<McCool> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#27_Feb_2019
<kaz> scribenick: mlagally
<kaz> scribenick: kaz
Lagally: had a call today on
workshop
... we split the "how to participate" information from the main
CfP
... Kaz is adding information on EasyChair submission
Kaz: will check the options to handle mutiple paper types (position paper/statement)
Lagally: pc members to be fixed by the end of this week
Kaz: if it takes longer to get confirmation, we can add them (additional pc members) later
Lagally: we'll get back to all next week
<scribe> scribenick: mlagally
mmc to avoid confusion enter the calls in your calendar based on US Eastern Time
McCool: next week the main call will
be at the same time, the week after one hour earlier
... I can send around calendar entries to the members list, which
includes the call information
<kaz> Kaz's message on the WG onboarding info (Member-only)
(Lagally has problem with WebEx connection and rejoins)
<inserted> kaz: explains the onboarding information site
McCool: is there a list for publication schefule
Kaz: we can add that kind of information and want that kind of feedback
... please respond to my email on the WoT WG Members list (URL above)
McCool: btw, there's our home page and a landing page but the landing page has old information
<kaz-win> WoT landing page
Lagally: we should fix this asap - It mentions "W3C started standardising ..."
McCool: we can rewrite the first
paragraph
... I will draft some introduction section - we should discuss in
next call and replace the content afterwards
TAG review - Push to Friday next week before sending it to TAG
McCool: this would be worst
case
... Chairs (Matthias and me) need to prepare transition documents.
Editors need to draft an explainer about the documents.
(Architecture and Thing Description)
Lagally: What about the other documents (Binding and Scripting)?
Kaz: Only normative documents require wide reviews.
Lagally: Architecture document references
Binding and Scripting spec.
... are they also to be reviewed?
Kaz: We can reference stable documents
McCool: if documents have not been published, this may be a concern
Kaz: This will be checked, when we do the review
McCool: we need to make sure that we
push out up to date documents
... in the CR review we need to have up to date document for all
informative documents
Lagally: do we have a template for the explainer document?
<kaz> example of TAG review request
<kaz> example of explainer document
McCool: yes, see the TAG review issue above.
... ideally we have editors drafts
by Wednesday, March 6th - chairs will submit to TAG by Friday March
8th.
Lagally: We only have a architecture call
on Thursday, would prefer to review in Architecture call on
Thursday
... we can have a draft by Tuesday and consolidate until
Thursday.
Kaz: concrete date when the TAG review for our specs will start is not yet decided.
... If have our expected dates in our mind, we can negotiate the deadline with them
McCool: Other groups need to review that as well.
Kaz: I think we also need reviews by i18n, Accessibility, JSON-LD, etc.
... documents don't have to be final.
McCool: CR deadlines are optimistic. Sebastian, are you also ok?
Sebastian: we still have many issues -
realistically the open issues won't be covered by next week
... do we freeze a version or can we do changes during review
McCool: you can make changes, but
ideally only minor changes
... JSON-LD question should be addressed before TAG review
... minor things can still change
Kaz: Sebastian (TD) and Lagally (Architecture) should start explainer, I've already talked with the TAG Contact and raised a heads-up but will talk with him again when we're ready
McCool: Explainer can be high level enough to still permit structural change
Kaz: and regarding what and when to get wide reviews (including the TAG review), I'd talk with Philippe and Yves again
Lagally: architecture has moved to
Thursday time slot
... we did not have a call since last week. We had text updates
from Matthias since then, some updated figures. I created a PR
yesterday, will have another one today
Sebastian: we still have to clarify the situation around JSON-LD, this will be a topic in the call on Friday
Kaz: I talked with Ivan Herman, the Team Contact for the JSON-LD WG. We need to ask them for a wide review. Perhaps they can join a TD call or our email discussion
Koster: no specific update on binding - plan to have an extended explainer, hope to have the update soon
McCool: need an up to date document when we go to review
Koster: yes, it is important, will work on it in the next two weeks
Zoltan: we discussed various options on the next API version - fetch platform vs. convenience APIs, constructors vs. factory methods. I made a terminlogy PR update
<zolkis> check slides 24-27
McCool: What about note publication prior to the TAG review?
Zoltan: Depends on how the discussion goes, we should allocate a day, since the 1 hour call is note enough
McCool: I created a PR and updated best
practices - wot best practices and testing document has not been
pushed out as a note.
... let's discuss the testing conversation in the next hour
... if you are interested, please join the plugfest call
Kaz: wrt TAG review - I'm not sure we need to have referred documents completely stable
McCool: "reasonably stable" would be
desirable
... editors version should be consistent, there should not be major
empty sections
Kaz: note that the latest published version of binding templates is very old
McCool: we should update the editors
drafts before the TAG review
... we should publish them as notes prior to CR transition
<sebastian> I have to go
<kaz> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/343
Lagally: what is the TAG review checking?
Kaz: document structure, basic architecture, design policy, etc.