<kaz> scribenick: dsr__
Lagally: we should talk about the liaison statement ...
Sebastian: where are we in respect to the publication of the updated Architecture WD?
<kaz> WoT Architecture is ready
He shows the draft, Kaz is on the job for this and the other documents
Kaz: I've checked the documents, but think we need a little more time and aim for publication next Tuesday
<kaz> WoT Thing Description has a remaining issue
The WoT Use Cases call is rather too early for some people, and we are looking for another slot
Sebastian: please respond to the doodle poll
Lagally: we should consider alternating the slots to enable participation from people in widely spread time zones
Sebastian: we tried that in the past but it was a bit confusing
Daniel: I agree with that
Sebastian: the use cases call is every 2 weeks, right?
Lagally: yes. If we can't find a
single slot that works for all, we should consider the alternating
approach
... lets set the poll deadline to the end of this week
The revised patent policy - we have a chance to decide whether to keep the old one or move to the new one?
Sebastian: I will check with my
company's lawyers to get their insights
... we need to hear from others ...
McCool: we don't have to adopt the new policy, it involves work to do so, and perhaps the easiest option is to stick with the old policy unless we have a pressing need to change
Sebastian: agreed
Kaz: the chairs need to respond to the questionnaire for each WG, if we do decide to switch policies we will need to recharter
Sebastian: that makes sticking with the old policy attractive
If any company needs to change to the new policy, please let us know
Lagally: is there a diff marked version for the two policies?
Sebastian: yes
Kaz: this should have been in the AC Members email from May 2020
<inserted> diff between PP2017 and PP2020 (member-only)
Kaz: we're still waiting on Wendy Seltzer
Lagally: shows the draft statement
We haven't yet looked at all the ITU-T SG20 documents as yet. I will upload the relevant documents to make them easier for us to review
Lagally: do we make the liaison documents public?
Sebastian: kaz can you clarify?
Kaz: we usually forward the liaison document to the public list, but we can check with the ITU-T in this case
Lagally: who will do the check? The chairs or me?
Kaz: I will look after this
<kaz> Nov-11
Sebastian shows the minutes ...
Any objections to making them public? [no]
Sebastian: let's also check the minutes from our TPAC meetings. Please take a look.
Kaz: the task forces should review the minutes from their perspective
<kaz> vTPAC
Sebastian: we can then approve them at next week's main call
The IETF had a meeting on JSON Path and JSON Schema, anyone attend?
Koster summarises the discussion and how it relates to our use cases. The take away is that we need to provide our use cases for their review.
McCool: do we have a contact we can reach out to?
Koster: Carsten is the best advocate I think
McCool: Okay, we can discuss this and identify the important use cases for JSON Path
JSON Path could be quite ubiquitous in our applications
Koster: Two issues: 1) the syntax for paths, and 2) what's the expected result
McCool: we need to look beyond discovery and also discuss this in a TD call
Koster: Carsten wrote an initial
draft for discussion in the IETF
... the other IETF meeting I attended was JSON Schema in relation
to hackathons
<McCool> https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/100 - issue to capture JSONPath requirements
some discussion relating to enum and AnyOf
Koster: I advocated for the IETF spec to cover events and actions as well as properties given that that is important to the W3C WoT useage
some more people to support this would be helpful, the next ASDF meeting is Dec 14/15
Koster: I will attend the CBOR meeting. There is some near final discussion on resource directories
McCool: we got some feedback from CIM group on use of SAREF and SOSA
Two different binding conventions for properties, some challenges with subclassing
we asked if there are any best practice guidelines
we may want to produce a WG Note on that
Some discussion about continuing involvement: as W3C Member, as invited experts or via liaison, kaz to look into that
McCool: we need to figure out the purpose of the next call with them
Kaz: as I mentioned during the joint call itself, I think it would be better to establish the liaison between IEC TC57 and WoT first
They were certainly interested in using SSN/SOSA
We could ask Victor
Koster: who are the users for SAREF?
McCool: distributed energy grids was the big use case
I think the work is still at a proposed standard level
David: listening to McCool, I strongly recommend keeping actions and events as they are really useful abstractions, e.g. for node-wot and node-red
Koster: that's a super good point, so thanks
Today we have folks from the Linked Building Data in the TD TF
On Dec 9: meeting with the APA WG
Still looking for a slot for meeting with the Spatial Data on the Web IG
McCool: the OGC want to be part of the same meeting and suggest a 2 hour long call
any objections? [no]
Kaz: I am checking with who want to attend from their side
McCool: let's try for December 10
we can then work on the agenda
Koster: one more report, we're working with folks on the SDF language and some other things
<McCool> already an issue for SDWIG/OCG meeting, let's continue to use that: https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/939
Koster: including SI units and inconjunction with the OCF
Koster can't attend today's TD call, so we can discuss this next week
Sebastian: anything important to share from the task forces?
Please look at the proposed new web pages and provide your feedback
<dape> https://w3c.github.io/wot-marketing/
we want to synchronise the release of the web pages and the WoT video
Siemens and Bosch working on a new editing project - I will introduce that in the marketing call
Kaz: we could talk about Ege's new testing code, WoTest, in the next hour (Plugfest slot)
<kaz> [main call adjourned; Testing call will start 10mins past the hour]