Meeting minutes
minutes review
Sebastian: there's a change request from Michael Lagally
(Sebastian walks through the minutes)
… were the previous TPAC minutes approved?
McCool: yes, we did that.
Lagally: yes
Sebastian: kaz, please add a statement to the minutes about that
… wen tover TD, discovery, profile
… we did a resolution on profile
… we gave a sort update on OPC and security group
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to react to kaz
Lagally: let's write on the call notes what was said on that call
<Ege> This might be patent infringement. I want to know W3C's opinion on how to handle this
Lagally: we can provide clarifications on this call
Kaz: W3C does not have an opinion, just a policy
Ege: I said opinion but meant policy
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."
Lagally: please let's use these terms wisely
Sebastian: final question - are we ok with the updates of the minutes
Kaz: The profile TF did revoke their resolution from the previous call
Sebastian: this was a different resolution
Sebastian: any objection
(none; minutes approved)
IIWOT Workshop
McCool: we requested an invited talk - they take it into consideration
… they are aware on that request
Kaz: I have thought about policy for marketing and presentation policies
… So I asked McCool to ask the IIWoT organizer about the possibility of an invited talk.
… we should talk about presentation policy in the marketing call
McCool: right, and let's move a head.
report from outreach events
Mizu: japanese CG discussed with stakeholders from publishing industry
… as next step we will discuss use cases of publishing industry
… we will propose use cases to the W3C WoT Use Cases group
Sebastian: How many participants in CG meetings
Mizu: 85 people
McCool: we need to figure out who did implementations
Kaz: this is comment for both CGs - think about to transition their ideas, proposals, use cases to the WoT main groups
Ege: that's a good thing
Sebastian: this can be a part of our F2F meetings
… we know what's going on there and can take over
WoT CG update
Ege: We had an event on Thursday - Thomas Jaeckle explained how they use WoT for digital twins
… we discussed how people want to use - we have different definitions
… somebody from Deutsche Telekom attended, they have a smart home product
… they use TDs in an extended form
… we will get in contact with them
Kaz: Deutsche Telekom - t-systems used to be a W3C Member. 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./
Lagally: can we invite Deutsche Telekom to the WG for a presentation
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
… then we can go to their standardisation needs
Cristiano: We also had a really nice discussion about digital twins, how to compose TDs
… tomorrow we have an internal meeting, if you would like to join you are very welcome
McCool: The more implementers we get, we need to get input to determine what we work on
… I agree with Ege, we should also take it to the use cases call
Sebastian: We see that the CG group is a good platform for asking for implementation reports
Kaz: please think how to bring back the feedback to the main groups. This is a kind of action item for both the CGs.
Sebastian: there's not that much time to discuss details
Kaz: Yeah, that's why I'm asking them to think about that as an action item :)
Lagally: need to consider their definitions on digital twins, are we aligned?
cancellations
McCool: Will be gone for vacation Nov 7-18th will cancel security and discovery
Sebastian: We have Erich Barnstedt on the call - we did not discuss DTDL further
Erich: We can get that organized when Michael comes back
Sebastian: we could pick a date, perhaps in the Week of the 20th
… Tuesday Nov 22.
Daniel: cancellations - we need to cancel scripting on Oct 31st.
Ege: mm, you made the TF leads co-organizers of their events, but I still cannot edit the marketing call
Lagally: what does that mean
McCool: I added TF leads as co-organizers - be careful if you cancel - you cannot undo
Kaz: editors are requested to updated the cancellations
OPC-UA
Sebastian: We met with Philippe Le Hegaret from the W3M to discuss the OPC-UA liaison and the expected outcomes and the consequence for W3C
… we shouln not have a separate joint WG, it should be run within WoT
… there's also a discussion on the MOU
… since there's a transition to run under a different legal entity, the W3C legal department is very busy
… at this moment the multi-organisation agreement that is required by the OPC foundation needs to wait
… perhaps Nov or Dec
Kaz: Sebastian, please note that the main question is not the timing of the Legal Entity transition or the busyness of the Legal Team but that we need another level of AC review for a joint work with external SDOs as I've been explaining.
… we also need a dedicated review of the joint charter by the AC
Kaz: 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.
Sebastian: that means that the plan with the OPC foundation will be part of the charter, that we currently plan to set up
… would like to have a joint TF for that. A joint WG decoupled from the Web of Things was another possible option, though.
Lagally: was there a decision?
