Meeting minutes
Agenda
<kaz> agenda for today
Lagally: shows the agenda
minutes check from last meeting
https://
any comments, wishes, objections?
no
<kaz> approved
new time slots
<kaz> doodle for Architecture
<kaz> doodle for Profile
new time slot for Arch call will be every Wednesday 1pm, CET
<kaz> Main call RESOLUTION: profiles at 7am ET on Wed (one hour before main call) (chairs call will be moved an hour earlier), architecture will use only the second hour of the current slot, so will be at 6am ET on Thursday.
<kaz> main call resolution
<mlagally__> UTC times: Profile call: each Wednesday, Noon 12:00
<mlagally__> Architecture: every Thursday, 11am UTC
Lagally: we can close the doodle polls
WoT Architecture
https://
Issue 674
Lagally: use cases document should be reviewed and align terminology
… also see https://
Issue 617
Lagally: what is the status about the Binding issue?
Issue 617 - Review Chapter 8.7 in relation to Binding Templates 4.1
Ege: there are some discussions about the media types
… should be not under the protocol binding section
<kaz> i/use case document should/subtopic: Issue 674/
Lagally: lets move section 8.7.3 to 8.8
<kaz> 8.7.3 Media Types
<kaz> 8.8 WoT System Components and their Interconnectivity
Ege: agree
Lagally: will create an issue https://
<mlagally__> https://
Ege: Form elements in binding template should be removed or removed from the architecture
Ege: can be moved to the hypermedia section
Lagally: can you find a good place where to move to?
Ege: I can have a look /github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/675//github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/675 /https://
Lagally: is there additional terminology needed for binding spec?
https://
Lagally: we have already content type, should be enough
Ege: Im agree, people know content type very well. MIME Type is old name
<kaz> i/use cases document should/subtopic: Issue 674/
Lagally: close issue https://
<kaz> s|i/use case document should/subtopic: Issue 674/||
Lagally: what is the status about the 'Relationship between "8.7 Protocol Bindings" and "9.5 WoT Binding Templates"'
https://
new issue provided by Ben in protocol binding repo https://
Lagally: keep this issue open and revisit again
Kaz: would remind we need to think about the updated schedule on spec alignment, publication blockers and other features
Lagally: let's discuss that later as a separate agenda item
PR contributions
also see https://
Lagally: no time to review them all
… let's do this next week
Sebastian: if there are PRs that was already agreed on in the calls we can directly merge without spending time again in the calls
ML merges PR https://
WoT profile
requirements
ML recaps the requirements that were presented in a slide set
<mlagally__> https://
Lagally: what does it mean oppose?
Ben: it's not saying that other people shouldn't have this requirement. in general, those requirements are more seen as goals.
Ben: we should focus on goals where is a consensus
… there is also an issue about profile requirements: https://
Lagally: Cristiano's feedback should be updated in the slides as well in the next call
<kaz> Issue 156 - Profile requirements
Ben: in last call you asked people to respond to the issue and you want to split this into lots of seperate issues. What's the purpose?
Lagally: I want to refine or rework on the requirements
Lagally: lets ask Michael McCool again about the Ambiguities requirement which he seems to oppose
ML updates the MD file about the profile requirements https://
Lagally: we should not exclude any protocols.
Sebastian: a profile should pre-define a specific protocol or a set protocols. in the second case it should be clear when to use the protocols in which case.
Ben: forms can have multiple protocols. Eg., http binding also have WebSocket protocol.
Sebastian: what happen if you have multiple forms with the same protocol like http. You don't know which belongs to the profile implementation.
ML records comments in the https://
:-)
[adjourned]