12:06:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot
12:06:34 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/10/19-wot-irc
12:06:45 <kaz> meeting: WoT-IG/WG
12:07:33 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Ege_Korkan, Erich_Barnstedt, Jan_Romann, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Koster, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool, Sebastian_Kaebisch
12:07:57 <McCool> McCool has joined #wot
12:08:04 <sebastian> sebastian has joined #wot
12:08:20 <mlagally_> mlagally_ has joined #wot
12:08:41 <kaz> present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima
12:09:37 <mlagally_> scribenick: mlagally
12:09:51 <mlagally_> zakim, woh is on the call?
12:09:51 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, mlagally_.
12:09:59 <mlagally_> zakim, who is on the call?
12:09:59 <Zakim> Present: Kaz_Ashimura, Ege_Korkan, Erich_Barnstedt, Jan_Romann, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Koster, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima
12:10:12 <mlagally_> topic: minutes review
12:10:30 <mlagally_> there's a change request from Michael Lagally
12:10:45 <dape> dape has joined #wot
12:10:59 <mlagally_> (sk walks through the minutes)
12:11:13 <mlagally_> ... were the previous TPAC minutes approved?
12:11:23 <mlagally_> mmc: yes, we did that.
12:11:26 <mlagally_> ml: yes-
12:11:48 <mlagally_> sk: kaz, please add a statement to the minutes about that
12:12:14 <mlagally_> ... wen tover TD, discovery, profile
12:13:02 <mlagally_> ... we did a resolution on profile
12:13:14 <mlagally_> s/yes-/yes/
12:13:29 <mlagally_> .. we gave a sort update on OPC and security group
12:13:56 <cris_> cris_ has joined #wot
12:14:31 <kaz> q+
12:15:27 <Ege> q+
12:15:33 <kaz> ack
12:15:36 <kaz> s/ack//
12:15:37 <kaz> ack k
12:15:58 <cris_> q+
12:16:07 <kaz> q+
12:16:26 <kaz> qq+
12:16:40 <kaz> ack k
12:16:44 <kaz> ack k
12:16:44 <Zakim> kaz, you wanted to react to kaz
12:17:20 <sebastian> q+
12:17:27 <kaz> ack e
12:17:38 <McCool> q+
12:18:26 <kaz> q+
12:18:38 <sebastian> ack s
12:18:38 <mlagally_> q+
12:19:33 <kaz> ack c
12:20:03 <Ege> ... to know W3C's opinion on how to handle this
12:20:43 <kaz> s/... to know W3C's opinion on how to handle this//
12:21:12 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
12:21:17 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:21:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/10/19-wot-minutes.html kaz
12:21:26 <kaz> ack m
12:21:41 <kaz> q?
12:21:52 <kaz> q+ mlagally_
12:21:54 <kaz> ack m
12:21:57 <kaz> ack mc
12:21:59 <kaz> q+ mlagally_
12:22:37 <kaz> q?
12:23:18 <mlagally_> ml: let's write on the call notes what was said on that call
12:23:47 <Ege> This might be patent infringement. I want to know W3C's opinion on how to handle this
12:23:48 <mlagally_> ... we can provide clarifications on this call
12:25:38 <mlagally_> kaz: W3C does not have an opinion, just a policy
12:25:46 <Ege> I have used the word opinion
12:25:49 <mlagally_> ege: I said opinion but meant policy
12:26:31 <kaz> resolution: Ege's words to be fixed as "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."
12:26:40 <mlagally_> ml: please let's use these terms wisely
12:27:47 <kaz> s/I have used the word opinion//
12:27:52 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:27:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/10/19-wot-minutes.html kaz
12:27:59 <kaz> q+
12:28:01 <kaz> ack ml
12:28:41 <kaz> ack k
12:29:02 <mlagally_> sk: final question - are we ok with the updates of the minutes
12:30:12 <mlagally_> kaz: The profile TF did revoke their resolution from the previous call
12:30:18 <mlagally_> sk: this was a different resolution
12:30:25 <mlagally_> sk: any objection
12:30:28 <mlagally_> (none)
12:30:35 <mlagally_> topic: quick updates
12:30:51 <kaz> s/none/none; minutes approved/
12:30:53 <mlagally_> mmc: we requested an invited talk - they take it into consideration
12:31:06 <mlagally_> ... they are aware on that request
12:31:06 <kaz> q+
12:31:32 <mlagally_> kaz: I have thought about policy for marketing and presentation policies
12:31:42 <mlagally_> ... have asked MMC for possibility of an invited talk
12:31:57 <mlagally_> ... we should talk about presentation policy in the marketing call
12:32:09 <mlagally_> mmc: let's talk about CR transitions
12:32:24 <mlagally_> topic: report from outreach events
12:32:47 <kaz> s/have asked MMC for possibility of an invited talk/So I asked McCool to ask the IIWoT organizer about the possibility of an invited talk./
12:32:59 <mlagally_> mizu: japanese CG discussed with stakeholders from publishing industry
12:33:11 <mlagally_> ... as next step we will discuss use cases of publishing industry
12:33:48 <mlagally_> ... we will propose use cases to the W3C WoT Use Cases group
12:33:58 <mlagally_> ks: How many participants in CG meetings
12:34:01 <kaz> s/let's talk about CR transitions/right, and let's move a head./
12:34:03 <kaz> q?
