See also: IRC log
<kaz> matthias: status of the type system?
<kaz> dape: discussion on the list and need to get converged
<kaz> scribenick: victor
<kaz> agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/IG_WebConf#Agenda_of_next_WoT_IG_WebConf:_25_May_2016
Matthias: Agenda: 1. quick updates (F2F, type system)
2. Charter review
<kaz> f2f wiki
<Yingying_> The venue is vision hotel, next to Beihang University campus
Yingying: venue is Vision hotel, next to Beihang University campus
participants need to fill a form (link to add to https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_July_2016,_China,_Beijing)
<kaz> Vision Hotel Beijing
<Yingying_> https://www.w3.org/Member/wiki/WoT/WoT_F2F_201607
<kaz> Vision Hotel Beijing
Kaz: 2 questions: 1. http://www.visionhotelbeijing.com/, is this the right hotel?
Yingying: indeed.
Kaz: open day, open to non-members also?
<Yingying_> https://www.w3.org/Member/wiki/WoT/WoT_F2F_201607
Johannes: more generally, procedure for open day, if we'd like to propose speakers?
Yingying: hosts will take care of
that. They also have their own invited speakers.
... I'll do the intermediary.
There is an informal agreement that the more speaker we have, the better.
<dape> https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/proposals/type-system
Daniel: three proposals. JSON Schema is the best so far.
There are a few pending issues but we'll start to integrate the outcome of this task to the current practice document.
Kaz: handling of number precision?
Daniel: JSON Schema allows: integer, min, max, float. No way to say e.g. [0.1, 0.2], though
Kaz: should discuss the details at the F2F.
Matthias: JSON Schema is still a draft. We should take advantage of this to drive the standard in a direction that suits us.
Michael: what about payload formats?
Daniel: it is embedded in the TD. No name for the value type, no URI.
<michael> ack
Michael: An example of a whole TD should be shown for the sake of clarity.
Kaz: TD object model should be compatible with existing data model. What about mappings to e.g. C struct? Exhaustive analysis needed.
Taki: there is also CSV, flat files. How to link to existing definitions?
<michael> There are also some JSON template languages that have substitution features
<mkovatsc_> http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-ig-2016.html
IG Charter. How to proceed? One person responsible for a specific section, in charge of reviewing and merging PR.
important point: deliverables. Will reach out individual people for that.
<kaz> automotive wg charter
we need to fix dates. Precise dates are needed? For instance: mid-June is enough?
Kaz: even per quarter is fine.
Kajimoto: review round could start now for the Architecture document.
Kaz: specific point: difference between semantic model (IG deliverable) and TD?
Matthias: will make a proposal to explain that.
For the editors of the charter itself: one person responsible for each of the following sections: introduction, scope, deliverable?
Kajimoto: about semantic models/APIs: is a never-ending work. Proposal: have this deliverable only in a second step.
<k_nimura> q
(after the WG is launched)
Matthias: agree. This should be clealry explained below in the section.
Kaz: what about splitting it in two subections (short-term/long-term)?
<k_nimura> i'm trying to talk
Matthias: agree, had the same proposal.
<k_nimura> which document would deal TD and DI discussion in IG?
Nimura: which document would deal TD and DI discussion in IG?
Matthias: Current Practice document, from my point of view.
<k_nimura> i see
<k_nimura> yes.
<kajimoto> Yes, too!
To recap: use issues to review and comment on the current version of the IG charter.
<mkovatsc_> http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-wg-2016.html
Matthias: links have been updated. Terminology on the figure has been updated. Remaining TODO on privacy.
I propose to remove it. We already have a security item. Oliver Pfaff to produce a text about "privacy by design".
deliverables are stable. Added WoT Test Cases
Test case already needed for the next PlugFest.
Kaz: the IG Charter figure about relationship WG <> IG should also appear in the WG Charter.
WoT Test Cases should be moved to section 3.2
Kajimoto: deliverables are TD, scripting API, protocol bindings. Might induce changes in the Architecture document. What about adding this document in the WG Charter?
Matthias: a standard document of that kind might be needed, that reflects the evolution in the other deliverables.
Johannes: W3C procedure on that?
Kaz: architecture document should be a W3C recommendation, indeed.
(section 3.1 - Normative)
Matthias: comments on the privacy item?
<k_nimura> related to the WoT test case, how to deal conformance ? how to prove something developed is fit to recommendation documents or interoperable each other? isn't it proper documents not like Other Deliverables?
Nimura: related to the WoT test case, how to deal with conformance ? Isn't it a proper document like other deliverables?
Kaz: difference between
conformance test (not in the scope of the W3C) and
implementation check suite.
... about privacy, we could simply merge security and
privacy.
Matthias: indeed. Oliver should write in the security section.
Kaz: back to implementation check: W3C provides a test framework (with a test runner). Exists for HTML5
Collaboration with the automotive group is possible regarding this.
Matthias: done with this topic. Again, please review.
<michael> I submitted a transfer layer proposal
Matthias: agenda items?
Kaz: Kajimoto to present the last status of the architecture?
<michael> OK good
Mathias: also status of the Current Practice document: type system, protocol bindings
Michael: proposal for an abstract transfer layer?
Matthias: should be part of an extra Web-conf (including Louay)?
Michael: fine
[ adjourned ]