12:45:49 RRSAgent has joined #wot 12:45:53 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-irc 12:45:59 meeting: 2nd WoT WG Charter Meeting - Day 2 12:54:57 chair: McCool 12:55:07 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool 13:02:40 dape has joined #wot 13:02:53 present+ Daniel_Peintner, Michael_Koster, Tetsushi_Matsuda, Kunihiko_Toumura 13:02:53 ktoumura has joined #wot 13:02:59 McCool has joined #wot 13:03:18 mjk has joined #wot 13:03:31 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Agenda_Session_2.2C_Day_2_-_Feb_15 13:04:24 present+ Sebastian_Kaebisch 13:04:30 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 13:04:48 scribenick: seb 13:04:53 sebastian has joined #wot 13:05:06 matsuda has joined #wot 13:05:09 scribenick: sebastian 13:06:16 topic: Organization 13:06:27 -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Agenda_Session_2.2C_Day_3_-_Feb_16 agenda for today 13:06:34 present+ Ege_Korkan 13:06:41 Ege has joined #wot 13:07:00 13:07:46 MM: I created some issue about the overall organisation 13:08:19 ... Michael Lagally is not here today, will do Architecture topics tomorrow then 13:08:35 s|https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Agenda_Session_2.2C_Day_3_-_Feb_16|https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Agenda_Session_2.2C_Day_2_-_Feb_15| 13:08:36 q? 13:08:39 q+ Ege 13:08:42 ack e 13:08:43 MM: are there any other topics? 13:09:03 EK: there is a issue from Ben about protocol binding 13:09:09 q+ 13:09:22 ack k 13:09:24 MM: ok, I will add this to the agend 13:09:30 s/agend/agenda 13:10:01 https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/issues/20 13:10:17 q+ 13:10:19 topic: Review Issues and PRs 13:10:52 subtopic: Things to Fix 13:11:01 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/issues/20 13:12:00 i/Review/topic: Strategy funnel/ 13:12:08 Kaz: I have a comment to the schedule. We need to create an entry for the strategy funnel 13:12:20 13:12:51 @@@ fix the order of the topic later 13:13:04 q+ 13:13:15 ack k 13:13:28 q+ 13:13:43 https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/pull/32 13:13:46 subtopic: PR Add W3C group coordination list 13:13:51 ack e 13:13:55 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/pull/32 13:14:55 MM: PR is about the group coordination 13:15:37 ... we have currently two CG, English and Japanese CG 13:15:54 ack k 13:16:09 ... don't feel comfortable making one more important than the other 13:16:24 s/English/Global/ 13:17:17 rrsagent, make log public 13:17:21 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:17:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:18:05 ... the PR removes the redundant work items 13:18:07 luca_barbato has joined #wot 13:19:26 q+ 13:19:31 q+ 13:19:41 ack k 13:19:55 ack dape 13:20:48 ... now the PR shows better that both CGs have the same purpose 13:20:54 q+ 13:20:57 q? 13:21:14 Kaz: the 'English' CG should be called 'Global 13:21:24 s/'Global/'Global' 13:21:29 q+ 13:21:32 ack lu 13:22:01 LB: does this prevents to have, e.g., a French CG? 13:22:31 dezell has joined #wot 13:22:40 present+ David_Ezell 13:22:56 MM: it's kind of political. I think we should call this global 13:22:56 s/the 'English' CG should be called 'Global'/Regarding the WoT CG and the WoT-JP CG, we should call them Global vs Japanese rather than English vs Japanese. Also we should clarify what those CGs are working on. We should ask Mizushima-san and Toumura-san about the WoT-JP CG./ 13:23:55 q? 13:24:17 LB: setup a CG in Spanish, French, etc might have a wider audience for people which are not comfortable with English 13:25:31 ... we should mention that we would be open for a language specific CG 13:25:48 ack k 13:25:49 q+ 13:27:02 ack k 13:27:39 Kaz: any cooperation is welcome, however we should concentrate on the existing CGs 13:27:52 s/CGs/CGs for this Charter./ 13:28:01 present+ David_Ezell 13:28:07 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:28:09 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:29:05 ack k 13:29:31 s/however/however,/ 13:29:36 MM: so far, Spatial on the Web is missing in this PR. I will merge it and reopen the corresonding issue to add the missing entry 13:30:08 s/Spatial on the Web/Spatial Data on the Web 13:30:09 https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/pull/30 13:30:36 subtopic: PR Suppress Charter History 13:30:46 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/pull/30 13:31:08 @@@remove the extra URL later 13:31:14 MM: just suppress the history section 13:31:23 s|pull/30|pull/30 PR 30 - Suppress Charter History| 13:31:28 https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/pull/31 13:31:30 no objection of the group -> PR is merged 13:31:52 subtopic: PR - Clean up and consolidate work items 13:32:02 @@@remove extra pr 31 url later 13:32:04 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/pull/31 13:32:07 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:32:08 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:32:42 s|pull/30 PR 30 - Suppress Charter History|pull/30| 13:32:44 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:32:45 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:33:14 MM: removes the big list of protocols. 