<McCool> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#16_Jan_2019

<kaz> scribenick: zolkis

Workshop updates

<kaz> draft Call for Participation page

McCool: update about the workshop

Sebastian: gives the workshop details
... contributions are welcome: diagrams, slides

McCool: do we have a f2f session to discuss the CFP?

Sebastian: there is an initial draft

architecture

<kaz> current architecture draft

Lagally: we had a meeting recently, discussing the architecture draft, improvements needed
... Panasonic has proposals for requirements, Oracle has proposals for new use cases
... deadline next week for further input
... this is for the first round of changes
... new proposals for smart cities and smart buildings
... target is mid-March for a new draft with aligned input
... the terminology section will also be improved

Lagally: next merge is next week Wednesday, so please make PR's until then
... making clear that in a new PR create a new section and put your name as comment

one data model (brought up by M. Koster)

Koster: the one data model came out from a meeting with Zigbee Alliance
... there are a lot of device types (battery operated, etc)
... last meetup was last November, got a big attendance
... there was a prioritization discussion, common data model was important
... OCF intentions are neutral
... the target is a common data model, normalization, etc, similar to the early WoT discussions
... there is a questions about scope: cloud, device, gateway, home, etc
... Google wants to prioritize device to device communications
... there are many viewpoints
... candidates for model considerations include Zigbee, OCF, BLE Mesh, Weave, HomeKit etc
... criteria include maturity, extensibility, existing deployments, number of device types covered etc
... should explain to this group what WoT is doing

McCool: we should figure out whom to talk with and when

Koster: we should allow them figure out what should be their data model

McCool: right, we are standardizing how to describe data models, not what data models should be
... we need to discuss this during the F2F, let's create a slot for this

Koster: we should summarize what are the best qualities of the models, and figure out common serializations
... Google wants something higher level and with more abstractions
... others want simple things
... see also iot.schema.org

Liaisons

McCool: ITU sent material about smart cities; will reflect later

<kaz> ITU-T liaison letter (member-only)

McCool: next TPAC 16-20 September 2019, Fukuoka, Japan

F2F

<sebastian> f2f wiki

McCool: please do register even if attending remotely
... Open Day schedule needs discussion
... probably Matthias cannot make the F2F
... maybe Sebastian could do the introduction

Sebastian: maybe Kajimoto-san could do it?
... but could be as a backup

McCool: what's the fallback plan for NIST
... (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
... breakout sessions: each group should explain recent changes and schedule for completion
... will have implementation report after the test fest
... by next week WG meeting please update the sections

TD report

<kaz> latest TD draft

<kaz> diff from the published WD

Sebastian: TD is updated from the issues
... move the defaults to the serialization part: finish this by Friday
... there are small editorial stuff as well
... we consider adding two more editors: Michael McCool (security) and Victor Charpenay (model, ontology)

McCool: any objections?

no objections heard

McCool: the group accepts this; thanks for the appreciation

RESOLUTION: Michael McCool and Victor Charpenay added as editors to the Thing Description spec

Sebastian: please check the TD spec and report bugs

Ege: will update JSON schema part

MCCool: validation procedures and tooling will be discussed in the next hour
... test plan will be discussed

Kaz: concerned about the big changes in the current updated draft
... of the TD spec
... the change is quite big from implementation PoV

Sebastian: this comes from the Lyon F2F, JSON-LD 1.1 compliance was not clarified
... we cannot really make the statement we'd be compatible with JSON-LD 1.1, since there are open issues
... so we try to be close to JSON-LD 1.1, but we cannot say we are compatible
... we make the JSON-LD transformation explained in section 6

Kaz: if the JSON-LD 1.1 becomes stable enough then we can refer to it; perhaps we should ask W3C management's advice

Sebastian: we could only say the TD is close to JSON-LD 1.1
... Victor will take care of tracking this and updating the TD spec

McCool: let's track this in an issue

Kaz: I think I myself can understand the situation, but would like feedback from implementors and advice from W3C management

Testfest

McCool: any input on test fest?

Koster: will attend the meeting and will update

McCool: what are the gaps
... for instance security schemes etc
... just use as many features as we can and try to identify the gaps
... expect node-wot fully documented
... other requirements? please edit the F2F page

scripting

<inserted> scribenick: kaz

Zoltan: something on scripting
... Daniel is not available, so won't put the proposal today

<zolkis> issue #158: https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/158

Zoltan: but there is a discussion on issue 158 as above
... the current spec is not good for browser-based implementation
... during the scripting call, we had discussions
... still waiting for input

<zolkis> https://gist.github.com/zolkis/555441aebe1874392a00be50a8228f91

Zoltan: maybe we can have discussion during the f2f as well
... would like to get advice from W3C management about API design
... browser vs runtime

McCool: let's make this an agenda item for the next meeting
... would prioritize this topic next week

<inserted> scribenick: zolkis

McCool: let's talk about this next week
... and on the F2F
... we are over time, need to switch to next call

meeting adjourned