Meeting minutes
Opening
<kaz> Opening slides
Ege: We are working with the JSON Schema Team
Marketing update on JSON Schema article
<kaz> Ege's message (Member-only)
Ege: We are working on a case study with them on how well we use JSON Schema
… I sent an email with the article
… I ask you to review it, the deadline is the 4th of October
OPC UA Update
<kaz> OPC UA liaison minutes
<kaz> Technical Requirements for OPC UA/WoT Collaboration
Mccool: Any other updates? OPC UA can be considered an update
Sebastian: Yes, we had a meeting yesterday
… we discussed the technical requirement document and made a resolution about the topics that are out of scope
… The next step is to clarify the formal situation and clarify the liason
… We still need to understand the OPC UA Group needs from us as an agreement
… I thank all that paticipated last week as it showed the high interest in the joint ecosystem
Mccool: I think we need to update the liason readme
CG/Marketing Split
Ege: I will start to describe why we want to split
… We recognize that CG and IG Marketing are 2 different entities
… and that CG is not governed by the W3C Process
… We plan to migrate marketing activities from the Marketing task force to CG
Mccool: We also need to define what the tasks of the Marketing Taskforce is
Ege: Yes. So I made a new repo for discussing which group takes which tasks
Mccool: The focus I see here are social media matters, but I what I miss are event management such as plugfests, which is mainly a WG task
Kaz: I am sorry Ege, but it seems I failed to make you understand my points about this.
… You should not start with such a detailed plan, but rather a high level expectation. If you and the whole CG really would like to transfer part of the WG/IG pages to the WoT CG, please make an official resolution of the whole WoT CG first before starting concrete transfer plan. Then we as the whole WoT WG/IG to generate an official resolution for the transfer. Then we should talk with the W3M about the transition request. I'm not objecting to that idea itself. Also it could be possible. However, we need to make official resolution on both the CG side and the WG/IG side.
Lagally: I have a problem with the high level understanding of the problem
Cristiano: To answer Kaz, we will plan a resolution about what the CG should be doing
Ege: A simple example: on twitter should we have one official account and one CG account?
another example: Given a CG, do we need 2 documentation websites?
Lagally: why are we discussing transferring the WoT WG/IG contents to the WoT CG?
Lagally: I believe that the official website will be maintained by the WG+IG, and the CG will have a lot of work on their hands
Ege: But then you implicitly agree that there could be 2 versions one that will be maintained by the CG and another that runs the risk of noth being maintained
Mccool: The risk with the WG is that the it has a limited life span.
Ege: I just see a conflict of interest between the WG and CG and the WG hindering the CG
Kaz: I am confused because Ege already started with a detailed plan on next steps but Cris actually saying that there is still a resolution to be made
… If the WoT CG just would like to work on items related to the WoT IG/WG's activity like the WoT-JP CG Mizushima-san described the other day, that's fine. However, if the CG really want to transfer the current WoT IG/WG's work to the WoT CG, we need to follow some specific procedure. So I've been asking the CG to think about what they want to do first
Mccool: Ege, let's add all people in this meeting to the repo to be able to comment and we should start with a KISS principle by finding a minimal set of task
… the question is what is the plan
Ege: To clarify, I say that having duplicate resources would cause confusion and hurt the WoT image as a whole
Sebastian: I am against returning to the time where we didn't have a webpage as we have now
… the wiki pages were not a good advertisment to the WoT
… The current situation is a significant improvement
… I would be against to have another presence that is only for the CG
<Ege> +1 sebastiankb for more collaboration
Sebastian: I don't understand the feeling that there is a fight between the CG and WG
… I think both groups should work closely together and should agree on this
… It would be nice to get the CG to be active and help the WoT WG
… maybe by offering a short video describing the WoT
<Zakim> mlagally, you wanted to react to McCool
Lagally: This is not about fights or older ways
… It's about process and actual relationship between the groups
… in WG we have specifc rules
… CG can do anything
… The agreement was anything CG does should be approved by WG+IG
… My concern is CG would do everything without getting approval
Cristiano: I want to answer Kaz, we are starting concrete resolution to speed up the process
<cris_> point taken :)
Kaz: I'd suggest you should start with a high-level question on what the CG participants want to do, e.g., what kind of information they want to describe to promote WoT, rather than transferring the existing WoT IG/WG pages themselves as a quick resolution./
Mccool: We need to build a consensus so that we are all on the same page
… we should agree on broader statements as Kaz suggests
Thing Description CR Transition
Mccool: We have 2 documents for TD 1.1 and Discovery
… we didn't see new issues for these documents
TD Issue #1691
<kaz> Issue 1691 - Action - double check node-wot's error codes, are there error response payloads?
<McCool> ml: is there any way to specify error responses for actions?
