Call 1

Prev minutes

July-16

Lagally: (goes through the minutes)
... can we approve the minutes?

(no objections)

Lagally: approved

Schedule alternatives

Doodle poll

Lagally: will send a reminder to the whole group

Kaz: the results imply the current marketing slot would be the best
... let's talk about that during the marketing call today

Sebastian: yes, let's talk about that
... anyway, we need to search for a better slot for marketing

Lagally: tx!
... Sebastian, we need your input as well esp. for the profile discussion

Sebastian: ok

Profiles

Lagally: let's look into the issues

wot-profile issues

issue 7

Lagally: McCool's proposal to reduce number of goals or differentiate
... the common understanding so far is creating a single profile as a starting point
... (adds a comment to issue 7)

Sebastian: wondering if we could have more additional profiles
... the resolution made last week doesn't say "a single profile"

Lagally: right
... do we want to start with multiple ones?

Sebastian: we should clarify our point
... this is a baseline with one profile which provides a guideline
... and then how to extend it
... if people have some legacy mechanisms, don't have to follow that
... we should clarify which kind of use cases to be addressed by the "core profile"
... we should discuss that

Lagally: we should have more discussion about that during this Architecture call
... what the central points for interoperability
... starting with one core profile and think about extending it
... people can use the core profile as the basis

Sebastian: definitely agree to the idea of profiles
... but a bit concerned about how to deal with it
... we should be careful how to communicate with implementers outside W3C
... who are working on IoT based on the market needs
... might need to work on various different technologies
... what kind of protocol could be used for what, etc.
... should consider the actual benefit of having profiles
... would be better to provide multiple solutions

Lagally: completely agree
... we shouldn't exclude people working on MQTT, etc.
... if we support only one protocols, that would not be good
... we have to discuss the details and find a solution
... (shows the initial draft)

initial draft of wot-profile

Kaz: we can concentrate on the core profile for the FPWD
... and put the other possible profiles into "other expected profiles" section
... after getting consensus, we can move them one by one to the main body

Lagally: agree
... regarding issue 7 itself, it's asking us to reduce the number of the profiles
... and we've already reduced the number
... we have a consolidated requirements for profiles as well here

requirements.md

Lagally: (adds some more comments to issue 7)

Sebastian: seems to be reasonable

Kaz: Ben's last comment for issue 7 is kind of old (in 2019)
... so let's give this update and see his response

Lagally: ok
... let's keep this issue 7 open and see his response

Lagally's comments based on the discussion today

Issue 17

issue 17 - vocabulary not in TD context

Sebastian: Section 4.1.2.2 list a number of vocabulary (e.g., softwareRevision, loc_latitude,...) that are not mention in the TD specification yet.

section 4.1.2.2 of wot-profile draft

Sebastian: this is listed for the core profile
... but no new term is clearly defined

Lagally: we have practical knowledge based on our PlugFest efforts
... but the knowledge requires some baseline for interoperability

Kaz: regarding the terminology definition itself, we can start with listing undefined terms with "to be defined" :)
... e.g. softwareRevision: TBD

Lagally: (adds comments to issue 17)
... our intention is not to divere from the TD spec or define duplicate entities

Kaz: we can move the possible new terminology section to the Architecture draft or the TD draft later if needed
... but starting with listing necessary terms would make sense

Lagally: ok

Lagally's comments to issue 17 based on the discussion today

Lagally: we have to look into the Architecture issues as well
... now we can quickly skim the initial draft wot-profile

initial draft wot-profile

Lagally: (and then create another issue)
... profile is not exclusive
... add text that explains that the TD can be used without restriction for all purposes

Sebastian: we can discuss the detail for the issue next time

new issue 18

Lagally: would it be OK to use this initial draft as the basis of further discussion?

Sebastian: let's work on that so that we can publish the FPWD in September
... btw, I should be also part of the Editors to give updates

Lagally: tx!
... aob for today?

(none)

[call 1 adjourned]

---

Call 2

Prev minutes

July-16

Lagally: (goes through the minutes)

(no objections)

Profiles

<mlagally___> propsal: Use the current strawman document as the baseline for the Profile specification

RESOLUTION: Use the current strawman document as the baseline for the Profile specification

<mlagally___> proposal: Accepting the following requirements for the FPWD: Interoperability, Limit and reduce complexity, Eliminate ambiguities, Limit resource consumption, finite set of features and capabilities, follow security and privacy best practices subject to group feedback

RESOLUTION: Accepting the following requirements for the FPWD: Interoperability, Limit and reduce complexity, Eliminate ambiguities, Limit resource consumption, finite set of features and capabilities, follow security and privacy best practices subject to group feedback

<Mizushima> wot-profile issue 16

Lagally: adding co-Editors

McCool: fine to be added

Lagally: would merge PR16 as is right away
... we can add McCool and Sebastian later

McCool: ok

Issue 17

McCool: we should start with the main ontology
... the question is if we would limit extensions, e.g., do we want to let OneDM, etc., to be included in the profiles?

Lagally: have been working vocabulary from our PlugFests

McCool: we need to think more about testing side for the PlugFest work

Kaz: as I proposed during the first call, regarding this issue 17 from Sebastian itself, I'd like to suggest we clarify which term is defined and which is not
... and think about the concrete definition later

McCool: yeah, we should respond to Sebastian
... note that we should not fragment because a profile TD is still a valid TD
... we might want to define a limited frozen set of extension

Lagally's comment

Issue 8

Lagally: (adds a label of "defer to 2.0"and removed the "requirement" label)

[adjourned]