– DRAFT –
WoT Discovery

<kaz> WoT WG page including "Join the group"

meeting starts

reviewing minutes

<kaz> July-18

<kaz> approved

PR review

PR #383

PR 383 - Clarify Anonymous ID assignment and Location header

the PR has no problems in theory but should resolve the IPR issue first

<kaz> WoT WG page including "Join the group"

<McCool_> https://labs.w3.org/repo-manager/pr/id/w3c/wot-discovery/383

<kaz> Issue 379 - Location must contain an URL

cristiano raises a question about issue #379 related to this PR.

regarding the value that Location heather may have

<FarshidT> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8141#section-4.3

finally, as conclusion, there is consensus on the fact that PR #383 improves the overall situation, nevertheless, some issues still remain to be solved

Kaz: kaz: merging PR 383 itself is fine, and keeping Cristiano's issue 379 is also ok, but WoT mechanism is basically protocol-agnostic, so we should be careful how to describe the core WoT Discovery capability and how to map that with protocol-dependent features like HTTP's Location header.

PR # 383 is merged

TAG review Review

<kaz> design review issue 733 - Discovery, some small action items

McCool: we got some feedback on this matter. We need to take care about references to other works and links

mccool adds a note to the related work section indicating to see the WoT Discovery document for the links.

then a PR is created with the new Explainer.md

mccool answers the issue # 733 (https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/733) informing

<FarshidT> Some references: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2542660520301256?via%3Dihub and https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2991561.2991570

<cris_> +1 for the links above. I used them too as good references

they are good refs

I also use them

Issues about testing report assertions

(McCool describes the general issue related to the policy assertions)

McCool: basically, would reword those policy assertions

(some more discussion)

McCool: think there are possible three approaches
… opt 1. changing the tools
… opt 2. fixing the table within the implementation report
… opt 3. edit the text to say we can't distinguish
… please note that the bigger issue is the features missing implementations within this result table
… some of them are rather easy
… but related to discoverer, etc.

Kaz: just to make sure, please upload the latest implementation reports

McCool: ok

[adjourned]