13:33:46 ... and updates the text for discovery 13:34:03 q+ 13:34:10 q+ 13:34:16 qq+ Ege 13:34:20 q- Ege 13:34:43 EK: Regarding TD features we can called this "TD updates" 13:34:55 s/called/call 13:35:01 q- 13:35:17 MM: any objections? 13:35:41 ack k 13:35:50 Kaz: I'm ok with the PR. Which should clearify which part should in which specification 13:36:03 s/Which/We 13:37:14 q+ 13:37:53 MM: is "Add normative ECHONET Lite Web API binding" relates to protocol binding? 13:38:05 ack k 13:38:40 EK: in today's TD call we want to clearify the relations of ecosystems etc 13:38:52 q? 13:39:24 kaz: again, OK with merging the PR 13:39:42 merged 13:40:54 s/the PR/the PR. However, after merging that we need to think about high-level items on industry collaborations including ECHONET and OPC. So I'd suggest we add a tentative category like "Stronger industry collaboration" for those items so that we can continue further discussion around that./ 13:40:54 13:40:55 https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/24 : Update README.md 13:40:58 q? 13:41:09 q+ 13:41:14 qq+ 13:41:26 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/issues/24 13:41:31 q+ 13:41:40 q- kaz 13:41:46 ack e 13:41:57 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:41:59 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:42:35 i/again/scribenick: kaz/ 13:42:45 i/merged/scribenick: sebastian/ 13:42:48 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:42:49 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:43:07 q+ 13:44:19 EK: in my understanding, ECHONET uses http binding and defines own json structure. Eg, the name of the affordances has to be in the payload. 13:44:42 ack mjk 13:44:53 ... it may makes sense that TDs are able to design reusable payloads 13:45:42 ack k 13:46:09 MJK: I think we should not discuss the details here. There is a large unanswered question about payload schema 13:46:28 Kaz: agree, we shoud discuss details in TD/Binding call later 13:47:10 subtopic: PR - Point to proper GitHub repo 13:47:17 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/pull/34 13:47:29 s/later/later. for the Charter itself, we can simply describe what "Binding Templates" handles in general including several IoT ecosystems./ 13:47:44 https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/pull/34 13:47:51 DP: just a typo fix in the url 13:48:25 merged 13:48:53 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/pull/34|| 13:48:59 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:49:30 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:49:37 13:49:37 https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/20 : Proposed Add to terminology section 13:51:47 topic: Review status 13:52:08 q+ 13:52:22 present+ Luca_Barbato 13:52:25 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:52:26 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:52:32 13:52:32 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/issues/24 13:54:17 MM: there are not PRs about Arch 2.0 and Profiles yet 13:54:25 s/not/no 13:54:40 ktoumura has joined #wot 13:54:53 MM: there is some confusion in issue #26 13:54:55 https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/26 : TD context files to host on github 13:55:14 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/issues/26 13:55:31 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:55:32 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:56:08 13:56:08 -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-charter-drafts/wot-wg-2023-draft.html draft Charter 13:56:21 q+ 13:56:50 q+ 13:56:54 q+ 13:57:25 MM: will be the binding templae document a Note or REC? 13:57:34 q+ 13:57:43 ack e 13:58:17 Agree with Ege 13:58:50 EK: @@@ 13:59:21 q+ 13:59:38 LB: for outsiders there is no different between Note and REC status 13:59:42 ### change the order of Ege's words later 14:00:12 ack luca 14:00:56 LB: XXX 14:01:22 Kaz: this is a W3C Charter document for AC review 14:01:50 ... they should understand the work items 14:02:15 my comments are https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/issues/26#issuecomment-1431417765 14:02:20 are we sure Notes are enough to ensure interoperability? 