12:53:54 RRSAgent has joined #wot 12:53:59 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/01/18-wot-irc 12:54:02 meeting: WoT WG Charter - Day 3 12:54:43 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Agenda_Day_3_-_Jan_18 12:54:45 mjk has joined #wot 12:58:45 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool 13:00:16 present+ Michael_Koster 13:01:08 sebastian has joined #wot 13:01:41 ktoumura has joined #wot 13:02:44 Mizushima has joined #wot 13:02:52 Ege has joined #wot 13:03:43 present+ Sebastian_Kaebisch, Ege_Korkan, Kunihiko_Toumura, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Tetsushi_Matsuda 13:03:50 rrsagent, make log public 13:03:54 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:03:56 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/18-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:04:03 scribenick: McCool 13:04:16 zakim, who is on the call? 13:04:18 Present: Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Michael_Koster, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Ege_Korkan, Kunihiko_Toumura, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Tetsushi_Matsuda 13:04:21 I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to join the start of the meeting, but I will try to join later if I can. 13:04:21 topic: Organization 13:04:45 s/I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to join the start of the meeting, but I will try to join later if I can.// 13:04:52 seb: reviews agenda at https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Agenda_Day_3_-_Jan_18 13:05:26 .. going to talk about some policy topics first, including resolution on charter extension 13:06:04 dape has joined #wot 13:06:11 ... want to clarify some assumptions about priorities 13:06:20 ... and relationships to other groups 13:06:36 ... short discussion of liaisons, more tomorrow 13:07:20 ... then some PRs for some deliverables: security, discovery, and profiles 13:07:38 seb: any other agenda items? 13:07:49 ... seems not the case, let's begin 13:07:56 topic: Generic Fixes 13:08:03 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1058 13:08:40 s/1058/1058 PR 1058 - WG 2023 Charter - generic updates/ 13:08:48 mm: (goes through the changes) 13:10:43 ... CSS issue to be fixed later 13:10:55 q+ 13:11:43 kaz: including the previous contributions? 13:11:46 kaz: have you included previous discussion in our other charters? 13:11:57 mm: no, not really, this PR is just about cleaning up the template 13:11:59 mlagally has joined #wot 13:12:05 seb: any objections to merge? 13:12:07 s/kaz: including the previous contributions?// 13:12:27 s/up the template/up the latest template/ 13:12:32 seb: ok, let's merge 13:12:38 i/goes/scribenick: kaz/ 13:12:44 topic: Policy and Workflow 13:12:46 i/have you/scribenick: McCool/ 13:12:48 subtopic: Extension 13:12:48 q? 13:12:50 ack k 13:13:19 seb: we need at least 4mo, should we ask for 6mo? 13:13:39 ... kaz has been talking to W3M and they suggested we be on the safe side and ask for 6mo 13:13:50 ... if we need another extension it will be very difficult 13:14:32 seb: statement for Siemen's view that we have a concern that the 6mos that don't want to delay work on TD 2.0 and OPC UA 13:14:32 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:14:33 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/18-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:15:23 ... don't want to start new charter after 6mo; if we support this extension, we still want to start work on TD 2.0 and OPC UA sooner 13:15:23 chair: Sebastian 13:15:40 q+ 13:15:41 ... concerned about delay due to summer break 13:15:53 ... so 6mo extension is only acceptable if we start earlier 13:16:05 ... so would still plan to start the new charter on 1 June 13:16:18 present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Jan_Romann 13:16:21 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:16:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/18-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:17:00 ... also, TD 2.0 is still in our current charter, so we can still work on it 13:17:00 q+ 13:17:00 q+ 13:17:06 present+ Michael_Lagally 13:17:10 ack ml 13:17:29 ml: thanks for proposal, support it, and don't want to lose time on TD 2.0/DTDL/Digital Twins or OPC UA 13:18:11 ... assume we have to follow formal process; how do we want to handle requirements; since use cases are IG, it is already chartered, can start right away 13:18:34 ... in summary, support