Sebastian: There was no resolution, but this was discossed
CR transition
McCool: proposal to defer it to the individual TF
… if this cannot be done this week, we run very late with the PR
McCool: We can make a resolution in the group to leave it to the individual TF
… discovery could be deferred until next week, we could do architecture and TD this week
<McCool_> proposal: proceed with CR transition for Architecture, Discovery, and Thing Description at the discretion of the Task Forces responsible.
<sebastian> +1
<McCool_> proposal: proceed with CR transition for Architecture 1.1, Discovery, and Thing Description 1.1 at the discretion of the Task Forces responsible.
<cris_> +1
Lagally: TAG review has not been concluded, they wanted to come back after TAG review of the architecture
Kaz: unfortunately, we are out of time, suggest we extend a bit to make some kind of conclusion about this.
Lagally: Was TAG review been done
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.
Lagally: do both chairs agree that group wide review was done?
McCool: yes
Sebastian: yes
McCool: If we want to make PR within this charter, we have to do CR this week or next week
Kaz: 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.
Sebastian: ML, why do you get back to the issue?
Lagally: Want to clarify which version of the binding document will be referenced in the REC version
… current reference is to a 2 years old document
Sebastian: let me check
… version is Jan 2020
… ege: comparing to TD 1.1, do you see any conflict if this points to the old version?
Sebastian: We should update the WG note - should be updated, the content is the same
… it is independent, there's informative text
Lagally: in the TD call last week we did not have much time to review
… to me it looked as if there would be more references to the binding templates
… some of those appear to occur in more than just informative examples
… this is kind of giving a blank-check
Sebastian: I will double-check, there's no dependency
Lagally: we should spend more time for a thorough review
McCool: When will binding tempalte spec be published
Ege: 2 weeks for the main document, individual documents later
McCool: if the reference is to a moving target
<kaz> TD 1.0 REC
Kaz: there are 2 separate issues. The first issue is the need for a dated URI, please look at the TD 1.0 version - we use dated references
… we should do also for the 1.1 version
… and the second issue is that we should clarify which assertions defines the normative features in the TD wrt. to the binding template
… if it is defined in the binding templates, this is problematic
<Ege> I agree that there are two issues
<cris_> +1
Sebastian: If we keep the reference to the 1.0 binding document, is there any conflict?
Ege: no
… no real conflict, but the version that is published uses the 2019 @context URL
Ege: it would not be a big problem I think, but it may confuse the readers
… I did not think of assertions
… that was a mistake but the TD does not depend on the binding templates
… the only thing we have to make sure is that the examples use the different terms
… for coap the names have changes
… ml do you have any objection to publish a new note of the binding template
Lagally: I certainly support better versions and newer documents
… just not sure we do not have a normative reference to a moving target
Sebastian: can we update document during CR phase
Kaz: Note that the more important question here is that we have to confirm that all normative assertions don't refer the Binding Templates Note.
Sebastian: we could update during PR
Kaz: 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.
… If appropriate, we should use the dated URL for the normative references as well.
Lagally: TD group should check in today's TD call if there's no normative reference
McCool: we could consider moving PR date to early next year
Sebastian: we'll double-check the TD situation
McCool: we could delegate the resolution to the task forces
<McCool_> proposal: proceed with CR transition for Architecture 1.1, Discovery, and Thing Description 1.1 at the discretion of the Task Forces responsible.
Sebastian: what if we do the decision in tomorrow's architecture call
McCool: should be in the main call
… kaz, is delegation ok or wait for next main call?
Kaz: next main call is better
McCool: it is super important to get this done, TFs should clarify all outstanding issues with highest priority
Kaz: I'm ok with that direction, but suggest we clarify the updated schedule
… should update the schedule accordingly - if we need a few months extension we need to consult with W3M
McCool: We have to go to PR within this charter, REC transition can come later.
… These dates end up in the specs, I want to pick a date to put into these implementation reports.
… I assume that we aim for January 12th, PR resolution on January 11th.
… we avoid first week because of vacations in Japan
<cris_> ok
McCool: Will use Jan 11th in the documents.
McCool: we MUST do the resolution next week, otherwise we have to do an extension, would rather not do that
Sebastian: Thanks for the long meeting, we will discuss binding first
… will also discuss reference to binding
Lagally: Unfortunately cannot attend today's call
Kaz: in that case, would suggest we concentrate on TD review based on Lagally's question today
Sebastian: 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.
Kaz: if we can make the updated schedule for publication during this Charter period, fine to keep the ordinary agenda.
Sebastian: meeting is adjourned