Meeting minutes
minutes
<McCool> Feb-16
McCool: small typo s/late/wait
no objections
McCool: minutes can be published
quick updates
Lagally: architecture meeting canceled this week
McCool: no editors' call this week
McCool: consistency check between the documents still ongoing
Lagally: indeed, no recent discussions about this
Lagally: terminology has been discussed
Lagally: editors of Scripting and Discovery should take a look
McCool: we will discuss in the editors' meeting with the task forces
Daniel: from Scripting parts, small changes needed, already agreed
Lagally: PRs would be preferable, otherwise issues
<McCool> MM: also probably a PR from discovery
WoT Japanese CG
Mizushima: planning to hold an open event about ECHONET liaison. the agenda is being finalized and should include the relationship between WoT and ECHONET Lite Web API based on concrete use cases.
conformance statements
McCool: we have a resolution to proceed with this
McCool: KA, MM and SK discussed the process
… we can have normative statements in Notes, but it's the WG terms not the W3C terms, therefore compliance will be handled by the WG
McCool: today we can have a resolution and notify the AC reps from the WG
Kaz: this is not required by the W3C process, but the Notes are not covered by the IPR policy, so indeed the AC reps should be consulted
<McCool> proposal: proceed with adopting conformance statements in the Scripting API Notes, after notifying the AC reps of the WG and asking if there are any objects
<McCool> proposal: proceed with adopting conformance statements in the Scripting API Notes, after notifying the AC reps of the WG and asking if there are any objects; see https://
Lagally: not clear what is going on and why are we doing something like a REC spec but which is not a REC spec
Kaz: the spec could say it is not covered by the W3C patent policy
McCool: OK, we should quote the exact text and let people have feedback on it
Kaz: the text is the same as for WoT Use Cases, but the content of Scripting is different
McCool: if any AC rep objects, we need to re-discuss it
<kaz> This document was published by the Web of Things Interest Group as a Group Note using the Note track.
<kaz> Group Notes are not endorsed by W3C nor its Members.
<kaz> The W3C Patent Policy does not carry any licensing requirements or commitments on this document.
<kaz> This document is governed by the 2 November 2021 W3C Process Document.
McCool: or make it on the REC track
Lagally: I would support the REC track, since it's more clear
McCool: there are also problems with that - we need a non-normative draft that may use normative languages
Lagally: what is the publication schedule, is it aligned with the other specs?
Daniel: usually a bit lagging behind the other specs (TD, Discovery etc)
Daniel: the Note track also exists for CGs, so it is not new
… the Note track doesn't mean we cannot switch back to the REC track
… we should allow clear statements in the spec
Daniel: what does it mean to ask the AC reps, what scenarios might happen?
McCool: we are asking the members if they accept liabilities, since it is outside the W3C patent policy
Lagally: liabilities mean violations of the W3C patent policy?
McCool: technically yes, Notes are more complicated
<McCool> proposal: proceed with adopting conformance statements in the Scripting API Notes, after notifying the AC reps of the WG and asking if there are any objections; see https://
McCool: if we go through the IPR exclusion process, it would add a lot of overhead
… but if the spec says it is using normative language, but it is not normative, that should be fine
Zoltan: Scripting uses conformance classes that are needed, so being able to use normative language should be possible, with the big switch making sure they are not actually normative
Kaz: there can also be a normative Note, but in that case the WoT WG is responsible (not W3C as a whole) about the potential patent issues, so McCool and Sebastian wanted to talk with the group participants during this call.
McCool: will draft an email with KA and SK
… make it clear that this is only a language construct
Lagally: I support clarity, email, review by AC reps
Lagally: otherwise multiple companies might question this practice, and might become complicated
<McCool> proposal: strike committee to develop an email with precise details on implications of proceeding with adopting conformance statements in the Scripting API Notes, and define a process including notifying the AC reps of the WG and asking if there are any objections; see https://
McCool: if any AC rep objects, we need to discuss what to do
McCool: I suggest we discuss this in the next editors' call
<McCool> proposal: strike committee consisting of editors to develop an email with precise details on implications of proceeding with adopting conformance statements in the Scripting API Notes, and define a process including notifying the AC reps of the WG and asking if there are any objections; see https://
McCool: any objections?
