WoT IG Conference

27 Apr 2016

See also: IRC log


Matthias_Kovatsch, Michael_Koster, Ari_Keranen, Daniel_Peintner, Frank_Reusch, Masato_Ohura, Masato_Ohura, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Sefki_Kolozali, Takuki_Kamiya, Victor_Charpenay, Sebastian_Kaebisch, kaz_ashimura, Yingying_Chen, Toru_Kawaguchi


<scribe> scribe: yingying

<mkovatsc> Maybe some are in a different WebEx?

<mkovatsc> The 2:30 CEST?

<mkovatsc> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=me9f16a4f569cc10028cd92ed566d0eb6

<mkovatsc> Correct access code: 645 704 477

<mkovatsc> Kaz where are you? :)

WoT Main Wiki Page Cleanup


Matthias: I cleaned up the wiki.

<mkovatsc> access code: 645 704 477

Matthias: about the Topic part, should we remove it? Does anybody use it?
... if not, can we remove it?

-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_Page#Topics

Matthias: another part is the interest group part:


scribe: can we have consensus on it?
... I will send email to the mailing group to check people's opinion.

Eclipse Virtual IoT Webinars

Matthias: it is on 16 Jun 2016. There should be interesting topic in the Webinar and the output would be useful for Beijing F2F meeting. I would like to put something by the google hangout and utube after the meeting.

IG re-charter

Matthias: Sebastian, could you update the status on it?

Sebastian: we should concentrate on the items we should address in the IG. My opinion is about what we should do in WG and what in IG?

<dape> Charter issue by Dave: https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/issues/67

<kaz_> draft IG charter

Sebastian: it should be very clear what they should do respectively. And the groups should work together.
... this kind of working way should be clear in the IG charter.
... and we should mention the new items we should do in future.
... we should also work together on the plugfest and evolution.
... there was also discussion how long the IG should be. Taki proposed it to last till 2017 TPAC.
... people who work on two groups should be aware we should work together.

Taki: Dave had a long list of discussion points. How IG will work with WG and other groups? I drew this picture to help people understand what IG will do.
... IG needs to work with WG and other groups. This will give people a picture how IG will work with other groups.
... how IG will work internally is not showed in the picture. It's also another item we need to discuss.

Sebastian: I like this picture.

Matthias: I have some comments. The spec should be reviewed by other SDOs. And for the input/suggestion, IG should be in a supporting role.

Ari: I have a similiar suggestion on the relationship between WG and SDOs. The WG should have direct link with other SDOs.

Victor: I propose that we add content of what the groups are working on in the picture.

Matthias: the lifetime of the IG.

Daniel: how could we reach out the external SDOs. Sometimes it is IG, sometimes it is WG. Would it be confusing to other SDOs?

Kaz: it might be better to separate the outside and internal part.
... the other SDOs could be moved to up-left and the other W3C groups could be much larger than now.

Matthias: should IG be the one connecting with the other SDOs?

[Kaz drew something on the picture]

Kaz: the interaction center to other SDOs should be the IG.

Daniel: it's easier for the external SDOs to interact with IG.
... not all the stuff we work on IG should go into WG. We explore new things in the IG.

Matthias: WG has the concrete specification. We need to get real feedback for the specification, not just try to reach out.

Kaz: yes that's true.

Matthias: 2 proposal on the collaboration with other SDOs. We would send to mailing list for more opinion.

<inserted> kaz: wondering about the difference between "Other SDOs" and "Interested parties". maybe could be one entity.

Ari: pretty confusing with the 2 groups. what is the role of one and the other, especially to external people.
... how to collaborate with other SDOs. I assume other SDOs would prefer to work with WG directly.
... if we would like to have IG do it, what is the reason?

Kaz: there is another possibility that the IG will be closed once the WG is launched.

Ari: that would be another reason to have the WG as the main contact point to other SDOs as IG will be closed earlier than WG.

Matthias: I would suggest to write down it as an ACTION for next call.

<kaz> [ kaz has just recorded the webex diagram. ]

Kaz: we should clarify the procedure for the charter work.
... we will use the github to do it but we chould agree on the procedure.

Matthias: there is no actual content yet. People can just use pull request to add content. People can add comments.

Kaz: maybe we should start with empty document first and add content through pull request.
... if and only if the proposal is approved, we can add it into the repository.

Sebastian: I am also very agree on it.
... should we send to mailing list for opinion or send out some tutorial on it.

Matthias: you can still propose something on the mailing list. Tutorial would be good for people to participate.

Sebastian: we need some person who can take care of it.

<kaz> [[

<kaz> - Starting with a template in GitHub that has only boilerplate, but no specific content.

<kaz> - Each topic of the charter is formulated in a draft and opens a pull-request.

<kaz> - We discuss each pull-request on GitHub, where we can comment on individual lines or give general feedback as comment on the PR.

<kaz> - The original author/editor updates the pull-request with new commits and only once we have consensus, we merge the charter topic.

<kaz> ]]

<mkovatsc> +1

<mkovatsc> - Comments on the mailing list are converted by [?W3C staff?] to GitHub comments and pull-requests

<inserted> kaz: can copy comments on the ML to the GitHub issue if some people are not sure about GitHub and prefer sending messages to the ML

Kaz: if everybody is OK with the policy, which repository we should use? web of thing repository?

Daniel: about moving the charter to the wot repository, I agree on it.
... how to make the move?

Kaz: github is just the editorial area. We can simply copy the charter from the charter area to wot area.
... if we copy the html file, we maybe could not copy the whole history and issue.

Matthias: we should be careful we do not lose any issue.

Kaz: do we really need to copy the history and issue for such short period?
... maybe we can simply copy the html and make pull request in the new area.

Plugfest preparation: TD: datatype in TD, complex type, restriction [Victor]

<victor_charpenay> https://github.com/vcharpenay/wot/tree/master/TF-TD/TD%20Extensions#datatypes

Victor goes through the document.

Victor: do you see any issue on this structure or anything missing?
... every body is encouraged to add comments on the document.
... we made some examples on the comparison of the different schema.
... we are currently modeling the schema. We encourage poeple to use JSON schema.

<SefkiKolozali_UniS_> What about OWL?

Daniel: JSON schema would be a better solution but your comments are welcom.

Victor: do you refer to data type definition?
... we want a very simple schema definition language.

Matthias: suggest to add what you want to do at the very beginning for people to add comments.
... do you have any timeline of it?

Victor: not really. by the end of this week, we will have an example to show you.

Matthias: by the end of this week, the document should be useful for people to comments. People could prepare comments for the next meeting. is that ok?

Victor: alright we will make it.

Plugfest preparation: TD/PB: (experimental) formal specification of the protocol binding and Test case specifications [Matthias]

Matthias: we have added the document to the github.
... the timeline is initial document will be ready on May 6th.
... the test case document update is not done yet.
... we have a document on github. On June 24 we have release candidate for online pre-testing.
... We will discuss the details offline.

Architecture update ("implementation view") [Matsukura-san/Nimura-san]

Kazuaki: we have no document to show today. currently I am working on the document. I can talk about it in next week.
... I am trying to update use case document as well.

Matthias: should I roughly schedule you in 2 weeks?

Kazuaki: yes please.

Matthias: let's discuss the agenda for next meeting. Victor should I add one item for you to update the schema proposal?

Victor: Yes.

Action Items

yingying: we would like to decide the venue in May and to have the network testing as early as possible after the hotel is decided.

Matthias: about the revised WG draft review, Kaz and Dave are not here. I will start the discuss in the mailing list.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/04/27 14:01:20 $