical direction 14:48:36 ack Kaz 14:48:46 Kaz: I just wanted to mention 14:48:48 …as background 14:48:55 q+ 14:49:01 …Scott joined the WoT IG call two weeks ago and clarified his position 14:49:05 [[ 14:49:06 https://www.w3.org/2016/08/03-wot-minutes.html#item06 14:49:10 …as the guy working on physical Web within Google 14:49:22 Scott: no opinion about what W3C should do, using Homekit as an example which has enough defined to "just work" without being overly constrained 14:49:22 ... doesn't want to push this group one way or another 14:49:39 …He himself has no strong opinion about what should be done within W3C for industry purposes 14:49:49 …but mention we may want to think about homekit as an example 14:49:58 …He wants to talk within Google about Schema.org with @ 14:50:07 …We should organize a discussion with Google a bit more 14:50:30 …At some point we have to talk with multiple representatives from each project within Google; but at this point we should organize a contact point 14:50:46 Dave: for what it's worth, Max is one of the authors along with Michael Koster and @ 14:50:58 …Scott is not, although I believe Dan is keeping him informed 14:51:08 Jeff: I fear we will have the following problem with Google 14:51:12 s/[[// 14:51:17 …based on input that you two have provided, and the link that Kaz provide 14:51:26 i/no opinion/[[/ 14:51:35 …with Scott saying, not sure what W3C is going to do, but we're doing it in Schema.org 14:51:36 i/He himself/]]/ 14:51:50 …After 3-4 year discussions about Schema.org 14:52:00 …Google is saying they want semi-standard vocabularies 14:52:17 …W3C says if it's going to be standard, it should not be controlled by 2-3 vendors; it should be brought to W3C 14:52:20 s/with @/with Max Senges/ 14:52:33 …then Google responds by saying that it should be light weight; W3C has not mechanism 14:52:49 …W3C has no leverage over this, no light weight approach 14:52:55 …so it remains in Schema.org 14:53:02 …So battle lines are drawn 14:53:17 …Every step of the way, Google wants it to be a W3C open standard without losing control 14:53:35 …W3C's POV is to help Google out with that; we don't want to fight with Google; want to reel them in 14:54:02 …Step one of that was Schema.org is the separate org, separate place to have a standard, but we will have a discussion group about Schema.org in a CG 14:54:08 …Step 2 was let's do the work in a CG 14:54:12 …Step 3 was Dan writing to Ralph 14:54:31 …I see where there are circumstances where W3C standards reference normative references 14:54:39 …we would like same thing; references to vocabularies 14:54:51 …they want more and more blessing from Director without ceding control 14:54:59 …With that background, is there any interest at Google 14:55:12 …other than the vocabulary piece that they seem intent on keeping out of W3C 14:55:19 …other than getting an indirect blessing 14:55:33 …Does that narrative give context to the conversations you have been having with Scott, Google? 14:55:38 Dave: Provides one aspect 14:55:45 …cross domain vocabs need agreement 14:56:05 …and agreement that there needs to be an agile process for domain-specific vocabs, like start-ups 14:56:23 …also need a spectrum from agile through to wide scale deployment 14:56:31 …need some kinds of blessing from a standards group 14:56:42 …Google would have to surrender control for all the companies to be comfortable 14:56:57 …They will need some kind of control over those kinds of processes. There is an opportunity for W3C here 14:57:08 …Vocabs are one thing; APIs another; bindings another 14:57:12 q+ 14:57:15 …Schema.org only covers one tiny part of it 14:57:30 Jeff: It would be helpful to get them interested in the broader discussion, the APis and the like 14:57:34 …and dangle in front of them 14:57:47 …if they play their cards right, we may reference Schema.org vocabularies 14:57:57 …In proposed charter, are standardizing vocabularies? 14:58:02 Dave: yes, but just cross-domain 14:58:16 Jeff: Do we talk about how we intend to relate to the domain-specific vocabularies? 14:58:21 Dave: yes, to some extent 14:58:28 ack je 14:58:30 ack ka 14:58:34 Jeff: that might be positioned well for the continued discussion with Google 14:58:50 Kaz; Domain specific vocab was controversial topic at Beijing meeting 14:59:01 …that is why group invited Scott to group call for clarification 14:59:18 …Scott himself was not interested in defining domain-specific vocabularies 14:59:26 …I asked Scott to participate more and to bring Google's ideas 14:59:37 …He suggested we talk with Mark Sengiss as well 14:59:42 s/Mark/Max 14:59:51 …and participate in the group's discussion would be better 15:00:04 -> https://www.w3.org/2016/07/13-14-wot-minutes.html#day2-04 Beijing discussion 15:00:12 Dave: We have asked previously for them to do just that but they have not done so. Hoping for a better chance with the WG 15:00:22 Jeff: Any other discussion about participants before we move on? 15:00:34 s/Sengiss/Senges/ 15:00:36 s/Mark Sengiss/Max Senges/ 15:00:38 rrssagent, draft minutes 15:00:41 q+ 15:00:52 ack me 15:00:57 zakim, close this item 15:00:57 agendum 2 closed 15:00:58 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:00:58 3. BG [from jeff] 15:01:04 ack al 15:01:09 zakim, take up next item 15:01:09 agendum 3. "BG" taken up [from jeff] 15:02:38 s/and participate in/think asking them to participate in/ 15:04:23 == 15:06:39 rrsagent, make minutes 15:06:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/17-wot-minutes.html wseltzer 15:06:53 [meeting adjourned, wseltzer and dsr keep talking] 15:08:02 dsr, the doc you sent had a pointer to this article, http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2857276 15:09:05 under "Design Decisions" in that ACM article 15:32:05 dom has left &wot 15:59:26 https://wicg.github.io/admin/intent-to-migrate.html 17:24:08 kaz has joined &wot 17:32:27 Alan has joined &wot 17:32:33 Alan has left &wot