12:34:03 <mlagally_> mizu: 85 people
12:34:05 <kaz> ack k
12:34:12 <kaz> q+
12:34:27 <mlagally_> mmc: we need to figure out who did implementations
12:34:56 <mlagally_> kaz: this is comment for both CGs - think about to transition their ideas, proposals, use cases to the WoT main group
12:35:04 <mlagally_> ege: that's a good thing
12:35:16 <mlagally_> sk: this can be a part of our F2F meetings
12:35:19 <kaz> s/main group/main groups/
12:35:20 <kaz> q?
12:35:27 <kaz> ack k
12:35:43 <mlagally_> ... we know what's going on there and can take over
12:36:00 <mlagally_> topic: WoT CG update
12:36:04 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:36:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/10/19-wot-minutes.html kaz
12:36:25 <kaz> chair: Sebastian/McCool
12:36:29 <mlagally_> ek: We had an event on Thursday - Thomas Jaeckle explained how they use WoT for digital twins
12:36:41 <kaz> present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner
12:36:45 <mlagally_> ... we discussed how people want to use - we have different definitions
12:37:07 <mlagally_> ... somebody from Deutsche Telekom attended, they have a smart home product
12:37:43 <kaz> q?
12:37:44 <kaz> q+
12:37:44 <mlagally_> ... they use TDs in an extended form
12:38:03 <mlagally_> ... we will get in contact with them
12:38:04 <mlagally_> q+
12:38:04 <cris_> q+
12:38:46 <kaz> ack k
12:39:02 <mlagally_> kaz: Deutsche Telekom - t-systems used to be W3C member. Please get their use cases and contribute them to the WoT use cases / plugfest is also fine
12:39:16 <kaz> s/W3C member/a W3C Member/
12:39:43 <mlagally_> ml: can we invite Deutsche Telekom to the WG for a presentation
12:39:49 <McCool> q+
12:40:00 <sebastian> q+
12:40:19 <mlagally_> ege: I prefer to ask them to present in a public event - for their specific needs we can inite them to the use cases call
12:40:31 <mlagally_> ... then we can go to their standardisation needs
12:40:53 <mlagally_> ca: We also had a really nice discussion about digital twins, how to compose TDs
12:40:54 <mlagally_> q+
12:41:05 <kaz> s|Please get their use cases and contribute them to the WoT use cases / plugfest is also fine|Please get their use cases and proposals, and ask them to make contribution. Starting with the WoT Use Cases document and Plugfest would be fine./
12:41:15 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:41:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/10/19-wot-minutes.html kaz
12:41:16 <kaz> q?
12:41:18 <kaz> ack l
12:41:20 <kaz> ack c
12:41:20 <mlagally_> ... tomorrow we have an internal meeting, if you would like to join you are very welcome
12:41:25 <cris_> ack c
12:41:25 <kaz> ack ml
12:41:28 <kaz> ack mc
12:41:45 <mlagally_> mmc: The more implementers we get, we need to get input to determine what we work on
12:41:45 <kaz> q?
12:42:04 <kaz> q+
12:42:11 <mlagally_> ... I agree with Ege, we should also take it to the use cases call
12:42:41 <kaz> present+ Ryuichi_Matsukura
12:42:41 <mlagally_> sk: We see that the CG group is a good platform for asking for implementation reports
12:42:47 <kaz> q?
12:42:49 <sebastian> q?
12:42:53 <sebastian> ack s
12:42:57 <sebastian> ack k
12:43:14 <mlagally_> kaz: please think how to bring back the feedback to the main group
12:43:16 <mlagally_> q+
12:43:39 <mlagally_> sk: there's not that much time to discuss details
12:43:59 <mlagally_> kaz: I ask this as an action item to the CG
12:44:00 <mlagally_> q?
12:44:12 <kaz> s/the main group/the main groups. This is a kind of action item for both the CGs./
12:45:01 <kaz> q?
