Meeting minutes
Opening
McCool: (gives latest updates on Architecture)
CR on Oct 12/13; PR on Dec 14/15 earliest
CG/Marketing Split
McCool: how we make progress on the split?
Ege: we will have a meeting on Monday and let you know about the outcome
McCool: CG is mainly designed to be short term. The main goal should be to build a community.
McCool: there is the concerns about publications topics such as RECs etc. CG, however, is not to intended to do so
Ege: the W3C structure such as /WoT/wg/ and /WoT/ig/ is already there for a long time
<kaz> https://
<Ege> https://
Kaz: We should reconsider the relationship between the official w3c managed / system pages (auto-generated) and our manuell created content
<Zakim> dape, you wanted to Studio24
Daniel: it would be great if we could extract the content of the official pages
MM shows https://
Daniel: when we started to work on the new web page, the W3C started to redisign the webpages by Studio24
… Im wondering about the status
Kaz: the current proposal of the redesign is not appropriate
Kaz: we should rethink how we can refer to the official auto-generated again.
… each group should have own page
Daniel: I see Kaz points, however, for people from the outside do not understand this different groups
Ege: I think also people inside have problems to understand
McCool: I agree
Kaz: W3C has an official approach how to represent the groups
Kaz: I'm not objecting to our manuel created WoT landing page, or I'm not saying the page is useless.. Just want to say that we should consider the relationship to the auto-generated content again.
Cris: let's assume the WG stop working, what would be happen with the manually pages?
<kaz> Publishing@W3C page
Ege: I think our webpage is a publishing activity webpage since we cover IG and WG
Kaz: As I've been repeatedly mentioning, if we really want to use the term of "Activity" to treat all the WoT-related groups as a chunk, we need to make a whole group resolution, and talk with the W3M
<sebastian> I will be back in 10min
McCool: what should we do next?
Kaz: Before continuing this discussion, I want to make sure everybody understands what is defined by the latest W3C Process and what used to be defined by the old W3C Process documents.
McCool: what are the next issues?
Ege: what are the implications?
Kaz: "Activity" was defined in the old W3C Process Document but deleted several years ago.
Ege: can we use our own word?
Kaz: no
Kaz: It would imply we (WoT WG) would like to run the group based on the old Process document.
McCool: why was it removed?
Kaz: activity was used to group related groups, old process used to include more stages for going to rec
McCool: it would be a disadvantage to go back to the old process
Kaz: maybe we can use the term of "Activity" without going back to the old process. However, we should have a resolution first and go to W3M
<McCool> https://
McCool: let's continue the agenda
McCool: kaz can you post further explanation in the issue
Finalize Deliverable Priorities for next charter
<dape> https://
Scripting API
Daniel: I have been looking in the old charter
… and scripting was just another deliverable
Daniel: the consensus was to stick to the current way
McCool: is scripting ig or wg?
Ege: wg
<sebastian> I'm back, I can take the minutes again
McCool: I will go in order
Security
MM shows the Security Deliverable Proposal PR
https://
McCool: new topic is onboarding
… this should consider security aspects
McCool: another topic is about Signing
<kaz> i|other deliverables|topic: Finalize Deliverable Priorities for next charter|
McCool: approach should be consistent with RDF/JSON-LD
Sebastian: Matthias Kovatsch mentioned that we should have a look on IETF JSON Web Proofs
McCool: agree, we should also consider IETF activites
McCool: another topics is about secruity scheme ontology
… security schemes changes over time
… it would be better to have seperated dpcuements to adopt changes faster
Sebastian: this topic is also relevant for OPC UA security
Ege: would it possible to have abstract schemes that can be applied to multiple protocols. Eg, basic scheme
Kaz: I basically agree with McCool's proposals. We should be consistent with the VCWG's work. Also should use standardized vocabularies to define the WoT Security features. On the other hand, we should be careful about how to use the content within the Security deliverables, because part of that should be transferred to the other WoT deliverables like TD later.
Thing Description 2.0
https://
McCool: there are some feedback about actions from Ben
… I miss the WebThing protocols for the payload driven protocols
McCool: we have TM for TD directory. How about TM for Thing Shadows?
… is this a topic for TD?
ack
Sebastian: we should also consider to have a "Consumer Description". TD mainly address Producer, but we have nothing for consumer.
Kaz: we should create another topic and issue for the need for a potential "Consumer Description", and I'd like to go back to the discussion on the time-series data.
Kaz: regarding the time-series data, I think we should think about video stream data as well. During TPAC 2022, I attended the MEIG meeting as well and there was discussion on handling video stream data using Web Transport, etc., and surveillance video output was also included there.
Ege: about consumer description, there is a use case coming from profile about the web hooks discussion
Cris: I'm interested in video streams. I have some examples and contribute here (I have a node-wot implementation that I can share)
… I have some concern about the consumer description. It is hard to clearify who need a consumer desctipion
<there are some discussion about the consumer description; recorded in the PR>
Kaz: agree to gather ideas (brainstorming) today
… and we need to look into what those ideas would mean next
… also as a general comment we should revisit the inputs from the other SDOs, e.g., ECHONET, like history management and grouping of actions.
Ege: topics around TD should be discussed in the next TD call.
Profiles
https://
McCool: we should discuss this in the next main call. is this ok?
Sebastian: new profiles should be designed together with other SDOs
Kaz: also we should clarify what is expected for a Profile or Profiles a bit more
Binding Templates
https://
<Ege presents the current content of the PR>
Planning
McCool: we have a TestFest next week
… I will send a mail about organiziation
McCool: let's stick with webex, I have problems with zoom
… we need implementations for the architecture
Kaz: we need to get well-prepared, so need to let people know about what they need to do :)
McCool: that is all, let's review minutes in anothecall
<kaz> [adjourned]