Lagally: This topic is about error payloads for actions
Daniel: TD allows you to specify what error codes you are sending back
Mccool: I think the real question is: is it possible to specify error responses in the TD? which is possible with additionalResponses
Sebastian: Yes, the mechanism exist to document error codes but nothing specific to the TD spec
Ege: You can document the error codes but you cannot describe behavior
Lagally: Yes, that's why we need Profiles
Mccool: Then this is resolved
<kaz> (closed)
Issue 1670
<kaz> Issue 1670 - The proxy-to link relation type is not defined anywhere
Mccool: We can mark it at-risk
… I see a reason for the keyword to describe a shadow, but it is ambigous
… we need to add some explanatory text for it
<kaz> McCool's comment
Mccool: We will mark this issue as editorial and as a security issue
… All other issues are deferd
… or are editorial
<McCool> proposal: Proceed to CR transition with the current TD 1.1 editor's draft
<McCool> proposal: Proceed to CR transition with the current TD 1.1 editor's draft as of 21 Sept 2022
<McCool> proposal: Proceed to CR transition with the TD 1.1 editor's draft as of 21 Sept 2022
RESOLUTION: Proceed to CR transition with the TD 1.1 editor's draft as of 21 Sept 2022
Discovery CR Transition
Mccool: We have 5 issues that should be resloved
Issue 257
<kaz> s|s/CR Transition Resolutions//||
<kaz> Issue 257 - What part of a TD can a TDD modify
Mccool: This is an old issue. The intention is that TDs would not be modified except for enriched data, @context entries and ids
Ege: I just think that the assertion is too vague
Mccool: So you think we need to add assertion for specific things that cannot be changed?
Ege: I think that we should clarify it better but if it block the CR transition then I don't care that much
Mccool: We should add an assertion that states that unless explicitly specified, TD elements should not be changed
<McCool> proposal: Proceed to CR transition with the Discovery editor's draft as of 21 Sept 2022, including the additional assertion noted in https://
<McCool> proposal: Proceed to CR transition with the Discovery editor's draft as of 21 Sept 2022, including the additional assertion noted in https://
RESOLUTION: Proceed to CR transition with the Discovery editor's draft as of 21 Sept 2022, including the additional assertion noted in https://
mm: just wondering about the potential impact of the IANA registration
Kaz: IANA registration is a separate procedure from the W3C Process itself, so should be OK. will check with PLH to make sure
Architecture CR Transition
Mccool: We don't have an idea about assertions, because every assertion is marked at-risk
Daniel: I tried to fill the manual.csv but I had a hard time understanding it
Mccool: Just mark everything you don't understand as not implemented so that we can see the progress
sebastian: I have the impression that not everyone knows that we are collecting manual.csv
… We should set a deadline for people
Mccool: Also people should make PR against the data/input_2022
<kaz> wot-testing/data/input_2022/Architecture/
<kaz> wot-architecture PR 839 - add initial manual.csv for node-wot
Mccool: I think we cannot do a resolution today, but we should be able to do it the next 2 weeks
Kaz: We should discuss what we kind of tests and strategy are needed for both Architecture and Profile specs. It is important to clarify which assertions and requirements from the Architecture spec to be tested by which assertions from which specifications including Architecture itself and possibly the other related specs like TD.
… potentially, we could reuse some of the assertions and test results from the other specs by referring to them.
Lagally: We need to convey where to put the csv
<McCool> https://
<McCool> https://
Mccool: PRs should go in this directory: https://
… the template is found here: https://
Kaz: We should clarify the expected procedure in a README somewhere. I think McCool has already generated some initial guidelines for the previous Testfests, so we can start with them.
Profile CR Transition
Lagally: Today's Profile call took place
… We have a couple of issue to close
… Issues that will be closed in the next call are tagged with close tag
… couple of issues are deferred
Mccool: There are 3 issues that need to be resolved
<McCool> https://
Lagally: a couple of PRs are still standing, especially the sync vs async protocol bindings
Mccool: There are also a couple of editorial PRs
<kaz> Profile publication blockers
Mccool: Next week will be plugfest
… mainly for Profile spec
<kaz> Profile proposed schedule
<kaz> Sept 5-9: Determine Profile 1.0 Scope
<kaz> Sept 12-16: Decide Profile 1.0 Scope
<kaz> Sept 26-30 Plugfest / Testfest for Profile 1.0
<kaz> Oct 3-7 Incorporate Plugfest/Testfest results, prepare CR draft
<kaz> 2 - weeks review
<kaz> CR transition End Oct
Tomorrow's agenda
<kaz> Finalize CG/Marketing Responsibilities Split - Resolution (30m)
<kaz> Finalize Deliverable Priorities for next charter (30m)
<kaz> [adjourned]