Meeting minutes
Organization
<McCool ask the group how we should organize the next meeting about charter discussions>
<McCool> https://
Kaz: agree we need further discussion, and need to see good slot using Doodle. However, before holding further discussion, we should clarify what to be described for the Charter.
McCool: should collect the points in the issue
Kaz: Charter is an abstract plan for the next 2 years, so it's different from C language code or programming script. So we need to review the whole Charter document section by section.
Ben: please do not forget profile. Question to Kaz: how much details is needed?
Kaz: We should clarify our plan, also about the cooperation partners. Too much detail is not needed. On the other hand, we need to identify what document we would like to generate, which of them are normative. Also joint deliverables based on official liaison with external SDOs.
<there will be a doodle for the next charter session>
Deliverables
Profile
<Ben presents the PR>
PR 1056 - WG 2023 Charter - Profile Work Items
McCool: I'm ok merging this. However the term "interoperability profile" sounds strange.
+1
<Ben explains the details of its PR>
Ben: Complete the transition, Normatively define one or more profiles which specify how to observe properties and subscribe to events over HTTP, Consider defining other profiles and Stretch goal
Lagally: we should finalize Profile 1.0 in the current charter to avoid complicated versioning
McCool: Proposal is do not mention any version number to be on the safe side
Ege: we should not do detail discussion yet
Kaz: agree. Again, a Charter document is abstract plan on our 2-year Charter period. So we should just explain what "WoT Profile" is like. be careful what is our expectations on profile in the charter
Ben: Im ok removing version number
Publication status
Kaz: Profile WD was published yesterday on Jan 18, and TD 1.1, Discovery and Architecture 1.1 were published today on Jan 19.
McCool: will update the schedule
Ben: Profile document should be independent and not depend on Architecture
Liaisons
PR 1059 - External coordination (Liaisons)
Sebastian: we have good
baseline for our building blocks
… should think about how to adopt to the other
SDOs
… the next Charter should cooperate with well known
SDOs
… which are focusing on industry
standards
… e.g., ECLASS
Sebastian: strong connection with OPC as well
McCool: don't think we can
say "will" here
… that's too strong word to put here
… then the target should be OPC UA
Erich: good organization
with 900 Members
… working on industry interoperability
standards
… Sebastian and I are thinking about potential
mapping between OPC UA and WoT
McCool: absolutely agree
with the cooperation itself
… but we need to work with the W3M about the
liaison
… new W3C should be interested in industry
adoption
Kaz: I think I suggested we look at the SDW WG Charter as an example on how to deal with external liaison for joint deliverables several times. Have you by chance looked at it?
Sebastian: not yet
Kaz: We don't need to look into the SDW WG Charter now, but we should have some more discussion on how to describe our expectation on liaisons within the Charter.
Sebastian: I agree Charter is
basic policy and plan
… However, there have been discussions between OPC
and W3C
Kaz: I know, but we don't need to explain the detailed history within the Charter
Lagally: this is important
initiative
… would it be possible to ask them to actively
participate in the W3C WoT standardization work?
McCool: who do you mean?
Sebastian: there is a huge list here
(we should discuss how to make them participate separately)
Sebastian: (talks about
Industrial Digital Twin Association)
… official liaison and close exchange to be
done
Lagally: call out Platform 4.0?
Sebastian: it's also included
Ege: copied others from
the current Charter
… and we should review this list again
McCool: (shows the rendered
version)
… separate out the previous list
… pointing out the longer list
… which ones to be expected for
collaboration?
Ege: should be a single list in the end
Kaz: I'm OK with
merging this PR as the starting point with candidates
… but as I've been asking, we need to clarify how
to get what kind of feedback from whom. For example, directly to
the WoT WG, via the WoT IG, via the WoT CG or via the WoT-JP
CG
Example deliverable template for liaisons: * What: Binding Templates, Vocabulary and Ontology, Conformance tests * How: A separate joint WG?, WoT WG as a joint WG?, a TF within the WoT WG?, just part of the TD/Binding discussion? * Who: Editors from W3C, OPC and/or ECHONET? * Resources: Technical Requirements for OPC UA liaison
Sebastian: agree we should make another iteration
McCool: need to capture the content for each org
Lagally: would suggest we
put some specific examples
… in some areas
… asking about the purpose of this list
… we should have good understanding
<Ege> +1
<sebastian> +1
Lagally: exchanging opinions, asking reviews, etc.
McCool: complete list would
be huge
… may be open-ended
… could list only new ones
Lagally: sounds like a good idea
Kaz: Again, we need to
explain our expectations on what kind of activity to be done with
whom for what around each liaison within the Charter.
… Probably it would make sense to categorize our expectations on liaisons into
several categories, e.g., (1) simply exchange opinions, (2) asking for review
and (3) joint deliverables, and explain each level with several
important SDOs instead of having the huge list.
… We can have actual list outside of the Charter
doc.
Sebastian: agree with Lagally
that we should not just have a simple list
… we could tidy up the list a bit
… and need to identify why we need to have whom
there
McCool: yeah, that's
right
… on the other hand, we still have connection with
SDOs from the prev Charter as well
Lagally: for example, working closer with those SDOs on use cases, etc.
Ben: glad to see Digital
Twin Consortium there
… but some of the listed entities are not
SDOs
Erich: good question
… standardization takes long
… most of the reference implementation is done by
DTC, for example
Erich: I'm working on WoT within MS
Lagally: we should some gap
analysis
… coordination and alignment would be
good
Kaz: as mentioned 5
mins ago
… Again, we need to explain our expectations
on what kind of activity to be done with whom for what within
Charter around Liaisons as well.
… Probably it would make sense to categorize
our expectations into several categories, e.g., (1) simply exchange opinions, (2) asking for review, and (3) joint deliverables, and explain each category.
… Then we can put several important SDOs below each category instead of putting the huge list>
… can have actual list outside of the Charter doc
McCool: would have a link
to a wiki page, for example
… let's continue the discussion on
GitHub
… and find time for further discussion
Ege: we're asked to to think about the WoT CG collaboration as well
<McCool> PR 1064 - Add coordination with WoT CG
Ege: need review for the above PR 1064
McCool: unfortunately, we need much more time to finalize the Charter
[adjourned]