<dsr> scribenick: dsr

<kaz> [ so far: kaz, dave, joerg, claes, dan, daniel, darko, frank, kajimoto, katsuyoshi, kunihiko, matthias, takuki, toru, tuan, yingying, louay, sebastian, Soumya ]

Joerg reviews the agenda

Architect document

Joerg: this is not yet available on github, but some people are already commenting on it.

Kajimoto: I’ve uploaded my current document to https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/images/0/0d/2016-03-03-WoTArchitectureDraft-comments-merged.pdf

Kajimoto introduces the architecture document

Kajimoto: I would invite all of you to comment on figure 1

I’ve tried to name each of the modules required for a WoT servient

My thanks to Darko and Johannes for their help

Joerg: any comments as yet on this document?
... we should transfer this to github for ease of commenting, when can that be done?

kajimoto: I will do this as HTML using the template that Johannes sent me.

Current Practices for Plugfests

<kaz> Current practices

Joerg: this is a new document to describe the current practices prior to each plugfest

Matthias introduces the document

He asks people to provide meaningful commit messages when they edit the document

This is in HTML and using ReSpec

Daniel: I am working on the plans for the Montreal plugfest. We’re hoping to encourage more experimentation.

This is a work in progress so I encourage you to take a look and discuss what you want to see happen

Last time, we were able to remotely control an air conditioner in Japan, this time it would be great to do something challenging

Daniel: we want to include something on discovery and are discussing some ideas

Joerg: it is 5 weeks to go and it is now time to get concrete on our plans

We need to cover a broader range of capabilities and to become more consistent

Joerg encourages everyone to get involved and share their ideas

Kaz: do we want to have specific scenario for demos this time?

Joerg: that could be a good idea

Last time we had control over a coloured light.

Joerg asks Kaz for suggestions for this time

Joerg: we need suggestions during the next 2 weeks

Darko: we need to select the scenario very quickly, so that people can get the necessary equipment

Joerg: we could look at smart homes..

Darko: we need to exploit readily available sensors and actuators

Dave: I’m thinking more in terms of features than real-world scenarios

Matthias: I agree with Darko about the need to reach agreement soon

Claes: I currently don’t have specific input, sorry

Dan: [no sound]

Daniel: We have info in github and the wiki and this could be confusing. Perhaps we should focus on the wiki page with the ideas for Montreal?

Joerg: so you propose to have the technical specs in github and other info on the wiki?

Daniel: yes

The github doc provides a link to the wiki

Joerg: please remember to add yourself to the wiki page for the meeting if you plan to participate in the plugfest

Frank: [inaudible]

Kajimoto: At the last face to face, we were able to use thing descriptions nicely. I don’t have specific ideas for scenarios for Montreal

<Sebastian> Sorry, I have to go.

<Sebastian> cu

<DarkoAnicic> I have to leave today early too.

Daniel: this time it would be good to ask the registry rather than the devices

<DarkoAnicic> +1

some consistency is needed for interoperabiity

Sebastian: we need more semantics and could look at the IoT lite ontology

I unfortunately have to leave now, so bye

Joerg: so discovery should be in focus for this plugfest, right?

Darko: we first need to decide on the scenario

Louay: for devices with bluetooth low energy the device id can be used to search for the thing description.

since it isn’t practical for such devices to transfer their thing description directly

So we are looking at layering discovery on top of existing standards

I hope to provide a demo around this

Kunihiko: [no comment]

Soumya: I support Louay’s comment. This time we should work on discovery.

Joerg asks Soumya and Louay to work on a proposal over the next week

[they agree]

Takuki: I agree with focusing on interoperability, and also some work on a shared vocabulary through the registry

Joerg encourages Takuki to contribute to the plans for the plugfest, e.g. updating the wiki page over the next few days

Soumya: do you want Louay and me to update the wiki page or to use email?

Joerg: the current practice document in github

The wiki is more about what people are individually planning

Joerg: this is for everyone to contribute to

Kaz: a quick question on the plugfest - I wonder if anyone wants to try using EXI encoding?

