W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT-IG/WG

08 March 2023

Attendees

Present
Deniel_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura, Luca_Barbato, Michael_Koster, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Tetsushi_Matsuda, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
Sebastian, David
Chair
McCool
Scribe
dape

Meeting minutes

Minutes review

<kaz> (skipped today)

Quick updates

McCool: Next Use Cases call on March 14. will continue the discussion on the policy for use case collection as well.

Planning

Testing

doodle poll for Dev Meeting

McCool: need input to the doodle poll for Testfest as well.
Testfest doodle during the week of March 20

Binding Meetup

Mizushima: JP Meetup by WoT-JP CG
… held on Feb 27 with ECHONET
… two more meetings planned with IPA DADC and NHK
… afterwards we will report back

Publications progress check

McCool: schedule needs revision
… need to do PR
… we missed proposed deadlines

WG Charter

<McCool_> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Agenda_Session_5.2C_Day_1_-_Mar_8

McCool: We have 10 PRs

#75

<Github> PR 75 - Propose Chairs

McCool: Adds proposed chairs

Kaz: we can wait for more potential candidates
… what is the deadline?

McCool: More candidates can be added later

#76

<Github> PR 76 - Comment out note from template

McCool: removes process note
… simply formatting
… no objections -> merging

#79

<Github> PR 79 - Use Generic Spec Names

McCool: about versioning
… changed names of deliverables to be generic

McCool: no objections -> merging

WoT Charters PR #81

<Github> PR 81 - Remove onboarding from scope summary

McCool: removes onboarding from charter
… we might still do it
… just removed commitment

McCool: Got approvals and no objections -> merging

PR #83

<Github> PR 83 - typo fix

Daniel: typo fix

McCool: straight forward -> merging

PR 82

<kaz> PR 82 - adding architecture deliverable

<McCool_> related issue 16 - Architecture Restructuring

McCool: related issue 16
… whether Architecture should be normative or not

McCool: Personal opinion. Normative security in Arch.. need to go somewhere
… made some fixes like typos and renaming

<kaz> Preview

Lagally: <looking at content of PR>
… current charter is following same tasks
… it is continuing the work
… we just got TAG review saying it should be non-normative

Ege: TAG review was from this charter
… person raised good reasons
… Mozilla's objection to the Charter was made long time ago
… Assertions in Arch cause issue
… it is about implementation
… normative parts could be moved to specific documents
… no sense in having 20 assertions for Security in Arch document

Kaz: Before diving into the possible conclusion, i.e., normative spec or not, we should think about which parts/sections from the WoT Architecture spec should be normative first.
… If we can get a consensus during this call, that's great. However, if not, having a dedicated call would make sense.

McCool: We seem to have no consensus

Kaz: That's why I mentioned a possible additional call. In any case, we need to clarify which parts/sections from the WoT Architecture spec should be normative first.

McCool: I see, talking about sections

Lagally: We have normative sections about Consumer, etc.
… this is the status quo
… we might want to restructure it
… question is who is doing the work
… proposing is simple

McCool: I think internal restructuring is needed
… I would like to focus on Arch ... if someone else takes over discovery etc
… chapter "Application domains" is non normative etc
… chapter 6 Architecture is normative
… what are relevant assertions
… assertions need to be testable
… there are not that many assertions
… Q: Can those be handled somewhere else

McCool: chapter 7 building blocks is non normative
… chapter 8 and 9 is non normative
… Chapter 10 Security is normative
… Section 6 and 10 are the only normative sections

Lagally: Architecture discussion ... for tomorrow

McCool: it boils down to whether. Is Arch the best place for normative sections
… for 10 Security, it has to go in another document.. I think

Ege: Commit to move assertions in another document
… Question: are people reading Arch spec?
… I think management reads Arch document
… implementors do not read Arch spec
… it is a burden to test Arch spec

Kaz: Agree with McCool looking into dedicated sections
… it is a different question whether developers read this document

Kaz: I think people do read Arch document

Ege: I was referring to the assertions

McCool: Purpose of assertion?
… thing you can test
… or requirements

<Ege> for the minutes, I am not saying that people do not read the architecture specification. Just that during the implementation stage, people do not refer to the assertions in there

McCool: I don't think we can agree soon
… suggest to look at the assertion and move them if best
… by keeping Arch document being normative

<Ege> that is fine kaz, we can discuss other time

Lagally: I like that

Lagally: I also agree with Ege... some sections are for project managers no developers

Lagally: Agree with the approach to go with normative Arch and discuss it the next weeks while Charter review

Kaz: test reports needed for W3C process based on assertions
… checking the content and sections is very important

McCool: We are not saying Arch is not important
… the question is about assertions
… Ege thinks it causes testing burden
… it is a practical question

Kaz: testing does not only meaning automatic test
… but also manual tests
… we need humans in the loop

McCool: True

Kaz: question is what is required and what is optional

Ege: I agree with Kaz on it's not only about automatic testing, but the problems with the assertion is real
… some assertions are very generic

Ege: argument to keep Arch normative because it was normative does not make sense
… we got strong opinion from TAG
… I do not agree with Arch being normative

Lagally: Concern by Ege or by Siemens?

Ege: Also from Sebastian...
… from Ben Francis

Lagally: I would like to see a "Siemens" opinion

Ege: Will do

Lagally: What is the counter proposal?

McCool: List Arch under other deliverable ..

Lagally: Please provide a PR

<MMC adds proposal to PR 82>

<kaz> PR 82 - adding architecture deliverable

McCool: move Arch to informative deliverables
… plan to relocate other assertions

Lagally: I don't see a reason for doing that
… we don't have consensus
… need feedback from other members

McCool: doing it next week would put as back 2 weeks behind schedule for AC review
… consensus is more important

Kaz: As team contact: I suggest to look into content of Arch document
… personally I think we could merge Arch and Profile
… That's just my personal opinion about a possibility.
… However, bigger discussion about how to deal with the content of the Architecture spec should happen before making the conclusion about whether Architecture spec should be normative or not.

McCool: I strongly object merging Arch and Profile, because those two documents define completely different viewpoints.
… but we do need introductory document

McCool: let's spend time tomorrow discussing feasibility

<Ege> Please see w3c/wot-charter-drafts#85 for an informative deliverable

Lagally: Small note
… should we have proposal a) and b)
… a) merging this PR and b) being Arch non-normative
… but let's discuss this tomorrow

McCool: If there are other ideas please bring them up

Ege: I created alternative PR

McCool: No testing call today

[adjourned]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 210 (Wed Jan 11 19:21:32 2023 UTC).