Meeting minutes
Current status
McCool: merged PRs
McCool: (goes through
the draft Charter)
… 1. Scope
… list of items
… pretty long now
… detailed description, 1.1-1.34
… some of them are too much details
… then 2.1 Normative Specifications"
… 2.2 Other Deliverables
… 4. Coordination
… "4.1 W3C Groups" just lists the WoT CG at the
moment
… question on "10.1 Charter History"
… should list old Charters?
Kaz: let's see the current Charter
Kaz: it does list the previous ones
Lagally: let's see the
scope section again
… Discovery should be one of the major
items
… Signing, Security, etc., should belong to some
bigger item
McCool: need further
organization
… agree signing and canonicalization to be
reorganized
McCool: Discovery items
to be consolidated into one Discovery Improvements topic
… All Protocol Bindings Payload Bindings into one
item as well
Ege: there is another
PR to put the details to another document
… regarding the Protocol Bindings work, there are
already four Editor's Drafts
Kaz: sorry but I was on
the queue for a while
… do we really want to manage the discussion this
whole week like this???
… we should think about potential categories
first
… Discovery and Binding are already two high-level
categories
(Lagally leaves)
Ege: would like to keep the details
McCool: yeah,
everything followed by the details
… but we need to put all the items into major
categories
… would start with easy things first
Catetorization of work items
Kaz: btw,
"categorization of work items" should be the first item to work on
for the Charter
… so putting that inline with the first issue here
"remove details section"
McCool: yeah, let's identify that as a separate/bigger issue
Normative deliverables
Ege: have some opinion
about Architecture
… don't think Architecture should be
normative
McCool: let's discuss
that separately
… and start with listing potential items for
normative specs today
… TD 2.0, Architecture 2.0, Profiles
… what else?
… reorganization of informative
deliverables?
Ege: how to handle the
Thing Model?
… within the Thing Description spec like
now?
… or a separate spec?
McCool: individually
REC?
… or a Note?
… how to handle the Binding Templates
spec?
… it would be easier to handle the
protocol-specific part as a Note to add variations
W3C Groups
McCool: next W3C
Groups
… WoT-JP CG
… SDW WG
… Web&Networks IG
… can add the list from the current
Charter
… Publishing
… Automotive
… as well
External Organizations
McCool: some already listed
AOB?
McCool: AOB?
Kaz: actually, we should revisit the mission statement as well given we'd like to think about further deployment of WoT standards for actual IoT systems
McCool: good point
Old issues
wot-charter-drafts issue 20 - Things to Fix
McCool: we should see
also old issues on the wot repo
… 1051, 1069, 1070, 1066
wot issue 1051 - Charter Organizational Issues
wot issue 1069 - Brainstorming: Topics for the next charter from Architecture TF discussion
wot issue 1070 - Architecture Restructuring
wot issue 1066 - Update WG 2023 Discovery items
McCool: the comments
should be used for agenda bashing for the remaining meetings this
week
… would like to start with easier
items
… kind of agree with some of them
already
High-level goals
Ege: before talking
about the PRs on wot-charter-drafts, we should confirm our
high-level goals
… from my viewpoint, our task for the next Charter
is working with the other IoT standards and community
McCool: that's why we
need to update our mission statement as well
… support industry adoption
… integration with other ecosystems
… so would suggest you think about improvements for
the mission statement
Ege: ok
… on the other hand, we should confirm that
direction
McCool: would start with each item
Kaz: regarding the
procedure, I agree with Ege
… that's why I've been asking you all to think
about the mission statement and high-level categories
first
… however, we lack important stakeholders today
unfortunately
… so OK with reviewing the current PRs for
today
McCool: ok
PRs
PR 19 and derived PR 21
PR 19 - Details reorganization for TD and Binding
McCool: actually, my
point to "remove the details" is once moving the details, i.e.,
1.1-1.33, to another MD
… not only TD/Binding
… 2 choices here
… a. you update the PR itself
… or b. I handle the details
… (adds a comment to PR 19)
Kaz: maybe we can
simply move the subsections to a separate HTML asis
… that would make further discussion
easier
McCool: yeah, can do that right now
McCool: it includes the
detailed description
… and now we can modify the actual new
Charter
… can clean up the fragment URLs later
Kaz: thanks
… now we can concentrate on the high-level
discussion for the Charter itself :)
McCool: now would close PR 19
(closed)
McCool: (then quickly
review the split details.html)
… nothing is lost
… cleaning-up with fragment URLs to be fixed
later
… OK with this direction right?