14:02:23 q? 14:02:29 ack k 14:03:04 ... decission about REC or Note is related to the patent policy decission 14:03:51 @@@ add clarification above 14:04:26 sk: maybe we should postpone the discussion the details on the structure of the Binding Templates spec 14:04:40 ... we'll have dedicated discussion during the TD/Binding call later today 14:04:43 mm: agree 14:04:54 ack k 14:04:55 ack s 14:05:03 ack m 14:05:22 ... probably easier to have it as a Note than having 5 normative specs 14:05:42 ... anyway, the detailed structure is still to be discussed 14:05:59 ... you guys can figure out the mechanism during the TD call later today 14:06:00 q? 14:06:01 q+ 14:06:15 i/maybe we/scribenick: kaz/ 14:06:16 q+ 14:06:19 ack k 14:06:46 q+ 14:07:56 ack e 14:07:57 ack k 14:08:05 scribenick: dape 14:08:10 q+ Ege 14:08:26 https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/issues/33 14:08:32 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:08:34 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:08:40 dezell2 has joined #wot 14:08:54 MMC: we need summary and how conclusion whas reached w.r.t. issue 33 14:09:37 q+ 14:09:40 ... we also need PR to add TD deliverable 14:09:51 present+ David_Ezell 14:10:02 ... let's defer discussion to TD call 14:10:46 Kaz: I strongly suggest we don't mention to much details. Charter cannot be changed afterwards. 14:10:57 MMC: I see, description can be vague 14:11:12 s/vague/abstract/ 14:11:24 q+ 14:11:27 ... adding things like "we might add a registry" 14:11:32 ack k 14:11:33 ack e 14:11:35 q+ 14:11:48 q+ 14:11:52 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:11:54 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:12:31 MMC: Anyhow, we must state which deliverable is normative 14:12:31 q+ 14:13:09 EK: shall we state how collaboration between WoT CG and WG works 14:13:23 MMC: We do have coordination section 14:13:25 ack e 14:14:08 Kaz: as we did for WoT IG charter. We can describe relation between groups. 14:14:17 ... can add link to detail policy document 14:14:34 ... should clarify relationship between documents 14:14:56 EK: CG inviting should go into this policy? 14:15:02 Kaz: Too much details 14:15:17 ... let's start with important portions 14:15:31 ... in collaboration section 14:15:34 q? 14:15:36 ack k 14:15:59 MMC: current charter does not say anything about website 14:16:09 s/between documents/between spec documents within the scope section too./ 14:16:14 q? 14:16:33 q+ 14:16:40 q- 14:16:42 qq+ 14:16:49 EK: Simple thing. When we create events that talk WoT. We are not allowed to inform WG 14:17:09 s/events that talk WoT/events that about WoT 14:17:27 MMC: Maybe we can re-word the current para 14:18:15 ack k 14:18:15 kaz, you wanted to react to kaz 14:18:22 Kaz: please remember detail policy should not be clarified in this charter 14:18:39 EK: Is there a policy template? 14:18:48 s/kaz, you wanted to react to kaz// 14:18:55 Kaz: No, I would ask you to create one 14:19:05 MMC: Can we link other documents? 14:19:07 Kaz: Yes 14:19:28 MMC: perfect, we can point to policy document 14:19:54 Kaz: @1 14:20:09 ack dape 14:20:19 s/@1/Let's start with something we did for the WoT IG Charter first, then think about what would be the better solution later./ 14:20:27 i/Let's/scribenick: kaz/ 14:20:32 scribenick: dape 14:20:37 TOPIC: Remaining Issues 14:21:33 SUBTOPIC: Issue #20 14:21:35 https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/20 : Proposed Add to terminology section 14:21:50 MMC: Let's mark some issues as optional 14:22:35 i|Let's mark|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/issues/20 wot-charter-drafts issue 20 - Things to Fix| 14:22:42 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:22:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:23:12 ... should talk about version numbers, liaison and decision policy 14:23:40 MMC: Let's start with liaison 14:23:52 SK: I think this was already partly discussed 14:24:09 ... important topic 14:24:15 s/XXX/are we sure Notes are enough to ensure interoperability?/ 14:24:29 ... should work on placing WoT in other SDOs 14:25:12 s/EK: @@@/EK: We should not have REC for each binding, it means having too many requirements in the charter, raising issues in different levels/ 14:25:15 ... we should mention this in mission statement also 14:25:51 ... we have good exchange with OPC-UA, Echonet and BACnet folks 14:26:12 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:26:13 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:26:34 ... we should work on strategy to bring WoT in these ecosystems 14:26:46 q? 14:26:53 MMC: What exactly should we put in charter? 14:26:59 q+ 14:27:33 ... shall we list work items for each liaison 14:27:53 SK: Do we want to have these details in charter? 