WoT Architecture

<kaz> scribenick: sebastian

minutes check from last times

<kaz> vF2F Day 1

goal of today's meeting to get resolution for the FPWD specs

Lagally: Checks the minutes from first vF2F day 1
... any changes needed?

no objections

<kaz> vF2F Day 2

Lagally: shows the minutes from second vF2F
... any objections?

no

Check latest Arch Spec Draft

Lagally: shows some new commits

https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/commits/master

Lagally: some paragraphs was deleted by accident
... this is now restored
... there was mistake about some place holder of the Thing Model. Its now removed

<inserted> restoring original content that was accidentially deleted in section 6.7

Lagally: did some respec fixes
... there are two PRs

PR 562

Cristiano: its about candidates for UI link types

Lagally: suggest not to consider this for the FPWD

<kaz> PR 563

Lagally: PR for including a changelog compared to the Arch 1.0
... any objections to merge this PR?

McCool: Im ok with it

no objections

is merged

<kaz> Changes from ver 1.0

<kaz> PR 528

PR https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/528

Lagally: suggest to postpone this to next call.

McCool: We can submit this to the BLD CG for review

<scribe> ACTION: sebastian send a email to the LBD CG group

<McCool> https://www.w3.org/community/lbd/

Issues

<kaz> Issue 545

<kaz> (closed)

<kaz> Issue 552

issue https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/552

this issue will be deferred

<kaz> Lifecycle intro text

Issue 551

Create introductory text that introduces the concepts from the succeeding chapters.

<kaz> Section 8.1

Lagally: what is your opinion about this?

McCool: would be good, but not possible today

<mlagally_> proposal: publish the current contents of the master branch on https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture as FPWD

Lagally: It is still okay to leave this as it is and use the specification as it is?

no objections

RESOLUTION: publish the current contents of the master branch on https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture as FPWD

Profiles

<kaz> fixing respec

<kaz> PR 51

overview of the PRs https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pulls

its about canonical json representation

<kaz> 5.3.1 Canonical TD representation

Sebastian: maybe we should replace "string" with "value"

Lagally: that is the reason why we need canonical representation that organize the order

McCool: This was also a topic in the joint JSON-LD call. Important topic
... its not a easy topic.

Lagally: should be synchronized with the JSON-LD group
... what should we do with it right now?

McCool: question if we want to have this in the profile spec

<inserted> scribenick: kaz

Sebastian: this is kind of related to TD
... general topic to be clarified
... so would postpone the discussion
... not good to be mentioned only here within the WoT Profile
... to be discussed for the Thing Description as well

Lagally: ok
... let's keep this open then

PR 52

Abstract

Lagally: (goes through the diff preview)

McCool: a couple of comments on possible "other" profiles
... name of the profile as ID
... saying "describe" is too strong here

Lagally: what would be good then?

McCool: e.g., "identify"

Lagally: so far there is only one profile here
... also we don't expect the FPWD of the WoT Profile defines everything

McCool: we need to decide if this is a single thing
... or just due to some constraint

Sebastian: it's concerning the first sentence
... problem with "Core" Profile
... saying "The WoT Profile Specification defines a WoT Core Profile, which enables out of the box interoperability among things and devices."

McCool: would be simpler to say "which defines..."

Lagally: ok

5.2 Protocol Binding

Lagally: (goes through the Note there)

<inserted> "The HTTP protocol binding is not meant to be exclusive"

Lagally: we don't mandate HTTP

McCool: but mandated by the user

Lagally: can update the first sentence of the Abstract

Sebastian: notification protocols

Lagally: if we mention subprotocols here, would it suffice?
... can easily add changes

Sebastian: ok

Kaz: wondering about the concrete text for the 2nd bullet point from the Abstract

McCool: ok with the current text of the bullet points *for the FPWD*

Kaz: ok

Lagally: (adds updates accordingly)

McCool: (proposes to say "specific subprotocols" for notification)

Lagally: done
... but we still have 3 more PRs

Sebastian: PR 48 can be closed

PR 48

Lagally: ok
... (adds a comment and close it)
... and then the final one

PR 50

Lagally: we don't mandate anything for other profiles

McCool: that's fine

Lagally: so if we apply the remaining two points, we can merge this PR
... would merge the PR itself first, and then apply the two remaining comments
... (merges PR 50 itself)
... (and then add edits for the remaining two comments)
... now we have an updated draft for publication :)
... but got another respec issue :(

<mlagally_> proposal: publish the current contents of the master branch on https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile as FPWD

RESOLUTION: publish the current contents of the master branch on https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile as FPWD

Shortname for 1.1 version publication

Kaz: regarding the shortname URL, the suggestion of Ralph and PLH was using "11" for ver 1.1
... so "wot-architecture11"
... these days that notation is the most common one

<sebastian> what about wot-architecture/v1.1

[adjourned]