<kaz> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#20_Mar_2019
<kaz> scribenick: mjkoster
McCool: doodle poll for workshop PC meeting
<kaz> scribenick: kaz
Koster: there will be a f2f meeting
next week in Philadelphia
... will put slides on GitHub
... interaction afforadance, etc.
... definition of one data model should be high level
... neutral format
... JSON-LD, RDF, etc.
... using JSON-LD 1.1 for future purposes
... will promote those points
... bringing more IoT stakeholders
https://github.com/mjkoster/ODM-Examples this is the contribution I made to One Data MOdel
McCool: Dan Brickly involved?
Koster: no
... people from our community are invited, though
... wanted to make sure what we'll come up with
... good thing is a lot of oneM2M presence there
... they're also working kind of high-level work too
... getting those folks involved is important
... neutral format and ontology
... event, action and property for interworking
McCool: we can talk about that the week after
Koster: ok
<scribe> scribenick: mjkoster
McCool: we have less time than we
expected
... the 18th is too late and we would miss the June 30 deadline
to publish
... we need to submit the TD to TAG this Friday
... CR transition is two weeks after that
... this is a hard date and there is no more room in the
schedule
... we can overlap the wide review and TAG review
... The architecture document is not ready at all, we can wait
until Monday to start TAG review
... the good news is that the explainers are mostly done
... we should prioritize the TD explainer to get done by
Friday
<inserted> kaz: the contents of the explainer documents look good but the latest PRs should be merged for review.
<inserted> mm: right. for TD, we should review it during the TD call on Friday.
Lagally: we should try to conclude the Architecture explainer at tomorrow's call
McCool: the explainer is good to go,
but the document needs more work
... we need to globally prioritize TD review
... good if we can start arch review on Thursday
Kaz: can we confirm the schedule with the editors?
Taki: we need to clarify the
outcome of the JSON-LD joint call
... we already know what we will need to do
McCool: is there a PR ready to go?
Taki: not yet
McCool: understanding is that the
JSON-LD feature was accepted and we can go forward with JSON-LD
1.1
... we really have no choice, Friday is a hard deadline to
submit to TAG
Lagally: on the architecture
document, we have 20 open issues and adding another one
... chapters 7-10 need significant work
... it's not going to be easy and maybe not possible
... very challenging
McCool: sat down and sketched out the
changes
... there is an issue of definition of runtime and
security
... also other logical inconsistency and language ambiguity
Lagally: we could have the discussion first in the architecture call tomorrow
Kaz: we can propose the schedule today and finalize it in the architecture call tomorrow, and for TD on Friday
McCool: willing to work over the
weekend and need to make sure we're all in agreement
... we can go one hour longer on Thursday at the TD call
... try to free up our schedules to work on this over the next
few days
Lagally: propose adding one additional hour on Thursday, Friday, and Monday
McCool: we can re-use the scripting and security slots on Monday or have a joint call
Lagally: concerned that it may be a new topic in the scripting call and generate new questions
McCool: we can use the time Monday to sync up and make the final decision
<mlagally> mlagally: we should try closing on all major issues by tomorrow
McCool: to summarize, we can add the extra hour to TD and arch calls and sync up on Monday at the scripting call
Zoltan: we can use the scripting call for the architecture discussion on Monday to sync up
McCool: then we can use the security
call slot on Monday as well
... will join the scripting call
<kaz> FYI, scripting time on March 25 (7am EDT): https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20190325T110000&p1=137&p2=75&p3=43&p4=136&p5=195&p6=101&p7=1892&p8=33&p9=235&p10=248
<McCool> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/130
McCool: the spec says that the WoT
runtime is required
... but it may or may not be implemented with the scripting
API
... there are 3 diagrams proposed
to explain the building blocks that make runtime and scripting
separately optional
Zoltan: this looks good
Lagally: why do we show consumed thing?
McCool: runtime is a container for
running an application
... also contains the thing objects
... maybe we can use "language runtime"
<mkovatsc> I want to comment that I never made the statements Michael mentioned
Zoltan: it may be confusing to have the "runtime" apply to both scripts and objects
McCool: the object is visible to the
application as an interaction abstraction
... in the runtime
<zolkis> it may be confusing to use the same terms ExposedThing and ConsumedThing for Runtime objects and Scripting objects
Matthias: the software object should be the contract between the application and WoT
Lagally: it should be in the servient implementation chapter
McCool: this comes up from looking at the required elements including security, interactions, protocol bindings
Lagally: why is exposed thing, consumed thing here?
Zoltan: they are required in an implementation
<mlagally> mlagally: these are implementation aspects and should be in the servient chapter
<kaz> (kaz just wanted to suggest we talk about the details on runtime definition tomorrow during the architecture call)
McCool: we need to close the call soon so will continue the discussion in the architecture call
<McCool> Kaz's message on the JSON-LD WG resolution (Member-only)
<McCool> TD's issue with JSON-LD 1.1 on the json-ld-api repo (issue 65)
<McCool> JSON-LD WG call minutes
Kaz: Victor and Kaz attended the
JSON-LD meeting and discussed issue #65
... the resolution is that JSON-LD will add container and index
as we need
... the outcome is that we can refer to JSON-LD 1.1
McCool: so we will be able to have a JSON serialization of the TD and a JSON 1.1 serialization
Kaz: we may include JSON 1.0 also at the editors discretion
McCool: someone needs to make a PR for these changes
Kaz: taki, sebastian, and victor should discuss and implement
Taki: have started the conversation
McCool: binding templates?
Koster: will update the document before Monday
McCool: scripting API?
Zoltan: plan to publish before the charter runs out
McCool: what is the date for the CR transition request?
Kaz: it depends on the volume of
TAG's feedback
... the explainer documents are getting ready. now we need to
submit our review requests to TAG, and talk with them about the
schedule.
McCool: AOB?
Lagally: please look into the issues on the Arch document and help resolve by tomorrow's meeting
McCool: only have 30 minutes for the testing call
Kaz: let's start the test call in 5 mins
McCool: adjourned