12:45:04 <kaz> ack ml
12:45:17 <mlagally_> ml: need to consider their definitions on digital twins, are we aligned?
12:45:24 <dape> q+
12:45:27 <mlagally_> topic: cancellations
12:45:50 <mlagally_> mmc: Will be gone for vacation Nov 7-18th will cancel security and discovery
12:45:51 <kaz> s/I ask this as an action item to the CG/Yeah, that's why I'm asking them to think about that as an action item :)/
12:46:15 <mlagally_> sk: We have Erich Barnstedt on the call - we did not discuss DTDL further
12:46:28 <mlagally_> eb: We can get that organized when Michael comes back
12:47:02 <mlagally_> sk: we could pick a date, perhaps in the Week of the 20th
12:47:32 <mlagally_> ... Tuesday Nov 22.
12:48:43 <Ege> q+
12:48:48 <kaz> q+
12:48:56 <mlagally_> dape: cancellations - we need to cancel scripting on Oct 31st.
12:48:59 <Ege> ack d
12:49:00 <dape> ack dape
12:49:07 <kaz> ack d
12:49:28 <mlagally_> ege: mm, you made the TF leads co-organizers of their events, but I still cannot edit the marketing call
12:49:50 <mlagally_> ml: what does that mean
12:50:07 <kaz> q?
12:50:09 <kaz> ack e
12:50:13 <mlagally_> mmc: I added TF leads as co-organizers - be careful if you cancel - you cannot undo
12:50:46 <mlagally_> kaz: editors are requested to updated the cancellations
12:51:04 <mlagally_> topic: OPC-UA
12:51:35 <mlagally_> sk: We met with *** to discuss the OPC-UA liaison and the expected outcomes and the consequence for W3C
12:51:55 <kaz> s/ *** / Philippe Le Hegaret from the W3M /
12:51:57 <kaz> q+
12:51:58 <mlagally_> ... we shouln not have a separate joint WG, it should be run within WoT
12:52:14 <mlagally_> ... there's also a discussion on the MOU
12:52:44 <mlagally_> ... since there's a transition to run under a different legal system, the W3C legal department is very busy
12:53:05 <kaz> s/legal system/legal entity/
12:53:14 <mlagally_> ... at this moment the multi-organisation agreement that is required by the OPC foundation needs to wait
12:53:25 <sebastian> q?
12:53:30 <mlagally_> ... perhaps Nov or Dec
12:54:02 <mlagally_> kaz: seb, please note that t he main question is not the legal availability, but we need a different level of AC review.
12:54:33 <mlagally_> ... we also need a dedicated review of the joint charter by the AC
12:55:27 <kaz> s/t he/the/
12:55:28 <mlagally_> kaz: this may affect the charter of the next WG period
12:55:45 <McCool_> McCool_ has joined #wot
12:55:46 <McCool_> q+
12:55:53 <mlagally_> sk: that means that the plan with the OPC foundation will be part of the charter, that we currently plan to set up
12:56:13 <kaz> s/not the legal availability/not the timing of the Legal Entity transition or the busyness of the Legal Team/
12:56:19 <mlagally_> ... there will be a TF for that. A joint WG decoupled from the Web of Things was also considered
12:56:30 <mlagally_> ml: was there a decision?
12:56:51 <mlagally_> sk: There was no resolution, but this was discossed
12:57:00 <kaz> s/, but we need a different level of AC review./ but that we need another level of AC review for a joint work with external SDOs as I've been explaining./
12:57:02 <mlagally_> topic: CR transition
12:57:20 <mlagally_> mmc: proposal to defer it to the individual TF
12:57:54 <mlagally_> ... if this cannot be done this week, we run very late with the PR
12:58:14 <mlagally_> mmc: We can make a resolution in the group to leave it to the individual TF
12:58:16 <kaz> s/this may affect the charter of the next WG period/Also if we want to include the joint work within the next WG Charter, we need to clarify and get an AC review as usual./
12:58:20 <kaz> ack k
12:58:53 <kaz> s/there will be a TF for that/would like to have a joint TF for that/
12:58:55 <mlagally_> ... discovery could be deferred until next week, we could do architecture and TD this week
12:58:57 <mlagally_> q+
12:59:21 <McCool_> proposal: proceed with CR transition for Architecture, Discovery, and Thing Description at the discretion of the Task Forces responsible.
12:59:31 <kaz> s/also considered/another possible option, though./
12:59:38 <sebastian> +1
12:59:40 <McCool_> proposal: proceed with CR transition for Architecture 1.1, Discovery, and Thing Description 1.1 at the discretion of the Task Forces responsible.