asking for a 6mo extension, does not block requirements analysis in particular 13:19:30 kaz: I support, also originally suggested; 6mo is max period, if we can finish new charter earlier, then we can submit and start it earlier 13:19:51 q? 13:19:56 ack k 13:19:59 ack m 13:20:36 mm: support asking for 6mo, as long as we stick to the current proposed schedule, based on 4mo plan 13:21:25 seb: note for OPC UA we also need to move forward with some formal arrangements, will have to work on that in parallel, want to mention in the new charter 13:21:39 q+ 13:21:43 ... would like to have this settled and ready 13:22:14 kaz: regarding OPC UA liaison, if want formal joint deliverables, will have to have in charter, and in the MOU 13:22:14 q+ 13:22:23 ack k 13:22:23 ... both of which will have to be reviewed by AC 13:22:49 ack ml 13:23:09 ml: when talk about MOU, suggest back activity with some requirements that emphasize business value 13:23:33 ... what is added value and benefit, suitable for business management 13:23:51 ... this is an IG activity that we could work on 13:24:56 proposal: Request a 6mo extension for our current WoT WG charter, while working to a 4mo plan and an intention to start the new charter as soon as possible, ideally on or before June 1 13:25:38 s/business management/upper management/ 13:25:45 proposal: Request a 6mo extension for our current WoT WG charter, while working to a 4mo plan and an intention to start the new charter as soon as possible, ideally on or before June 1, while beginning work on TD 2.0 and liaison organization within the current charter. 13:25:58 q+ 13:26:19 +1 13:26:26 q+ 13:26:38 ml: for TD 2.0 requirements, we don't have a document? 13:26:40 ack ml 13:26:56 seb: be do have a set of issues labelled TD 2.0; we need to derive a list of requirement 13:27:07 q+ 13:27:13 ml: suggest we create a brief requirements document for TD 2.0 13:27:19 seb: agree, where we should start 13:27:36 https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/proposals/deliverable-proposals/thing-description.md 13:27:52 https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1063 13:27:59 eg: for next charter discussion, also is a collection (see link above) in deliverable proposals, and also a draft PR for the charter 13:28:11 ack k 13:28:16 ack e 13:28:26 proposal: Request a 6mo extension for our current WoT WG charter, while working to a 4mo plan and an intention to start the new charter as soon as possible, ideally on or before June 1, while beginning work on TD 2.0 and liaison organization within the current charter. 13:28:28 q? 13:28:36 +1 13:28:50 +1 13:28:55 +1 13:29:08 resolution: Request a 6mo extension for our current WoT WG charter, while working to a 4mo plan and an intention to start the new charter as soon as possible, ideally on or before June 1, while beginning work on TD 2.0 and liaison organization within the current charter. 13:29:23 subtopic: License 13:29:41 s/requirements document for TD 2.0/requirements document for TD 2.0 in the use cases TF/ 13:30:37 mm: propose using the W3C Software and Document license, as in our current charter 13:31:14 i|propose|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1062 PR 1062 - WG 2023 Charter - License| 13:31:33 seb: (resolves conflict) 13:32:09 ... any objections? 13:32:13 ... none, merging 13:32:25 subtopic: Clarify Policies 13:32:36 q+ 13:33:06 q+ 13:33:18 matsuda has joined #wot 13:33:20 mm: is previous discussion, propose we have a resolution to clarify mission statement 13:33:44 ... essentially, to prioritize industrial adoption 13:34:00 ack k 13:34:15 kaz: don't need actual text, but agreement makes sense 13:34:36 ege: agree, but should be aware it is hard to measure impact, etc. 13:34:54 ... still hard to decide among features still 13:35:06 seb: this is more about where we want to spend time 13:35:25 s/don't/given industry adoption is important for WoT 2.0, we need to clarify how to deal with contributions from the external SDOs and groups. We don't/ 13:35:28 ... better to spend time with industrial SDOs than working with students, for example 13:35:39 s/actual text/actual text today/ 13:35:41 ... question of prioritization 13:36:45 probably: The WoT WG will prioritize work that leads to industrial adoption of WoT standards, including liaisons with other industrial SDOs and meeting the stated requirements of potential commercial adopters. 