(no objections)
PR 21 merged
McCool: (then creates some issue for cleaning up)
Issue 22 - Clean up after separating details
Sebastian: we've merged
all the existing now. right?
… so can work on another iteration from
now?
McCool: yeah, let me
explain
… we have a list of issues here
Kaz: maybe we can add a checkbox to each item so that we can easily manage the progress
McCool: yeah, can do
that later
… (goes through the issue list on Issue
20)
… when each issue is resolved, we can check the
checkbox
Kaz: right
McCool: (adds related issue to the item of [Remove "details" section])
Mission statement
Issue 23 - Revise mission statement
McCool: the text at the top
Kaz: there is another text below the table in front of "1. Scope" as well
McCool: ok
… would ask Ege for help as well
Ege: need permission to generate PRs
Kaz: can do that
Ege: would clarify how WoT could work better
McCool: we can do deep
dive on the mission statement because it's important
… but can wait too
<Ege> I can do the edits and PRs
Sebastian: agree we should update the mission statement
McCool: yeah
… note it has two parts
… mission itself at the top
… and background, etc., below the table
Sebastian: would
support Ege works on that
… myself also
<Ege> you can put me owner for td and bindings
Remove details
McCool: assign McCool himself to [Remove "details"]
Consolidate work items
McCool: Consolidate
work items too
… Lagally for Digital Twins
… McCool for Edge Computing
… Digital Twins topic is mis-categolized
Sebastian: would see clarification by Lagally
McCool: (put Edge Computing into Digital Twins)
Kaz: please note that
we should clarify what to be done by the WoT WG how within the WoT
WG Charter
… rather than the details of the technologies
(e.g., Digital Twins) themselves
McCool: ok
… (then put "pending reorganization" to "Relate
work items to appropriate deliverables")
Normative specs
McCool: assign Ege to TD 2.0
Sebastian: regarding
Thing Model, I think it would be better to make TM a separate
spec
… please assign me to that item
McCool: please note that it to be in sync of TD
Sebastian: ok
… it should be TM 2.0 to sync with TD
2.0
McCool: kind of concerned about version management
Ege: do we want versioning? what would be better?
McCool: need to think about OPC liaison, etc., as well
Sebastian: core
document as a REC
… principle of Binding
… then protocol-specific Binding sub
documents
… probably would be too much to make all the
protocol-specific sub documents RECs
Kaz: for the WG Charter
description, we should/can start with high-level description
… e.g., WoT Binding Templates as a REC Track
spec
… with several possible sub documents as
Notes
… However, the discussion on the detailed structure
should be done during the Binding calls separately
McCool: ok
… so defer the detailed discussion on the Binding
spec structure
Liaisons
McCool: the detail on OPC liaison to be described in the Liaison section
Kaz: we should invite PLH to the OPC liaison discussion
McCool: let's get the
first level for the WG Charter
… then continue further discussion based on
that
W3C Groups and so on
McCool: put McCool to
Owner
… Decision Policy as well
… Charter history as well
Higher-level categories
Ege: question on "higher-level categories"
McCool: Digital Twins,
etc., includes various sub topics
… and need clarifications
Kaz: note that Digital
Twins and Metadata are technologies
… while Discovery and Protocol Binding are our own
specs
… so we should remember that kind of difference
when we add further clarification
Ege: think it would be a bit difficult to handle them at once
Kaz: right. that's why
I added a note
… you can of course handle them
separately
McCool: right
Next steps
McCool: let's
consolidate work items based on today's discussion then
… (creates a new Issue)
Issue 24 - Consolidate Work Items
McCool: for "Consolidate work items" within Issue 20
Kaz: So you want the
issue owner to generate a new issue based on each item within Issue
20. right?
… with the item name within Issue 20 as the new
issue title
McCool: right
… Sebastian, are you OK with working on Digital
Twins as well?
Sebastian: would mainly work on SDO liaisons
Kaz: which do you prefer, (1) McCool creates all the separate issue for consolidation, or (2) each owner creates their own issue for consolidation?
McCool: yeah
<sebastian> I need to drop off. See u tomorrow.
McCool: would suggest all the owners create your own consolidation issue unless there is already one from Issue 20
ACTION: Kaz to add all the Owners to the Team for wot-charter-drafts repo
[adjourned]