Meeting minutes
Organization
McCool: should talk about the Charter proposals
Kaz: agree
… as I mentioned during the main call, all the TFs including this TD/Binding TF should concentrate on the Charter prep discussion at least by the 2nd Charter meeting
Ege: should talk about the Binding Tempaltes document as the basis for that discussion
Kaz: yes
… but we should concentrate on the discussion around what kind of Binding Templates should be the basis of the document
McCool: agree
Minutes
Ege: have review the previous minutes already
… (quickly skim the minutes)
approved
New WD of Binding Templates?
McCool: last official publication was 3 years ago
… so important to publish an updated draft
… the question is how many PRs to be merged for that purpose
Ege: Mizushima-san mentioned the current structure is problematic
McCool: we should pick a date on our calendar to see the deadline
… also we should show implementability of each feature even though that's not required for a Note
Daniel: you're proposing to split the document into the Core Document and "Individual Bindings"
… we should clarify the relationship and how to link from the Core Doc to the Individual Bindings
<McCool> mm: +1 to dape's comment, we have to publish at once since not a registry
McCool: we should have a latest publish version and take up unmature parts
Ege: would say the latest ED is quite mature
McCool: we can't add new potential protocols easily
… that's OK
… we can publish an updated Note
Ege: individual binding part is not included in the TD spec
McCool: ok
… but for long run, we need to improve the document structure
… my proposal is publish 5 documents at once
… Core document and 4 individual binding documents
<Mizushima> +1 kaz
Kaz: @@@ revert to the published Note, have discussion on the future plan, can think about registry, etc., later
Ege: the current Individual Binding Templates documents, e.g., Modbus, are very mature
Sebastian: we already had Plugfests including TDs and Binding Templates
… btw, I'm confused because you mentioned we could publish Notes at any points
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to react to kaz
Kaz: we can publish a Note at any time, that's true
… but who from the Plugfest participants referred to this version ED?
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to react to cris_
<Ege> coap, http and mqtt are implemented by sifis-home (not wg member) at https://
<Zakim> McCool, you wanted to react to McCool
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to react to McCool
McCool: would like to get direct feedback from the external developers in addition to Kaz's transferred messages
Ege: would get GH issues/PRs
Cristiano: we already some content published
… but that has outdated information
Kaz: if we could have updated content with important pieces like payload structure and binding templates overview from the officially published version, that would be great
Cristiano: agree
… might be difficult to do right away, though
Sebastian: would be nice to bring people who have problems with the latest version
… Kaz, can you organize a Developer Meeting with them?
<McCool> (need to drop, but want to mention time of this meeting is not great for JP participants, in addition to language issue)
Sebastian: which would be better, the official version 3 years ago or the latest draft
… could allocate an earlier slot for JP contributors
Kaz: will try to invite them
<McCool> (sorry, dropping)
Kaz: but please note that what I mean is not necessarily the old document was perfect
… we should improve the document based on the old content
Binding PRs
PR 223
PR 223 - Orphaned Section Reorg - Part 1: Protocols
Ege: once put the Overview description to the appendix
… but would like to see the necessity again
… (goes through the changes)
Ege: changed the title of "Orphaned Sections" to "Temporary Sections"
… then updated the "4.1 Protocol Binding Templates" section
… any objections to merge this?
(none)
merged
PR 225
<Ege> /github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/225 PR 225 - JSON Schema usage in Bindings/
<Ege shows the content of the PR>
Ege: it introduce a new point about JSON Schema usage in section 4.1.
Ege: shall we wait or merge?
Cristiano: ok to merge
Koster: also ok
PR merged
New charter
Binding Templates
Ege: there is an overview about the addressed protocols
… there is new entries such as for OPC UA, BACnet and ECHONET
Ege: there is a proposal in the WoT Binding Template to have 3 registry sections for stable bindings
… and 3 registry sections for experimental bindings
Kaz: there is no need to have such details in the charter. we can simply say the following information within this spec might become a registry section or a separate registry document.
Cristiano: I agree with Kaz.
… we can only have one registry table that has a column that says it is expermintal or stable
Ege: suggest in next charter to have a split of the binding template into Protocol Vocabulary, Payload Serialiation, and Platform Mapping
Sebatian: will this proposal go in different documents?
Ege: no, its just renaming of existing titles in the current document.
Kaz: again, for the Charter is not needed to mentain this kind of detail
Ege: what is understood by 'detail'
… would be "XML Payload Binding" to much?
Kaz: would be not necessary
Sebatian: would it be ok the be more precise when we have a clear vision?
… we can be more fuzzy if the goal is not clear yet
Kaz: abstract description on our expectation for the deliverables is different from being fuzzy
... what is more important for a Charter is identifying which part of the documents would be normative and which would be informative
Sebastian: not sure what kind of structure would fit our need
... e.g., can external experts define an individual registry?
... should be clarified during the Charter discussion
Kaz: that's why I've been proposing we should describe our basic expectation within the Charter
... and we can think about the detail on what kind of structure and/or what kind of separation of documents would fit our expectation later during the next Charter period
Koster: We need a normative interface definition for WoT
… a rigistry can point to the details
Kaz: agree with MJK
… an abstract in the charter should explain this
… listing all the specific protocols as expected deliverables separately would be confusing
<cris_> +1
Sebatian: we should keep the Note approache. If the SDO (e.g. OASIS MQTT) defines own binding approache we should prefer to link this in the registry and not the W3C Note document
TD
<Ege> /github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1063/files/
Ege: first work item would be about timeseries
… payload protocls, manageable actions, init connections, canonicalization, inline security, TD versioning, Normative TD Parsing, Consuming and Validation, and Linting
Kaz: Again, that to many details for the charter
Daniel: we should keep the details description somewhere else
Kaz: we can move this to a MD file
… AC reps would be suprised with this long charter
... we should be careful about how to deal with the details, e.g., around topics, deliverables and liaisons
Cristiano: ok, to move this
… I did not see anything about TM?
… there was the plan to have a seperate REC for it
Sebatian: agree, we need to discuss this.
Kaz: also agree
… In addition, we need a guideline or discussion about how to generate TDs from TM
… industry adaptors would be happy to have a better explaination
Sebatian: existing content in the charter PRs can be moved to requirement documents
adjourn