12:59:42 <cris_> +1
12:59:44 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:59:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/10/19-wot-minutes.html kaz
12:59:55 <kaz> q+
13:00:03 <kaz> ack mc
13:00:05 <kaz> ack ml
13:01:34 <mlagally_> ml: TAG review has not been concluded, they wanted to come back after TAG review of the architecture
13:01:55 <kaz> ack k
13:02:06 <mlagally_> kaz: unfortunately we are out of time, suggest we extend a bit
13:02:26 <kaz> s/a bit/a bit to make some kind of conclusion about this./
13:03:53 <kaz> s/unfortunately/unfortunately, /
13:03:59 <kaz> q+
13:05:53 <mlagally_> ml: Was TAG review been done
13:07:34 <kaz> kaz: during the CR transition procedure, we need to clarify which specs refer to what documents normatively or informatively in any case. So would suggest we ask PLH/Ralph and TAG for clarification about this rather than wondering about this within the WoT WG./
13:07:42 <kaz> s|WG./|WG.|
13:08:42 <mlagally_> ml: do both chairs agree that group wide review was done?
13:08:45 <mlagally_> mmc: yes
13:08:48 <mlagally_> sk: yes
13:09:38 <mlagally_> mmc: If we want to make PR within this charter, we have to do CR this week or next week
13:09:55 <kaz> q+
13:10:32 <mlagally_> kaz: we need to talk with PLH about this decision?
13:11:15 <mlagally_> sk: ML, why do you get back to the issue?
13:11:45 <mlagally_> ml: Want to clarify which version of the binding document will be referenced in the REC version
13:11:49 <kaz> s/we need to talk with PLH about this decision?/As I mentioned 5 mins ago, we need to clarify the reference from TD to Binding Templates during the CR transition procedure, so we can quickly check with PLH./
13:11:57 <mlagally_> ... current reference is to a 2 years old document
13:12:15 <mlagally_> sk: let me check
13:12:28 <mlagally_> ... version is Jan 2020
13:13:14 <mlagally_> ... ege: comparing to TD 1.1, do you see any conflict if this points to the old version?
13:13:38 <kaz> q+
13:13:53 <mlagally_> sk: We should update the WG note - should be updated, the content is the same
13:14:13 <mlagally_> ... it is independent, there's informative text
13:14:35 <mlagally_> ml: in the TD call last week we did not have much time to review
13:14:53 <mlagally_> ... to me it looked as if there would be more references to the binding templates
13:15:37 <mlagally_> ... some of those appear to occur in more than just informative examples
13:15:58 <mlagally_> ... this is kind of giving a blanko-check
13:17:00 <mlagally_> sk: I will double-check, there's no dependency
13:17:27 <McCool_> q+
13:18:11 <mlagally_> ml: we should spend more time for a thorough review
13:19:05 <kaz> q?
13:20:03 <mlagally_> mmc: When will binding tempalte spec be published
13:20:35 <mlagally_> ege: 2 weeks for the main document, individual documents later
13:21:01 <mlagally_> mmc: if the reference is to a moving target
13:21:02 <kaz> q?
13:21:05 <kaz> ack mc
13:21:15 <Ege> q+
13:21:22 <sebastian> q+
13:22:01 <kaz> -> https://www.w3.org/TR/wot-thing-description/#references TD 1.0 REC
13:22:04 <Ege> I agree that there are two issues
13:22:18 <cris_> +1
13:22:20 <mlagally_> kaz: there are 2 separate issues. The need for a dated URI, please look at the TD 1.0 version - we use dated references
13:22:29 <mlagally_> ... we should do also for the 1.1 version
13:22:56 <mlagally_> ... we should clarify which assertions defines the normative features in the TD wrt. to the binding template
13:23:19 <mlagally_> ... if it is defined in the binding templates, this is problematic
13:23:35 <kaz> ack k
13:23:58 <mlagally_> sk: If we keep the reference to the 1.0 binding document, is there any conflict?
13:24:02 <mlagally_> ege: no
13:24:29 <mlagally_> ... no real conflict, but the version that is published uses the 2019 @context URL
13:24:32 <Ege> https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/NOTE-wot-binding-templates-20200130/#example-28-td-with-protocol-options-and-complex-payload
13:24:34 <kaz> q?
