Meeting minutes
Agenda
Lagally: want to talk about roadmap and timeline
… and then continue the requirements discussion
… incl definition of out-of-the-box interoperability
… would like to use issue tracker to resolve requirements point by point rather than opening general discussion
McCool: would like also give a status update on self-description - plan to resolve
minutes
Lagally: approval of minutes of previous call
McCool: changed the irc, so under wot-profile now
Lagally: typo fix; timeline and schedule; link to requirements on github (clean up of *'s)
Lagally: can we approve the minutes?
Lagally: hearing no objections... approved
roadmap
Lagally: pull out into powerpoint to edit...
<kaz> 1. clarify requirements
<kaz> 2. profile scope, identify gaps
<kaz> 3. contributions to resolve normative gaps
<kaz> 4. contributions to resolve informative gaps
<kaz> 5. publication of second working draft
<kaz> 6. plugfest/testfest
<kaz> 7. incorporate review feedback from 2nd WD review
<kaz> 8. publication of candidate recommendation
McCool: the schedule really can't be extended further; also, I suggest we make the requirements as narrow as possible
… KISS principle; the simpler the spec is, the easier it will be to get it done (and through wide review....)
Lagally: edits points on roadmap to add suggest durations
McCool: proposed schedule puts finalization of normative gaps around time of first plugfest
… so we could at least do some preliminary testing in that plugfest
Lagally: so end of March we should have a sync point
… then clean up some informative gaps
… and a second working draft around mid-May
McCool: note second test fest should focus on testing and generating an implementation report, which implies we need stable implementations a few weeks prior
McCool: need to keep things narrow to hit this
… so we would need to have 23 calls to empty the current prs
Lagally: well, some of these are obsolete and will go away
… we are doing a second loop
Lagally: but I hear you, you feel this is not realistic
McCool: suggest compromise where we use labels to identify easy cases, i.e. things that are obsolete, things that are not contentious (editorial)
Kaz: should be recall deadline of charter period itself
… and consider how long things should take; can go bottom up
… for example, if need to finalize normalize features, and only have 1mo, then we need to shorten requirements
McCool: note that for first plugfest I was only talking about initial testing, not full testing, which will not be feasible
requirements
Lagally: had a presentation Dec 16
<mlagally_> wot-usecases PR 156 - Insert digital-twin-use-case.md and use-case-opc-ua-binding.md into index.html
Lagally: see also issue #156
… profile requirements
McCool: still think o-of-the-box-interop is primary requirement, the rest are supporting
Lagally: let's defer that discussion
Lagally: disagreement about some requirements, e.g. human readability
McCool: I also disagree that this should be a requirement
Lagally: let's then create an issue to capture input on that offline
Sebastian: also a minus... have discussed this in the past
Lagally: now developer guidance
McCool: for "multiple profiles", is a bit confused; one TD supports more than one?
McCool: my main concern with both multiple and composable are future extensions; for now we should focus on just one
Sebastian: current mechanism for TD already allows for selection from a set of profiles
McCool: so is a requirement, but already satisfied
McCool: also composable only makes sense if there are multiple profiles
… but this is about the *mechanism* to support more than one, and I agree we should have that
Lagally: regarding composable profiles: let's create an issue to discuss
Lagally: next, verifiable TDs
Cristiano: support validatible requirement
Lagally: yes, on identification; is moot if we can't identify them
… 4m left, will commit on a branch and make a PR for discussion
McCool: would be nice to link issues from requirement docs so it is easy to find
Lagally: ...
McCool: let's not merge just yet but keep as a PR so we can capture comments
ok: PR #179
Lagally: PR #179, leaving open
Lagally: also, there is a label, "requirement clarification" for requirements discussions
… and please, let's close on this as soon as possible
<kaz> (after the discussion, Kaz asks about how to proceed, and Lagally explains his plan based on the "Roadmap")
Lagally: planning horizon at this point just first three points on plan
<kaz> [adjourned]