Lagally: to discuss the email?
McCool: yes, and md file with content of email and process
<McCool> suggest we strike committee consisting of editors to develop an email with precise details on implications of proceeding with adopting conformance statements in the Scripting API Notes, and define a process including notifying the AC reps of the WG and asking if there are any objections; see https://
chair's survey
McCool: kaz has created another questionnaire about TPAC 2022 attendance
… his message sent to the wot Members list
WG Charter extension
strategy issue 298 for horizontal review
McCool: horizontal review ongoing
… got a comment about accessibility
… I'm OK with that
<McCool> proposal: adopt change suggested in https://
RESOLUTION: adopt change suggested in https://
Publication
McCool: kaz is working on the pubrules checker
… have some issues to be resolved
Lagally: think we should use the latest template
Kaz: ReSpec automatically generates the template, so we could simply specify "NOTE" as the type instead of "ED"
… but we still need to modify the document in addition to the issues caused by the type mismatch
McCool: ok
… what about TD?
… would clarify some issues during the TD call today
… Discovery to be finalized next week
Lagally: discussion about event handling
… would ask keep the door open for that
McCool: depends on what "keep the door open" means here
… we still have one more round before CR transition
… spec freeze this time is mainly for the Plugrest/Testfest
Lagally: ok
Wide review
McCool: some progress
… security tf finished first request
… one questionnaire should work for all the specs
… one answer for everything
McCool: this is a branch in the wot-thing-description repo
McCool: please look at the PR 1382 above
… still have to write up tests
… to be discussed during the test call today
… could apply one explainer for everything
Sebastian: had look at the explainer
… probably need more practical explainer
… with practical examples
… should improve it
McCool: would assign that to Sebastian :)
Sebastian: need explainers for the other specs too
McCool: let's finish the text first for TD, then think about others after that
Kaz: so we'll this (Explainer and Review Request) for TD as a template for the other specs?
McCool: rather one explainer document with multiple sections for the other specs
Kaz: ok
… that's also fine
… in that case, we should talk about this as well during the next Editors call
McCool: think so
wot-thing-description PR 1396 - Complete TAG/Security Wide Review Request
WoT CG
Kaz: the Call for new Chairs was made last Wednesday, and lasts for 2 weeks
… so will see the results next Wednesday
McCool: ok
Testing
McCool: need to organize the tests
Liaisons
ITU-T SG20
McCool: will contact them
ECHONET
McCool: continue discussion
OPC-UA
Sebastian: invited to their meeting 2 weeks ago
… they're open and happy to work on collaboration
… additional round discussion to be done
… happy to work on official OPC-UA binding
… mirror to the WoT Binding document on the OPC-UA side
McCool: coordinated activity?
Sebastian: right
Kaz: need to clarify the expected deliverable for that "collaboration"
… let's continue the discussion
T2TRG
McCool: propose using this summary pres, updated, for T2TRG https://
McCool: send me an email if you have any idea
… continue the discussion during the Marketing call probably
… FYI, discussion on IETF Anima for Security too
ASHRAE
Koster: will have discussion during the TD call today
McCool: own protocol?
Koster: an organization including BACnet committee
TF reports
McCool: any major reports?
McCool: terminology to be clarified for Discovery
… trying to finalize by Feb-28
Ege: we have a table of the meeting time
… both on the wiki and the web page
… would go only for the web page
<Ege> https://
<McCool> proposal: delete calendar table from main wiki page, use one on WoT web site instead
RESOLUTION: delete calendar table from main wiki page, use one on WoT web site instead
Kaz: note that we need to update the links from each TF wiki to the main wiki page
McCool: ok
[adjourned]