– DRAFT –
WoT Editors

Minutes

Feb-1

typo fixed

approved

Terminology

Discovery spec - 3. Terminology

McCool: ReSpec issues there

Found definition for "Thing Description", but nothing links to it. This is usually a spec bug!
How to fix: Either remove the definition, or add a "lint-ignore" CSS class. If you meant to export it, add the export CSS.
Occurred 1 times at:
<dfn> element
(plugin: "core/linter-rules/no-unused-dfns")
Found definition for "Property", but nothing links to it. This is usually a spec bug!
How to fix: Either remove the definition, or add a "lint-ignore" CSS class. If you meant to export it, add the export CSS.
Occurred 1 times at:
<dfn> element
(plugin: "core/linter-rules/no-unused-dfns")
Found definition for "Action", but nothing links to it. This is usually a spec bug!
How to fix: Either remove the definition, or add a "lint-ignore" CSS class. If you meant to export it, add the export CSS.
Occurred 1 times at:
<dfn> element
(plugin: "core/linter-rules/no-unused-dfns")
Found definition for "Event", but nothing links to it. This is usually a spec bug!
How to fix: Either remove the definition, or add a "lint-ignore" CSS class. If you meant to export it, add the export CSS.
Occurred 1 times at:
<dfn> element
(plugin: "core/linter-rules/no-unused-dfns")
Found definition for "Discovery", but nothing links to it. This is usually a spec bug!
How to fix: Either remove the definition, or add a "lint-ignore" CSS class. If you meant to export it, add the export CSS.
Occurred 1 times at:
<dfn> element
(plugin: "core/linter-rules/no-unused-dfns")
Found definition for "Exploration", but nothing links to it. This is usually a spec bug!
How to fix: Either remove the definition, or add a "lint-ignore" CSS class. If you meant to export it, add the export CSS.
Occurred 1 times at:
<dfn> element
(plugin: "core/linter-rules/no-unused-dfns")
Found definition for "Introduction", but nothing links to it. This is usually a spec bug!
How to fix: Either remove the definition, or add a "lint-ignore" CSS class. If you meant to export it, add the export CSS.
Occurred 1 times at:
<dfn> element
(plugin: "core/linter-rules/no-unused-dfns")
Found definition for "TDD", but nothing links to it. This is usually a spec bug!
How to fix: Either remove the definition, or add a "lint-ignore" CSS class. If you meant to export it, add the export CSS.
Occurred 1 times at:
<dfn> element

McCool: need to look into the issues

Kaz: they're basically just warnings. right?

McCool: right
… the Discovery spec itself is not wrong, I think

Kaz: caused by "<dfn>" tags

McCool: right

Kaz: technically, this issue can occur with not only Discovery but also Profile, Scripting, etc., too

Lagally: we should have some specific notation when the specs have got stable
… btw, have created an issue on wot-architecture

<mlagally> wot-architecture PR 704 - WIP: restructuring lifecycle

Lagally: will add that for the next Security call

Kaz: btw, the terminology section of the Profile spec should also have a link back to the Architecture spec's terminology

Lagally: yes
… will file an issue for that

<mlagally> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/165

Lagally: btw, is there a link from TD back to Architecture's terminology section?

Kaz: yes, there is

Lagally: is there also ReSpec warning with TD too?

Kaz: no

McCool: let's look into the detail

Schedule

McCool: there is a gap within specs about what Consumer should do
… comment from Ben too
… need a new PR for Consumer processing

wot-discovery issue 272 - Consumer Process for Discovery

McCool: should look at the Architecture spec as well to see the consistency once the processing is clarified
… Scripting describes algorithms
… some behavior description within TD too

Lagally: one remaining question is Consumer Thing within the Architecture

McCool: note that I don't think Consumers have to have TDs

Kaz: which TFs should be involved?
… in addition to Discovery TF?
… starting with the Scripting TF?

McCool: yes
… if possible, during the Scripting call next Monday

Kaz: should talk with the Architecture TF, shouldn't we?

McCool: yeah
… would look into the Architecture spec

Kaz: Lagally, do you want to have discussion during the Architecture call?

Lagally: would like to clarify the confusion
… we should clarify what "Consumer" is

Kaz: we should have discussion during the Architecture call then?

McCool: should consider for the next round, I think

Kaz: based on the discussion so far, the current definition "Consumer is an entity that can process WoT Thing Descriptions" might be a bit vague

McCool: we should be careful

Kaz: so we should have discussion on this point (Consumer) during the Architecture call as well
… as part of the terminology discussion

McCool: need clear definition for Producer, Registerer, etc., too

Kaz: we already have terminology as an agenda topic for Architecture. right?

Lagally: yes

McCool: having a separate term of "Software Thing" might make sense
… to identify Physical Thing and Virtual Thing
… maybe "Virtual" is not really correct here

<mlagally> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/696

Lagally: we should have discussion during the Architecture call based on the PR above

Ege: this is good topic to discuss
… e.g., a room including multiple devices within it

McCool: collection of Things or composed Thing, etc.?
… don't think the current definition for "Virtual Thing" itself is vague, though
… need to identify necessary terms

Kaz: ok
… let's have more discussion during the Architecture call then

[adjourned]