Meeting minutes
Scribes
Cristiano and Ege
Review Issues, PRs and Status
<kaz> Draft WoT WG Charter
<kaz> wot-charter-drafts issue 20 - Things to Fix
<kaz> PRs on wot-charter-drafts repo
McCool: in order from easy to difficult
PR 44
<McCool> w3c/
McCool: should be straightforward
… add one line about collaboration for geolocation
… any objections?
Kaz: there are still some old PRs in the old repository
McCool: we'll get back to it, adding it into the agenda
McCool: back to the PR any objections?
… ok merge it
… if you see a group missing re-open issue 27 and add it
… we decided to not mention horizontal review group
… but the charter still contains two groups, do we keep them?
… opening a issue about it
<McCool> w3c/
Issue 36
<McCool> w3c/
McCool: from Ege
Ege: the main reason is that we talk a lot about CG collaboration
… I didn't mention website on purpose
… this issue is just about taking into account cg feedback and social media coordination
… social media is an open question.
… there is a PR
<kaz> PR 41 - Expand WoT CG collaboration
McCool: ok you added a couple of words
… but you are not mentioning IG
Ege: but this is just WG charter
McCool: ok
McCool: should we do it also for Japanese CG?
Ege: yeah we can, I was thinking doing it myself but is not under my duties
McCool: we can copy it and add translations
… any other comments?
Kaz: it is vague
… what do you mean by reports?
… want do you mean about events?
Ege: I meant specifications
… regarding joint events, we can discuss it
… I just want to involve WG members to events easier
Kaz: I understand your position as the CG Chair, but it is dangerous to mix it with the WG charter
… the sentence before the "via" part is good, but I don't think we should specifically mention events and social media here.
McCool: do we really agree the "via" statment?
… it is ok to remove it
Ege: I'm ok not inclusive
… I just want to be sure that it will be a bidirectional collaboration
McCool: it is about WG and commit to the collaboration
… also is just collect and not acting on the reports
… we can tweak it a little bit
Cristiano: agree with Ege. sort of collaboration to be put here
… close collaboration with the CG
… maybe could be moved out to another document, though
Kaz: yes, I understand your intention as the CG Chair. However, the charter is meant to describe the expectations from the WoT WG side in an abstract manner
… further expectations from the CG side should be discussed more, e.g., during the WoT Marketing calls and can be put on another separate document on the CG collaboration.
… the part after "via" is a little bit dangerous, why don't we discuss it later on about it?
McCool: we can update the PR and review it later
… I'm ok keeping reports or joint events
… but social media should be removed
Lagally: we have so many groups, but always the same people. Are we over engineering our process?
… suggestion CG gather interesting use cases and implementations, IG analyze it, WG acts on the spec
Ege: we can't bring CG presentations to IG, different patent policy.
… and also we don't want to mandate WG people to join CG meetings but rather make it easy to them to join
PR 43
<kaz> w3c/
Sebastian: a lot of ORGs here
… but some of there don't exist or not holding discussion any more
… my proposal is moving non-active Orgs to the wiki page
<McCool> seb we lost you
McCool: what about ITU-T?
Sebastian: is still important but we've been not holding concrete discussions for a while
Lagally: think this is a good proposal basically
… my comment is how to handle the IDTA
… would keep both Platform Industrie 4.0 and IDTA
McCool: what about ETRI?
Kaz: ETRI is a W3C member, from Korea
… they are getting more active recently
McCool: he is the current list
McCool: CSA is new, for matter
McCool: we don't mention ETRI
Sebastian: I will update it
Kaz: we should ask ETRI representatives
… if they want to be listed as liasion org or participants.
McCool: they collaborated recently, we should include them
… the PR cleaned also the text. Some English issues; we can fix those later
… it took off Microsoft from the standard orgs
… but that's fine
Sebastian: I'd like to add it somewhere
Kaz: As I already suggested yesterday, we should explain our intention on "stronger industry collaboration" in the scope section first, and we should describe what to be done for that including not only SDOs but also projects and Member/non-Member companies.
McCool: we can discuss in another PR
… any objections to this PR?
… ok, merging
… ok merged
… issue is not closed so that we can keep track of other liasons
… issue 37
… you can use it for additional orgs
PR 42
<kaz> w3c/
McCool: new mission statment
… draft status
… the PR adds two sentences
Ege: it is not done yet
McCool: do you want input now?
Ege: we can wait
… maybe just one point
Ege: problems with how the process is described
… it seems that is not working how it is described
McCool: in practice we don't really follow it
Sebastian: I like the mission statement, what about add a reference to the previous charter?
… also we can remove the last sentence, about Interest group
… it is not realistic, it should be moved to IG charter
Ben: I get the sense, but it is not clear on what do you want to achive
… it raises more questions
… what do you want the group to do?
Ege: what I want to say: the WoT can be a building block for other places as well
… integration means that for example the TD can be used in other SDOs
McCool: we had a resolution to emphasize industrial adoption
Ben: words need to be clarified: industry and commercial
Ege: for sure industry is not referring to industrial IoT
… it is more a synonym for commercial
Lagally: we are not talking about enhancing other standard.
