See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribenick: Claes
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
<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
<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]