Daniel: it definitely sounds interesting, lets discuss this further

Working Group Charter status

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

<inserted> scribenick: kaz

dsr: material on github

joerg: will you share the screen?

dsr: have been collecting ideas on the github wiki
... scripting, biding, thing description
... idea on scope vs. out-of-scope
... have put into the HTML format for charters

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

dsr: we have the structure
... myself and kaz will be the proposed contacts to be approved
... there is yellow/red text at Scope
... we need to define what to do
... attempted to do so for Thing Description
... (showing the github HTML and github wiki in parallel)
... checked with Soumya and Oliver
... Louay also provided some text
... what the proposed API will do
... proposed plan is to get clear idea what to do and what do avoid
... so that we can get stronger proposal by the Montreal meeting

soumya: we decided the work will go into TD and Scripting API
... here we don't have much about that
... jointly discuss TD and AP
... Dave, Kaz and myself discussed during the DI call
... the working group draft Charter is not very clear about DI
... how can you interact with all the aspects
... we should focus discovery aspect as well

joerg: ok

jhund: would be good to have discussion on bullet points on the wiki vs the text on the HTML
... which text on the left side (=HTML version) covers which part of the wiki
... any good proposals?

dsr: email would be a good starting point
... we can move on using GitHub issues

joerg: a bit concerned about the consistency
... maybe we should have the draft charter and confirm the points on the wiki are covered by the HTML
... if there are any missing points, we need to check them

dsr: need to include "Issue:" text
... we need richer interaction for discussion
... the source wiki document was unclear for the Charter
... had clarification discussions with colleagues

jhund: maybe we could put IDs for each point

dsr: sounds like an action item for somebody

jhund: can update the document

joerg: any comments/questions?

dsr: with this new HTML version of the Charter, we expect some normative specs and no-normative ones
... on the right side (=original wiki) the description was unclear

joerg: on the right side (=wiki) wasn't there description?
... questions are, we need to have a consistent charter with the wiki
... the wiki has scope/out-of-scope/delivelables sections
... that would be question 1
... question 2 is security/privacy topics
... distributed over the building blocks
... not that focused what we need to achieve
... in the left HTML document, what's in-scope and what's out-of-scope
... protocol mapping would be cross cutting points
... you have to understand each topic should be covered
... privacy and discovery should be also covered
... can we have sub section of 2.1?
... clear building blocks which correspond bullet points

dsr: number of separate specs
... which deliverable corresponds to security/privacy?
... what is the best way for refactoring?

kaz: maybe we might want to copy all the bullet points to the HTML as is
... and then start structural edits next?

dsr: wouldn't be very productive way...

joerg: starting with section 1 Scope
... and see if all our points are covered
... also may ask Oliver and Soumya to check security portion
... security/privacy captured in the scope section or not?
... ask for comments following up the f2f discussion
... would ask you see if there is any open points in the GitHub document within 2 weeks
... especially on the scope at section 1

dsr: sounds reasonable
... but we need to clarify what people really are thinking

<Soumya> Kaz, can you assign me a work item related to the points Joerg mentioned

joerg: would like to start with the open points people think in the scope section

<scribe> ACTION: soumya to review the HTML version of the draft charter to see if there are any open points esp. in the scope section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/03-wot-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-33 - Review the html version of the draft charter to see if there are any open points esp. in the scope section [on Soumya Kanti Datta - due 2016-03-10].

<Soumya> Thanks Kaz

dsr: and check what's missing

joerg: ok
... starting point for the draft charter
... and would make you aware of the f2f meeting agenda on the wiki

<dsr> There is a lot of missing context to the work items and hidden issues

Montreal f2f

-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting_2016,_April,_11th_-_13th,_Montreal,_Canada montreal f2f wiki

joerg: preparation day for plugfest
... Sunday afternoon
... and on Monday, combination of OpenDay/Plugfest
... Tuesday/Wednesday IG meeting
... please put your input/comments on the wiki
... very much focus on TFs
... we might have some blocks in the afternoon, Tuesday
... current practice/architecture documents
... editing comments for them would be welcome
... please feel free to put your comments on the wiki
... next web conf call will be Wed., Mar. 16
... is that OK with you?
... completing the IG before the Montreal f2f

kaz: we need to work for brief extension of the IG for that
... because the current charter expires a the end of this month

joerg: ok

soumya: what would be the time for the next call?

joerg: Wednesday call will be 2pm CET
... will update the wiki
... any other comments/questions?

(nothing)

[ adjourned ]