13:24:36 <kaz> ack e
13:24:38 <kaz> q+
13:25:08 <mlagally_> ... it would not be a big problem I think, but it may confuse the readers
13:25:20 <mlagally_> ... I did not think of assertions
13:25:43 <mlagally_> ... that was a mistake but the TD does not depend on the binding templates
13:26:19 <mlagally_> ... the only thing we have to make sure is that the examples use the different terms
13:26:33 <mlagally_> ... for coap the names have changes
13:26:42 <McCool_> q+
13:26:58 <mlagally_> ... ml do you have any objection to publish a new note of the binding template
13:27:15 <kaz> s/The need for/The first issue is the need for/
13:27:37 <kaz> s/we should clarify/and the second issue is that we should clarify/
13:28:05 <mlagally_> ml: I certainly support better versions and newer documents
13:28:44 <mlagally_> ... just not sure we do not have a normative reference to a moving target
13:29:02 <mlagally_> sk: can we update document during CR phase
13:29:24 <mlagally_> kaz: we have to confirm that all normative assertions don't refer the binding document
13:30:25 <mlagally_> sk: we could update during PR
13:31:09 <mlagally_> kaz: if it is not normatively referenced, we simply use the updated reference.
13:32:25 <mlagally_> ... If possible we should use the latest updated version
13:32:26 <kaz> s/we have to confirm that all normative assertions don't refer the binding document/Note that the more important question here is that we have to confirm that all normative assertions don't refer the Binding Templates Note./
13:32:58 <McCool_> q?
13:33:08 <mlagally_> ml: TD group should check in today's TD call if there's no normative reference
13:33:24 <McCool_> ack s
13:33:29 <McCool_> ack k
13:33:40 <sebastian> q?
13:33:56 <kaz> s/if it is not normatively referenced, we simply use the updated reference./Regarding the less important question here, i.e., the informative reference to the Binding Templates Note, we simply should use the dated URL of the latest Note./
13:34:25 <mlagally_> mmc: we could consider moving PR date to early next year
13:34:47 <kaz> s/If possible we should use the latest updated version/If appropriate, we should use the dated URL for the normative references as well./
13:34:56 <kaz> q+
13:34:59 <kaz> ack mc
13:35:00 <mlagally_> sk: we double-check the TD situation
13:35:27 <kaz> s/we/we'll/
13:35:33 <mlagally_> mmc: we could delegate the resolution to the task forces
13:35:41 <McCool_> proposal: proceed with CR transition for Architecture 1.1, Discovery, and Thing Description 1.1 at the discretion of the Task Forces responsible.
13:36:53 <mlagally_> sk: what if we do the decision in tomorrow's architecture call
13:37:01 <mlagally_> mmc: should be in the main call
13:37:15 <mlagally_> ... kaz, is delegation ok or wait for next main call?
13:37:28 <mlagally_> kaz: next main call is better
13:37:34 <kaz> q?
13:37:35 <kaz> ack k
13:37:37 <kaz> q+
13:38:04 <mlagally_> mmc: it is super important to get this done, TFs should clarify all outstanding issues with highest priority
13:38:23 <mlagally_> kaz: I'm ok with that direction, suggest we clarify the updated schedule
13:38:57 <mlagally_> ... should update the schedule accordingly - if we need a few months extension we can discuss with W3M
13:39:02 <kaz> s/suggest/but suggest/
13:39:24 <mlagally_> mmc: We have to go to PR within this charter, REC transition can come later.
13:39:31 <kaz> s/we can discuss/we need to consult/
13:39:54 <mlagally_> ... These dates end up in the specs, I want to pick a date to put into these implementation reports.
13:40:32 <mlagally_> ... I assume that we aim for January 12th, PR resolution on January 11th.
13:40:51 <mlagally_> ... we avoid first week because of vacations in Japan
13:41:07 <cris_> ok
13:41:13 <mlagally_> ... Will use Jan 11th in the documents.
13:41:50 <mlagally_> mmc: we MUST do the resolution next week, otherwise we have to do an extension, would rather not do that
13:42:26 <mlagally_> sk: Thanks for the long meeting, we will discuss binding first
13:42:27 <kaz> q+
13:42:37 <mlagally_> ... will also discuss reference to binding
13:43:29 <mlagally_> ml: Unfortunately cannot attend today's call
13:44:39 <kaz> ack k
13:44:44 <mlagally_> sk: meeting is adjourned
13:45:15 <kaz> i/meeting/kaz: in that case, would suggest we concentrate on TD review based on Lagally's question today/
13:45:52 <kaz> i/meeting/sk: that's difficult because the TD meeting agenda has been already fixed and some people can't make the TD discussion during the first hour./
13:46:17 <kaz> i/kaz: if we can make the updated schedule, that's fine to keep the ordinary agenda./
13:46:25 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:46:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/10/19-wot-minutes.html kaz