Meeting minutes
agenda
Lagally: (goes through the agenda)
minutes
<mlagally> https://
approved
contributions
PR 771
PR 771 - Add introduction text for section 6 and 7
McCool: missing "and" between two points?
Lagally: using "in" to identify the sections
McCool: ok
Lagally: (goes through the "Files changed")
McCool: we've been using "use case pattern"?
Lagally: ok
McCool: what about the images?
Lagally: changed the images and the titles
McCool: ok
merged
McCool: related issues should be also closed
Issue 628 - Introduction does not mention section 6 (also closed)
PR 769
PR 769 - Internationalization Questionnaire Answers
McCool: we should proceed with the i18n review
Lagally: ok
… let's merge this PR itself
merged
McCool: need another issue for the i18n review
Lagally: (shows a related issue 620)
Issue 620 - internationalisation requirements|
McCool: it's a requirement
… could reuse it as one of the i18n requirements
… a subsection called "Requirements" to be added to section "8. Abstract WoT System Architecture"
… or "7. System Integration"
… which describes user interface
Lagally: (adds comments about that to Issue 620)
…
… Arch call on May 24th.
… Add to the end of section "System integration"
PR 768
PR 768 - Remove arch-id-correlation assertion
Lagally: (goes through the "Files changed")
merged
Lagally: (checks related Issues)
Issue 646 - [Index] Section structure, assertions, and issues
PR 767
PR 767 - Remove operation type related assertions
merged
McCool: missing gperiod thre
Lagally: (fixed it quickly)
PR 737
PR 737 - Align binding related information
McCool: need to fix conflicts
Lagally: Ege has created an updated PR 767
McCool: can lose PR 737 then
closed
Issues
Issue 606
Issue 606 - Move Table for ops to TD spec
McCool: it's an optional thing and nice-to-have
Lagally: (goes through the section "8.6.2 Forms")
closed
Issue 670
Issue 670 - Cross link Section 5 and Section 6 with corresponding use cases
closed
Issue 642
Issue 642 - Identify normative RFC2119 assertions that affect the TD specification
Lagally: can we close this?
(no objections)
closed
Issue 635
Lagally: (summarizes what happened)
McCool: Farshid's point is about a bit different topic
… we should be careful about what "unique" means here
Lagally: let's close this
closed
Issue 630
Issue 630 - Why are Chapter 8 and 9 separated
Lagally: got suggestions but no concrete contributions yet
… would like to close this
Ege: not clear who to work on this
Lagally: we need concrete PR as a contribution to move ahead
Ege: the procedure is not really clear to me
Kaz: I think section 8 describes the basic concept and section 9 describes the building blocks as concrete specs
… so there is enough difference there
Lagally: we need concrete contributions to move ahead
Ege: don't have time for that purpose
… but not really sure about the procedure
Lagally: would encourage people who raise concern to consider contributions as well
Kaz: some of the WGs except contributions for the spec text, tests and implementations
… that might be too much for WoT, but we should clarify our expectation a bit clearer
McCool: yeah, would be good to document our policy
Issue 630 itself is closed
Issue 629
Issue 629 - Splitting the architecture document
Lagally: (goes through the issue)
Lagally: a lot of background information within the Architecture spec
… do we have right information?
… maybe we could defer this issue to ver. 2.0
Ege: ok, agree
… but not happy to close this issue
McCool: we should clarify which parts are normative and which are informative clearly
Ege: if it's difficult to fix the specification from now, I'm OK to defer this issue
McCool: defer the restructuring as a whole
… and create another issue if needed
Kaz: I'm OK with deferring this issue itself to ver. 2.0
… but please remember that what is more important is the text of the spec itself
… if any of the sections are identified as "informative" but include "normative" feature definitions, that should be fixed
Lagally: don't think we have that kind of problems any more
Kaz: that's good :)
[adjourned]