12:05:36 RRSAgent has joined #wot-profile 12:05:36 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/02/16-wot-profile-irc 12:05:41 meeting: WoT Profile 12:05:58 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Ben_Francis, Ege_Korkan 12:06:52 Ege has joined #wot-profile 12:06:53 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#WoT_Architecture_.28Profile.29_-_Feb_16th.2C_2022 12:06:59 scribenick: Ege 12:07:03 Topic: Agenda 12:08:56 Topic: Minutes Review 12:09:22 ml: we should not use P1 tag or requirement so that people are not confused 12:10:13 ... in future issues/PRs. The list is fixed 12:11:18 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 12:11:36 topic: definition of OOTBI 12:11:46 ml: ben has given a definition 12:11:47 i|Minutes Review|-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#WoT_Architecture_.28Profile.29_-_Feb_16th.2C_2022 agenda for today| 12:12:01 i|we should|-> https://www.w3.org/2022/02/09-wot-profile-minutes.html Feb-9| 12:12:05 ... I have also given these four layers which is from a paper that Dave Raggett is an author of 12:12:26 sebastiankaebisch has joined #wot-profile 12:13:44 ... we have action semantics for example for the case of semantic interop 12:14:34 ... we also have a proposal from Cristiano 12:15:31 i|ben has given|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/155 Issue 155 - Agree on a common definition of "out-of-the-box-interoperability"| 12:15:36 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:15:36 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/16-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 12:15:42 rrsagent, make log public 12:15:44 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:15:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/16-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 12:16:11 chair: Lagally 12:16:21 present+ Sebastian_Kaebisch 12:16:24 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:16:24 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/16-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 12:16:40 ... some items from cristiano's proposal can map to the other one 12:17:03 q+ 12:17:11 ack b 12:17:14 ml: ben proposes that a profile should not try to solve all of the above interoperability layers 12:19:11 bf: these layers of definition is good for a general definition, as a reference but we have to discuss whether the profile has to fullfil others 12:20:32 ml: I think it like going to a store and buying 2 devices from 2 manufacturers and they can be hooked up together easily 12:21:42 ... for example buying a TV and connecting it to an antenna from another manufacturer and they work 12:22:26 q+ 12:23:50 bf: can we a bit more concrete on the layers, michael lagally can you explain what a profile should constrain in each of the layers 12:23:58 ml: semantic interop is agreed on 12:24:17 ... organisational means that TDs and profiles should be self descriptive 12:24:56 bf: how about to the 2 first 12:25:40 ml: these are also agreed on 12:26:57 q+ 12:26:58 ack s 12:28:14 q+ 12:28:17 sk: it seems that you are looking to the profile like buying an apple homekit compatible devices and they work together. Instead, this should be not specific to the manufacturer 12:28:43 s/looking to/looking at/ 12:29:54 ... I think this is not possible or not possible with WoT 12:31:00 ml: but that is why we have standards, no? 12:31:16 sk: but in this case, W3C is not the right SDO 12:31:54 q? 12:32:45 kaz: as we discussed in editor's call yesterday, WoT is a technology for people to handle the physical entity interoperable with each other in an abstract layer, using TDs 12:33:38 ... second point, web technology includes web browser and web browser technology is very popular like TVs, PCs, Smartphones etc. It is popular because it is usable regardless of the platform, hardware, OS 12:34:42 kaz: we do not have to constrain ourselves to the EU project definition 12:35:51 ack k 12:36:11 ml: (as a response to SK) This is a strong statement. I disagree that W3C is not the right place 12:36:16 q+ 12:36:40 kaz: sebastian's point was about concentrating our efforts 12:37:14 s/sebastian/I believe sebastian/ 12:37:15 q? 12:37:19 ack b 12:38:19 s/our efforts/on the abstraction discussion rather than thinking about the details on the physical layer/ 12:40:31 s/discussed in/discussed during the/ 12:40:38 bf: I am somewhere in between. I would like to see two organizations devices interoperating. I agree that W3C is not an SDO with a centralized certification. Thus, consumers should be able to handle via fallbacks in cases where the fallback is implementable 12:41:28 q? 12:41:30 ack s 12:43:12 sk: I would like to explain my point in a proper manner. In the example of a medical and automative device, even if they follow a profile, I am sure that they will never be able to talk to each other because they have a different semantic information in the properties 12:43:30 ... so the wish is not possible in my opinion 12:43:42 s/WoT is a technology for people to handle the physical entity interoperable with each other in an abstract layer, using TDs/WoT is a technology for people to handle physical entities in an interoperable manner with each other by an abstraction based on the Thing Description./ 12:44:32 ml: I think that I have another understanding of semantic interop 12:44:54 q+ 12:44:57 s/web browser and web browser/Web browser. These days Web browser/ 12:45:56 ml: we have 15 minutes left, let's write the definition 12:46:32 q+ 12:49:22 s/we do not have to constrain ourselves to the EU project definition/Those two points are the more important, and we should concentrate on our own definition of "interoperability" based on our own use cases. So I don't think we have to start with the EU project definition as the basis./ 12:49:35 rrsagent, make log public 12:49:39 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:49:39 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/16-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 12:49:41 q? 12:50:16 s/ben has/Ben has/ 12:50:21 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:50:21 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/16-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 12:51:08 ack b 12:51:09 ack e 12:52:32 s/two organizations devices/two organizations' devices/ 12:52:58 ege: I think that the semantic interop means two things: one is about how we use affordances (sync actions, writable properties etc.), other is about ontologies. I think that sebastian says that the ontology level interoperability is very difficult and I agree. A medical pump can use a different set of units and meaning of affordance names vs a pump in a sewage treatment plant 12:53:55 s/automative/automotive/ 12:54:09 q+ 12:54:30 q+ 12:54:31 ack b 12:54:45 ml: (writes comment to issue 155) (I will not scribe the comment) 12:55:25 s/I will/scribe will/ 12:56:21 q? 12:57:10 ack k 12:58:41 q? 12:59:28 kaz: we should be specific about organizations. One is vendor specific and the other is local SDO. 12:59:35 ml: aob? 12:59:43 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/155#issuecomment-1041466620 updated comments on interoperability 12:59:45 [adjourned] 12:59:52 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:59:52 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/02/16-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz 14:20:43 Mizushima has left #wot-profile 15:06:38 Zakim has left #wot-profile