… should we mention this?
… then we can state outreach instead of integrate with ecosystems and comunities
Ege: enhancing part was already there, and I think we are doing it
Lagally: but it might be a little bit confusing
Kaz: I tend to agree with Ben. To be honest, I got an impression that unfortunately, we as the whole WoT WG are not really sure about how to explain our expectations, though we all would like to think about better industry adoption.
… So we're not sure what kind of descriptions to be included here.
:)
Sebastian: should avoid complicating everything
Sebastian: enhancing is a broad term, but we are indeed a complementary work that allows enhancing running systems
McCool: we should close the queue and discuss next steps
Lagally: we can get comments like "Why do they not help us?" so we should be clear
McCool: we can say "enhance the use of"
McCool: we can discuss further on this on the next main call, ege can you work on it
Ege: yes sorry about it
Kaz: to improve this PR, should people give comments here?
McCool: I think so yes. Comments, suggestions to the text
Kaz: Technically, that's a possible option, but given the current situation that we don't really have consensus on what to be put there, I'm not sure if that is the best option. Probably, we need another iteration anyway.
Kaz: a native english speaker should modify the text at some point too
Sebastian: I don't think that we have a disagreement
… we need to enhance to wording though
Kaz: We can comment on the issue or PR but GitHub is not an ideal tool for this kind of situation, i.e., everybody has slightly different ideas about "industry adoption". Using this GitHub PR to get some more opinions is fine, but we need another iteration of to get actual consensus.
McCool: we have a wordsmithing problem we seem to agree on the direction
PR 39
<McCool> w3c/
McCool: it addresses issue 24
<kaz> issue 24 - Consolidate Work Items
(McCool and Ege goes through the changes)
Ege: added Protocol and Payload Bindings
McCool: need to wait until Ege adds further clean-up
Kaz: The PR 39 is confusing. We should have bigger categories
… is this an intermediary step?
McCool: topics are cross cutting across deliverables
… so as long as we have about 10 items, we should be fine
Kaz: After reducing the items within the Scope section, we need to explain what the WoT WG will do for the next Charter period so that all the AC Reps can understand it. Maybe we could put all the items into several higher categories when we explain what we want to work on.
McCool: the structure is confusing that we have goals up there and then scopes later on
McCool: do we need additional level of categorization?
<cris_> +1 for a bottom section explaining horizontal categories
Ege: I dont think we need big categories but some explanation on what the work items are aiming for is fine
Lagally: we should have less details, this is too technical
bf: I agree that all these support digital twins. Focusing the ecosystem wording is vague
bf: ecosystem is a vague term in general
Kaz: To be clear, my point is not just adding high-level categories of our work items, but that we need to explain what we want to do in the next charter period
Kaz: It should be inline with the description within the mission statement above.
McCool: let's go back to the consolidation PR
McCool: we are getting there but still a bit too many items
Kaz: As an initial draft, merging this PR is fine. However, we need to explain our intention clearer rather than just listing detailed 13 items like this.
McCool: any objections?
Ege: I don't think that we can squeeze this any further, we need higher level categories
McCool: yes so we need higher level description
PR 46
<kaz> w3c/
McCool: I think that digital twin is a broad topic
<benfrancis> +1 to McCool's comment on "Digital Twins" not being a good work item, but a general application area covered by other work items.
McCool: so a bit too open ended
Kaz: Basically agree with McCool and Ben. Just mentioning "Digital Twins" as one of the work items here would be confusing. We rather should add high-level description on what we want to do, and we can mention Digital Twins as a typical application there. However, we still need to think about how to explain that there.
McCool: so not merging now. We should link to behavioral description standards
Lagally: We need better linking to the physical entity
<sebastian> I have to go. Please find here the slides about the protocol binding discussion of yesterday's TD / Binding TF call: https://
Kaz: I'm getting a bit concerned because these items like "Behavioral Description" and "Digital Twins" would be big topics which would require yet another dedicated WG for each. So we should be careful about what to be done by the WoT WG and how to describe that within the Charter.
McCool: I dont think that we can do a behavior description in this 2 year period, we can only link to it
McCool: we can let this be revised
<mlagally> * sorry mjk
McCool: we should stop looking at PR
next steps
McCool: wondering about the procedure
Kaz: need to get preliminary reviews by W3M and Wide Review groups, then AC Review
... think preliminary reviews would take one month or so, and AC Review may take 2 months
McCool: can we use use cases and testing together with main call for the charter?
McCool: so let's commit to use case call at least
… I will send an email
Kaz: given the situation so far, I got an impression that people don't really understand what level of description is needed for the Charter document itself. So I don't think just using the GitHub Issues/Pullrequests to consolidated updated edits would really make sense. Probably we need to organize some more dedicated meetings as well.
McCool: yeah, making consensus takes time.
[adjourned]