Meeting minutes
New timeslot
McCool: (goes through the doodle polls)
… regarding Architecture, let's wait a bit to get some more feedback
… on the other hand
… regarding Profile, the current WoT Chairs call slot would be the best
Kaz: ok
… will talk with McCool and Sebastian about a possible new slot for the Chairs call
… please send an announcement for that to the group list
… I'll talk with McCool and Sebastian based on that message
Lagally: what about the Architecture call?
… ok to have it one hour earlier then the new Profile slot (=current Chairs call; one hour earlier then the main call)
Kaz: Sebastian is not available at that time
… but I think we should him as well
… do you by chance have some more slots?
Lagally: could see some more additions
ACTION: Lagally to generate an updated doodle for Architecture
Lagally: ok
… now we have a resolution for Profile
<mlagally> Proposal: USe the time slot of the current chair's call (Wed, Noon UTC) for the future Profile discussions of the architecture TF
RESOLUTION: Use the time slot of the current chair's call (Wed, Noon UTC) for the future Profile discussions of the architecture TF
Minutes
Lagally: (goes through the minutes)
… looked into the publication blocker issues
… then discussion on "Out of the box interoperability"
… then timeline and next step
… will do my action to generate issues/MDs based on the discussion about "Out of Box Interoperability"
… any objections for the minute?
(none; approved)
Publication timeline
Lagally: we need to update the timeline
Kaz: we need to check the current status of all the normative specs during the week of Jan-10
Lagally: feature freeze for Profile by Jan 31
… Testfest timing would depend on the specs' status
… items 0-4 have already missed the deadlines, so need to be updated
… itms 5-9 also
Architecture
Issue 656
Issue 656 - Producer is missing in terminology section
Sebastian: we don't have definition for "Producer"
Lagally: any idea?
Sebastian: same as "Thing" or "Web Thing"
Lagally: probably we should describe what "produce" means as well, shouldn't we?
Ege: it would be good to distinguish between producer and Thing for the cases where a TD of a Thing is produced by some other entity
Lagally: would agree
Kaz: then maybe we should define what "expose" means as well
… I mean we should clearly define, "expose", "consume", "produce", etc.
… there is a possibility that we should identify which term would be better for which part
… e.g., avoid using "produce" and use only "expose" for Thing
Sebastian: we should see where we use the "expose" term too
Issue 657
Issue 657 - Illustration for differentiation between Thing model vs Thing
Lagally: have you wrongly committed your updates?
Sebastian: wrongly committed my changes directly
… can revert it if needed
Lagally: ok
… let's review the main branch draft directly then
… additional work for the expected image?
Sebastian: have one with German language
… it's nice to have but let's keep the note as is (without the image)
Toumura: there is a diagram within the TD spec
… can we reuse that?
Sebastian: that one is too much in detail
Kaz: is it possible for you to commit the German version diagram for a moment?
Sebastian: actually, that is authored by someone else, and I need to draw another one
… abstract version of the Figure 5 within TD
Lagally: it's good to have this kind of diagram
Sebastian: Toumura-san, can you work on that?
Toumura: yes
… can you provide the source file?
Kaz: there is an SVG version as well
Issue 661
Issue 661 - Need to have a description of a telemetry system topology in chapter 6
Lagally: related to the system topology
… can handle this
Sebastian: coming from a Thing?
… Consumer sending an event?
Lagally: should have discussion on eventing during the TD call
Kaz: do we really need to have so many descriptions on application domains and system topologies?
… if we want to have brief description within the section 5 (application domains) and the section 6 (system topologies)
Kaz: is telemetory meant to be part of section 5 application?