14:28:52 MMC: maybe less explicit 14:29:26 SK: w.r.t. DTDL we should talk with Lagally also 14:29:39 MMC: TBDs need to be cleaned up 14:29:47 ... I marked the owners 14:29:55 SK: I can do that 14:30:16 ... I also plan to clean-up/remove some institutions 14:30:54 MMC: oneM2M is still of interest but we didn't talk too much with them 14:31:06 q+ 14:31:12 ... GS1 is somewhat similar 14:31:35 ... maybe just keep "active" list 14:31:40 .. ITU is missing 14:32:09 Kaz: charter document is that all AC reps understand what group is doing 14:32:50 s/is that/is there that 14:33:25 Kaz: stronger collaboration should be mentioned 14:33:48 -> https://www.w3.org/2021/10/sdw-charter.html fyi, Spatial Data on the Web Working Group Charter 14:34:07 s/what group is doing/what the WG will do/ 14:34:24 q? 14:34:27 ack k 14:34:42 Ege: in charter draft under "Connexus" there is a para that introduces the previous list 14:34:49 ... that's what I added 14:35:09 ... we should highlight where we have strong collaboration 14:35:35 MMC: Maybe have "ative" collaboration 14:35:45 s/"ative"/"active" 14:36:01 s/stronger collaboration should be mentioned/if all the listed SDO liaisons are simple liaisons as we've been doing, that's fine. However, if we want to try stronger collaboration with some of them for some joint work, we need to identify that within the Charter. For that purpose, we can read the SDW WG Charter as an example, though we don't need to copy everything from that./ 14:36:23 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:36:25 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:36:31 https://github.com/w3c/wot-charter-drafts/issues/37 14:36:31 MMC: I assign issue #37 to Ege/Sebastian for liaison 14:36:31 https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/37 : Create car.jsonld 14:37:30 i/in charter/kaz: Also please remember we got a message from PLH volunteering to help us figure out the liaisons withing the Charter./ 14:37:32 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:37:34 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:37:51 MMC: A PR by tomorrow would be fantastic 14:37:53 i/Also please/scribenick: kaz/ 14:38:01 i/in charter d/scribenick: dape/ 14:38:02 SUBTOPIC: Version numbers 14:38:03 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:38:04 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:38:14 MMC: discussed in TD, discovery .. 14:38:27 s/withing/within/ 14:38:31 ... right now discovery does not have version number 14:38:32 q? 14:38:32 q? 14:38:42 ack e 14:38:42 ack Ege 14:38:56 ... Shall we create issue to come to a conclusion 14:39:11 EK: There is issue in TD already 14:39:31 MMC: for disocvery I do not plan to have version nr. 14:39:33 q+ 14:39:38 s/they should understand the work items/we need to describe what the WoT WG will do so that all the AC Reps can understand that./ 14:39:41 s/disocvery/discovery 14:40:01 https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1770 but not really what we are looking for 14:40:11 MMC: Issue with URLs exist also 14:40:29 EK: Maybe we have to speak about backwards compatibility 14:40:41 s/they should understand the work items/and what is important here is identifying the normative specifications which require the Royalty Free commitment from the other informative deliverables./ 14:40:44 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:40:46 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:40:52 ... I don't think we should do that 14:40:56 ... unless there is a VERY good reason 14:41:11 MMC: TD1.1 was supposed to be a fix version 14:41:23 ... it ended up to be much bigger 14:41:39 q+ 14:41:45 EK: For W3C the work for 1.1 vs. 2.0 is the same 14:41:59 q+ 14:42:06 s/decission about REC or Note is related to the patent policy decission/and what is important here is identifying the normative specifications which require the Royalty Free commitment from the other informative deliverables./ 14:42:06 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:42:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/15-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:42:44 q+ 14:42:44 q+ 14:42:48 ... when talking about TD documents we need to find a way that people talk about the same "version" 14:42:52 ack e 14:43:03 ack s 14:43:10 SK: I would try that each deliverable has the same version number 14:43:18 ... e..g Arch 2.0, TD 2.0 et cetera 14:43:41 s/e..g/e.g., 14:44:23 ... in AAS we also started with version 3.0 to indicate that 3.0 points to the core document 14:44:38 ... otherwise it confuses people 14:44:50 +1 to syncing version numbers 14:45:17 MMC: version date is somehow a version number 14:45:42 ... each document should have version nr 14:45:47 ack mc 14:46:02 ... I am also okay with dropping backwards compatibility 14:46:31 ... for TD1.1 this was another discussion 14:46:32 q+ 14:46:46 ack luca 14:47:08 LB: I do agree that we should make things simpler 14:47:27 ... a single version for all documents makes sense 14:48:09 ... as implementer: moving from 1.0 to 1.1 14:48:19 ... run into issues 14:48:49 ... I suggest to start new with no issues ... going directly to 2.0 14:50:07 SK: a profile is one possible candidate ... 14:50:16 ... have 1.0 note and then start with 2.0 14:50:36 ... Note: some W3C specs did not follow that 14:50:43 -> https://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions Version management guideline 14:50:49 ... CSS and HTML do not have the same version numbers 14:51:34