13:37:16 probably: The WoT WG will prioritize work that leads to commercial adoption of WoT standards, including liaisons with other SDOs and meeting the stated requirements of potential commercial adopters. 13:37:28 q+ 13:37:32 +1 13:37:37 q? 13:37:37 ack e 13:37:38 ack e 13:38:30 q+ 13:38:45 ack ml 13:40:22 ml: would clearly state business interest and participation 13:40:52 q+ 13:41:06 proposal: The WoT WG will prioritize work that leads to commercial adoption of WoT standards, including liaisons with other SDOs and meeting the stated requirements of potential commercial adopters. 13:41:21 ml: how do we decide? 13:41:32 mm: mission statement, not execution plan 13:41:45 kaz: for today can start with basic policy 13:41:49 ack k 13:42:04 mm: suggest we do something basic now, move on with agenda 13:42:12 cris: was thinking about OSS solution 13:42:49 mm: that was my intention with the "leads to" part 13:42:53 ack c 13:43:04 proposal: The WoT WG will prioritize work that leads to commercial adoption of WoT standards, including liaisons with other SDOs and meeting the stated requirements of potential commercial adopters. 13:43:07 s/for/I agree with Lagally, on Monday, I suggested we think about (1) the basic policy (like McCool is proposing) first and then (2) concrete procedure on how to handle contributions from the outside./ 13:43:26 +1 13:43:28 s/today can/For today, we can/ 13:43:32 +1 13:43:34 resolution: The WoT WG will prioritize work that leads to commercial adoption of WoT standards, including liaisons with other SDOs and meeting the stated requirements of potential commercial adopters. 13:43:34 +1 13:44:11 seb: will copy resolution to issue 206 in use cases and close it 13:44:51 subtopic: Liaisons 13:45:16 seb: not only other SDOs, but also other W3C groups, and WoT CGs 13:45:33 q+ 13:45:51 q+ 13:46:33 present+ Ryuichi_Matsukura 13:46:36 mm: we probably need concrete PRs on CG relationship, another for W3C groups, and liaisons with external SDOs we can discuss tomorrow 13:46:52 kaz: @@@ 13:47:25 ege: do we need a discussion for this? 13:47:36 mm: just need a few concrete sentences for the charter 13:47:39 s/@@@/agree. For today again, we should start with confirming the need to think about related groups including CGs as well as external SDOs./ 13:49:39 subtopic: Decision Policy 13:50:12 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1061 PR 1061 - WG 2023 Charter - Decision Policy 13:50:44 q+ 13:50:48 ack k 13:51:11 ack e 13:51:39 mm: edits to the latest template as an initial starting point 13:51:57 q+ 13:52:31 mm: this is just resolving the todos in the template, but there are questions to resolve; CfC for resolutions,and asynch merging of PRs 13:52:42 ... this PR does not address the last two points 13:53:07 seb: agree with merging this PR, but in general would like to rely more on github features 13:53:17 q+ 13:53:21 ack s 13:53:41 ... if there is clear consensus on a PR, can merge 13:54:28 ... email is not my preference for CfC though 13:54:38 ... need another resolution later on 13:54:57 q+ 13:54:58 kaz: perhaps should create some issues for these topics 13:55:13 ack k 13:55:28 s/topics/topics for further improvement/ 13:56:15 mm: let's create issues, but suggest charter can just have a very general statement, e.g. "Use github features to resolve issues when possible in an asynchronous manner" 13:56:28 seb: (merged PR 1061) 13:57:25 mm: suggest ben adds a PR as needed 13:57:44 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:57:46 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/18-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:57:54 ben: problem is not actually, but what's in the charter, says it should be asynch 13:58:02 ... but not clear we need resolutions to merge PRs 13:58:08 q+ 13:58:15 q++ 13:58:16 seb: I think what is missing is what it means by consensus 13:58:19 qq+ 13:58:40 ben: what it actually says is resolution is proposed, then 10 days for objection 13:58:48 q? 13:58:54 q- + 13:58:55 ... if we were following this process, we would be doing things differently 13:58:58 q+ 13:59:02 ack ben 13:59:15 ack ml 13:59:42 ml: what I think would help is a better review process to gather input and have evidence of consensu 13:59:58 ... so instead we have been using group discussions in place of reviews 14:00:04 s/consensu/consensus/ 14:00:10 ack ml 14:00:10 mlagally, you wanted to react to kaz 14:00:23 ... if there were changes requested, for instance, then there is not consensus 14:00:38 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:00:39 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/18-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:00:46 ... we need a couple of simple rules, but if we use github features like reviews would help 14:00:56 present+ Ben_Francis 14:01:10 ... but also a problem with people who just complain but don't propose a resolution 14:01:52 * I have to drop off 14:02:11 mm: charter just needs simple statement of intent, does not need detailed process 14:02:27 kaz: ok, but do take care to define the exact procedure later 14:02:44 ack 14:02:49 q? 14:02:49 s/ack// 14:02:51 ack k 14:02:54 ack mc 14:03:02 seb: what is next step? Another meeting to define process? 