… if so, we can add it to section 5 and also add a link from it to the use cases document
Lagally: can add description to section "5. Application Domains" and link to the use case document
<Ege> I do have more comments, I will try to connect via phone
Sebastian: btw, I think we need to define "telemetry" within the terminology section
Lagally: ok
Issue 663
Issue 663 - Remove op value table from Arch Spec
Table 1 Well-known Operation Types for the Web of Things
Sebastian: surprised to see this table included in the Architecture spec because it's already included in the TD spec
Lagally: ok
… but the detailed table used within the Architecture spec too
Sebastian: should avoid duplication, and could be a link to the table within TD
Lagally: maybe a brief list of the op values can be included in the Architecture document
Kaz: ok with removing the table and adding a simple list instead to the Architecture spec
… but would suggest we compare section "8.6.2 Forms" from Architecture and section "5.3.4.2 Form" from TD a bit more
Lagally: (describes the history)
Ege: ok with put some sort of paragraph
… but if the section "8.6.2 Forms" from Architecture is normative, maybe we need to check the assertions from the table as well
… would cause maintenance issues as well
… so would avoid duplication
… could add link from Architecture to reference the table within TD
Lagally: no normative assertions here
Sebastian: would suggest not have the table itself within Architecture
… which op type to be used or which affordance should be described by TD
Lagally: can work on section "8.6.2 Forms" to simplify it
Kaz: there is a link for Table 1 saying "The well-known operation types for the Web of Things defined by this specification are given in Table 1."
… if we remove the table itself , we should change that sentence to "The well-known operation types for the Web of Things defined by the WoT Thing Description specification".
Lagally: ok
Toumura: abstract operation is defined by section 5
… so the section "8.6.2 Forms" should be simplified
… so agree to remove the table 1
Lagally: ok
… remove the Table 1 within "8.6.2 Forms" from Architecture
… then simplify the text as well
Issue 664
Issue 664 - Need to have a description of "virtual things" in chapter 6
Lagally: "Virtual Thing" term used within the use case proposed by Conexxus
Lagally: definition to be added for the term
Issue 666
Issue 666 - Need to have a description of "orchestration" deployment topologies in chapter 6
Lagally: definition for "orchestration" should be also added
Ege: we've been using the term itself
Sebastian's commit
<mlagally> removes arch-thing-bundling
Lagally: section "8.1.4 Intermediaries" is updated
Lagally: looks ok
… any concerns?
(none; accepted)
PR 654
Lagally: handling one more issue in addition to 632 and 634?
Sebastian: ah, right
Lagally: but there is some conflict
… (fixes the conflict)
(merged)
PR 655
Lagally: let's look at the paragraph
… replace the RFC2119 sentences to non-normative ones
… looks good
(merged)
PR 659
PR 659 - remove assertation arch-op-extension
(merged)
PR 658
PR 658 - WIP: Improve section structure
section 7 System Integration is now section 6.9
Lagally: need more review during the next call
… but would remove "WIP" mark for the review
… (removed "WIP" from the title of PR 658)
PR 660
PR 660 - editors note on telemetry
(merged)
PR 662
PR 662 - remove arch-uri-scheme
Sebastian: ok to remove it
Lagally: a question is whether TD should have constraint or not
Ege: have a PR for that
Kaz: URL?
<Ege> https://
Lagally: maybe that's something we can handle offline
… need another round of review
Spec alignment issues
Issue 626
Issue 626 - Explaining of WoT operations
Ege: not sure how this issue was opened...
Kaz: is this related to the Table 1 within "8.6.2 Forms"?
Lagally: right
… Ege and I will work together
PR 669
Kaz: does "entity" here include a human entity as well?
… as a starting point, this PR itself might be ok, but probably we need to walk through the whole Architecture spec and see what means what again
Use Cases PR 173
wot-usecases PR 173 - fixing image link in Industry 4.0
Lagally: the image within Sebastian's use case on Industry 4.0 to be fixed
2.4.2 Cross-protocol Interaction in Industry 4.0 Scenarios
<mlagally> fixed it now: https://
AOB
Sebastian: will send a summary message about the conclusion from the main call yesterday
… need to continue the discussion on Jan-12 next year
Lagally: tx
… the meeting is adjourned
… thanks a lot for your contributions
… happy holidays!
[adjourned]