– DRAFT –
WoT-IG/WG

Minutes Review

<kaz> Oct-05

McCool: I propose to publish, any objections?

Minutes from TPAC related events

<kaz> Pre-TPAC meeting Day 1

<kaz> Pre-TPAC meeting Day 2

<kaz> TPAC F2F Day 1

<kaz> TPAC F2F Day 2

<kaz> WoT Demo breakout

<kaz> Web-based Digital Twins for Smart Cities breakout

<kaz> Post-TPAC meeting Day 2

<kaz> Post-TPAC meeting Day 3

McCool: I propose to publish the minutes. Any objection?

Sebastian: I have looked as well, they look ok to me

(All the above minutes have been approved)

IIWOT Workshop

McCool: deadline is saturday, I can take this

Kaz: please contact the organizers to state our intention

Ege: I think you should go for invited talk straightaway since a paper is normally a scientific contribution and you will have copyright issues at some point

McCool: I need contact information

<mlagally_> https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9700546

Lagally: we have submitted a paper last year, we can start from that

Ege: I think that writing a paper about WG work as a person has some patent problems since you are claiming the work for yourself. This might be patent infringement. I want to know W3C's policy on how to handle this.

Lagally: I think we should focus on next work and not spend more time to discuss on this call

McCool: we can write it from scratch

Smart Cities Breakout in TPAC

Kaz: there was interest in Web-based Digital Twins and and applying that to Smart Cities.

Kaz: we need to note the fact that there are already silos even for digital twins

Implementation Reports

TD

<kaz> latest draft Implementation Report for TD

McCool: it is looking mostly good, gaps in security though

Discovery

<kaz> latest draft Implementation Report for Discovery

McCool: we have problems with coap and discoverers
… also some problems about core id

TD Implementation - revisited

<mlagally_> https://w3c.github.io/wot-thing-description/#behavior-data

Lagally: how the TD assertions on consumers are tested?

Ege: They are all manually tested. They are not such behavioral assertions though, in comparison to discovery and profile

Lagally: I find some consumer assertions problematic, I have opened issues for TD. They should be fixed in CR

Lagally: I had asked in the call last week for a clarification of the relationship between the WoT Thing Description spec and the WoT Binding Templates Note.
... In that call I was told that WoT Binding Templates was only used for informative examples. However, this is not true.
... There is a normative assertion linking to the WoT Binding Templates Note, which is an informative WG Note.
... This is not permitted, we got a similar review comment from the TAG for WoT Architecture.
... Therefore this entire section should be made informative.

McCool: consumer refers to the role, not the entity or the device

Sebastian: we had the binding reference in the 1.0 and the href is not enough

Ege: we had something similar in 1.0, we can revert to it. The discussion was to allow this if the binding template is published

Lagally: it is not enough, we cannot reference to a group note

McCool: let's create an issue and discuss on this. Please mark it as a blocker

Ege: I think it is fine to revert to 1.0

Sebastian: please come to the TD call or open an issue

Lagally: I will open an issue and look at the feedback on the issue

Kaz: it is a TD issue. It would be nicer to have Lagally in the call. Is it possible?

Lagally: I can come in the last hour

<kaz> ( We'll have the discussion on the issue during the second slot of the TD call today. )

McCool: we should update the editors list

Profile

McCool: summary is we need a clear decision of what to do for profile

<mlagally_> Architecture/Profile TF resolution: publish an updated [Profile] WD by the end of the current WG charter. Carry over the profile goals and deliverables to the next WG charter. Deliver the Profile early in the next WG charter period with the current scope and requirements.

McCool: I want to call for resolution with a statement to not go for a CR in this charter

<McCool_> proposal: publish an updated WD by the end of the current WG charter. Carry over the profile goals and deliverables to the next WG charter. Deliver the Profile early in the next WG charter period with the current scope and requirements.

<McCool_> proposal: Publish an updated Profile WD by the end of the current WG charter, but do not attempt CR transition in this charter. Carry over the profile goals and deliverables to the next WG charter. Deliver the Profile early in the next WG charter period with the current scope and requirements.

RESOLUTION: Publish an updated Profile WD by the end of the current WG charter, but do not attempt CR transition in this charter. Carry over the profile goals and deliverables to the next WG charter. Deliver the Profile early in the next WG charter period with the current scope and requirements.

McCool: resolution is done

OPC UA liaison

McCool: discussion ongoing with W3M as well

Kaz: note that if we as the WoT WG as a whole want to work with OPC as a joint WG on a joint deliverable, we need another level of AC review for that approach

WoT CG

McCool: Cristiano sent out a message to the CG

Ege: I am happy with the result of the discussion. The IG Charter related discussions are postponed for the end of the IG Charter where we can sit together. For social media, I would propose to talk about it in the next marketing call
… also we have a digital twin event tomorrow

<cris_> +1 for what Ege said

TF updates

Cristiano: scripting API is planning a WD update in the coming weeks

Daniel: we will ask for reviews

McCool: AOB?

(none)

McCool: adjourned