14:03:30 mjk_ has joined #wot 14:04:06 mm: maybe use the editor's call next week to discuss the proposal already on the table provided by Ben? 14:04:45 seb: Ben, would you be able to participate? 14:05:07 ben: text already says asynch, but not sure resolutions are needed to merge PRs for specs? 14:05:20 mm: this is one of the things that needs to be clarified 14:05:33 seb: note that in general we only merge PRs in TF calls 14:05:51 ... and part of the proposal is that we can merge PRs even outside TF calls 14:06:28 ben: have made a proposal, but does the charter need to change, or just how we do things? 14:06:53 q+ 14:06:55 q+ 14:07:24 mm: I do think the current text needs some work, the "for example" part, for example. 14:07:57 seb: I do think the policy is a bit strange 14:08:23 ben: perhaps we can have the discussion asynchronously... can comment on existing issues and PRs 14:08:55 q+ 14:09:01 mm: do we want to revert this PR? 14:09:22 ben: I think current text is ok, but maybe some revision would be helpful 14:09:43 ege: this text is not really about PRs, but more organizational decisions, like publications 14:10:15 ... in practice, working on specifications is done in TFs using their own policies 14:10:33 q? 14:10:33 ... this specific text is not about PRs, we need an additional paragraph somewhere about that 14:10:40 q? 14:10:41 ack e 14:10:41 ack e 14:10:41 ack e 14:11:20 kaz: tend to agree with Ben, charter doc is basic policy; need to also clarify concrete procedure, but this does not have to go into the charter itself 14:11:25 q+ 14:11:31 ack k 14:12:24 cris: agree with current line of thinking; charter text can be high-level; but if defer, need to define timeline; want to do in parallel and have it ready before the new charter starts 14:12:24 s/itself/itself. we should continue to define the detailed procedure but that should go to a separate wiki page or MD file./ 14:12:52 ... or longer, maybe 6mo? 14:13:26 ben: PR for proposal has been open for 2 years; never felt the charter needed to be changed, we just need to define and write down our policy 14:13:54 seb: could plan to write down the policy, and could have different policies for different TFs also 14:13:56 q? 14:14:00 ack c 14:14:01 ack c 14:15:11 mm: editors call is one place we can discuss, can also do in main call, but only 10m at a time 14:15:34 seb: would be good to have concrete PRs to discuss... Ben 14:15:35 q? 14:15:56 ben: what is needed? 14:16:24 seb: I think the current text is too vague, needs to say something about PRs 14:16:33 q? 14:16:39 q+ 14:16:51 +1 14:16:51 ben: Ege is right, this text is for resolutions; don't think we actually need anything in the charter 14:16:55 +1 14:17:14 ack k 14:17:16 kaz: this level of description is OK for the charter, more details can be done later 14:17:16 q+ 14:17:36 seb: ok, then it is fine for now 14:18:18 ben: would encourage people to comment on the PR for the resolution 14:18:29 ack m 14:18:31 ack e 14:18:41 mm: suggest we comment on it, discuss comments in next main call, and also set June 1 (new charter) to have this decided 14:18:43 q+ 14:18:55 ack _m 14:19:00 ack m 14:19:01 ege: one policy for all TFs? 14:19:19 mm: let's add that comment to the PR/issue and cover it as part of the discussion 14:19:34 topic: Deliverables 14:19:42 subtopic: Security 14:20:43 mm: there are 2 PRs, for work items and deliverables 14:21:05 i|there|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1057 PR 1057 - WG 2023 Charter - Security Deliverable| 14:21:49 mm: ready to review and merge the work items PR 14:21:49 i|there|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1053 PR 1053 - WG 2023 Charter - Security Work Items| 14:22:08 s/work items PR/work items (PR 1053)/ 14:22:18 mm: the biggest part is about pairing 14:22:21 i/there are/scribenick: mjk_/ 14:23:27 q+ 14:23:28 q? 14:23:43 q+ 14:23:47 mm: suggest merging the work item PR and waiting on the deliverables PR 14:24:23 ege: like the idea of moving these deliverables to other documents 14:25:08 q+ 14:25:12 ack e 14:25:40 q+ 14:25:43 ack c 14:25:43 ege: it would raise the priority and visibility of security for assertion checking 14:26:20 q++ 14:26:20 cris: like the idea of moving security protocols to the binding templates 14:26:26 q+ 14:26:29 ack + 14:26:35 qq+ 14:26:36 qq+ McCool 14:26:46 ack mc 14:26:53 ack mc 14:26:54 ack mc 14:27:00 ack McCool 14:27:00 McCool, you wanted to react to + 14:27:04 ack McCool 14:27:04 McCool, you wanted to react to + 14:27:06 ack McCool 14:27:17 mm: we need flexibility to define generic schemes that aren't specific to one protocol 14:27:30 ... we can add detail to the binding doc. 14:27:34 cris: agree 14:28:22 kaz: we should think about the relationships between documents, and which topic should be defined by each document 14:28:30 +1 kaz 14:28:41 ... this would be useful for the charter as well 14:28:49 seb: agree 14:29:26 seb: question about the onlology 14:29:58 mm: we need to factor the ontology also, so protocol specifics would be moved into bindings 14:29:58 q? 14:30:01 ack s 14:30:11 q+ 14:30:44 q+ 14:31:09 ack 14:31:11 kaz: if we want to work on security ontology, we need to survey the current SDO work status 14:31:12 s/ack// 14:31:14 q+ 14:31:15 ack k 14:31:21 ... across various SDOs 14:31:58 ben: are we going to require RDF prefix processing if we include ontologies in the binding? 14:32:12 ... maybe a registry would 14:32:25 ack kaz 14:32:27 mm: we should be able to validate TDs using only JSON tools 14:32:36 ack be 14:32:39 ack mc 14:32:47 q+ 14:32:53 ... profiles will insist on using particular bindings 14:32:53 q+ 14:33:19 mm: I would like to merge this PR and then build on that 14:34:01 i/if we want to work/I'm OK with merging this PR as a starting point. However, if we want to work/ 14:34:01 dape: agree that we can merge this, but there is more to be done to make it work with plain JSON 14:34:07 ack dape 14:34:31 mm: we would need JSON signing in addition to JSON-LD signing 14:34:41 dape: also remove the references to RDF 14:34:56 q? 14:34:58 mm: OK, will up-level it 14:35:14 seb: any objections? 14:35:22 ... on merging? 14:36:21 kaz: our ontologies and registries should be compatible with other ontologies and registries 14:36:33 mm: we would need to add that to the charter 14:36:38 s/other/other existing/ 14:36:51 i/our on/please note that our on/ 14:37:20 seb: do we decide to not have a deliverables document? 14:37:29 mm: it will be informative 14:37:59 subtopic: discovery 14:38:24 mm: same structure, there is a work item PR and a deliverables PR 14:38:43 q+ 14:38:47 mm: there is an update to support versioning of TDs 14:38:53 q+ 14:39:41 mm: there is an update to thingmodel to deal with linking TDs to TMs, putting TM into the same directory 14:40:09 JKRhb has joined #wot 14:40:17 mm: adding CoAP directory services for constrained devices 14:40:48 mm: next one is JSON-path 14:41:04 q+ 14:41:09 ... we need a simpler way than SPARQL to do queries 14:41:31 mm: next is filters 14:41:55 ... we need some way to reduce the discovery response volume 14:42:28 ... 3-4 common use cases like geolocation having spatial filters 14:42:36 q- 14:43:00 ... the only thing not discussed is the TM item, and we need another round of discussion with the discovery TF 14:43:03 ack k 14:43:23 ack e 14:43:44 ege: regarding versioning, we need both spec version and TD version 14:44:08 q+ 14:44:18 mm: good point, we will add that to the discussion 14:46:13 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:46:14 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/01/18-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:46:20 seb: thinking about collaboration work like OPC-UA, there are also discovery systems in the systems we are describing in WoT 14:46:46 seb: how would we align with external discovery protocols 14:46:47 q+ 14:46:47 ack s 14:46:57 ack s 14:47:17 mm: there could be a separate service 14:48:08 jan: one addition is security bootstrapping in CoAP using ACE Oauth 14:48:16 ack JK 14:48:22 mm: create issues in wot-discovery 14:49:13 ack k 14:49:20 kaz: for SDO coordination, we need to define a basic policy and adapt it to specific liaisons 14:49:36 ... that will be part of the charter 14:49:40 s/basic policy/basic policy within the Charter/ 14:49:59