11:09:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wot
11:09:06 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/03/09-wot-irc
11:09:20 <Mizushima> Mizushima has joined #wot
11:09:28 <kaz> meeting: 5th WoT WG Charter Meeting - Day 2
11:10:01 <kaz> present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Ege_Korkan, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Lagally, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima
11:10:38 <kaz> topic: Organization
11:10:50 <kaz> mm: Charter discussion or Architecture discussion
11:11:03 <kaz> ... can have discussion as part of the Architecture discussion
11:11:12 <kaz> ... then get back to the Charter discussion
11:11:31 <kaz> ... but we need a bigger picture for the Charter anyway
11:11:41 <kaz> ml: why don't we merge the agenda topics?
11:12:06 <kaz> -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Agenda_Session_5.2C_Day_2_-_Mar_9 Charter Session 5 - Day 2
11:13:00 <kaz> -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#Architecture_March_9th.2C_2023 Architecture agenda
11:13:19 <kaz> zakim, who is on the call?
11:13:19 <Zakim> Present: Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Ege_Korkan, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Lagally, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima
11:13:29 <kaz> ml: what is the goal of *this* call then?
11:13:45 <kaz> ... Charter for AC review?
11:13:54 <kaz> ... or Architecture spec?
11:14:19 <kaz> mm: we need to make decision about whether Architecture should be normative or not
11:14:31 <kaz> ml: it's a material for the Charter, isn't it?
11:15:03 <kaz> mm: we can't make decision by the Architecture TF by themselves
11:15:17 <kaz> ... there are bigger categories within the Charter
11:15:37 <kaz> ... some of the topics don't necessarily need to be normative
11:16:43 <kaz> ml: we if once forget about normative vs informative
11:16:56 <kaz> s/we if/what if/
11:17:08 <Ege> q+
11:18:00 <kaz> ... if look into the Charter scope, it says "Update Existing Specifications", etc.
11:18:19 <McCool> q+
11:18:20 <kaz> ... my question is who would consume the specs
11:18:35 <kaz> ... would like to see concrete examples
11:18:42 <kaz> ... e.g., cloud scenarios
11:18:51 <kaz> q+
11:19:13 <kaz> mm: let's go through the queue...
11:19:44 <kaz> ... we're incrementally updating the Charter
11:20:18 <kaz> ... should mention cloud scenarios in addition to digital twins?
11:20:42 <kaz> ek: should put that kind of proposal to the Charter text
11:20:57 <kaz> ... think cloud scenario is already possible with the current mechanism
11:21:06 <kaz> ... is that an issue of wording?
11:21:12 <kaz> ack e
11:21:44 <kaz> topic: Draft WG Charter
11:21:54 <kaz> -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-charter-drafts/wot-wg-2023-draft.html Draft Charter
11:22:06 <kaz> ml: we have same mission we started 7 years ago
11:22:20 <kaz> ... then let's see the scope
11:22:30 <kaz> s/scope/motivation/
11:22:54 <kaz> ... the text doesn't really say anything...
11:23:18 <kaz> ... in my opinion, this description is not enough yet
11:23:23 <kaz> s/yet//
11:23:28 <kaz> s/is/is still/
11:23:46 <mlagally_> mlagally_ has joined #wot
11:23:56 <kaz> mm: don't against with new PRs for mission and motivation
11:24:20 <kaz> ... you need to raise PRs for further improvement
11:25:07 <kaz> q?
11:25:11 <kaz> ack mc
11:25:26 <kaz> ... there are other PRs already
11:25:46 <kaz> ... personally would focus on the existing GitHub issues
11:26:02 <kaz> ... some of them are important and some others are minor
11:26:13 <kaz> ml: do you have a chance to look into my PR?
11:26:58 <kaz> s/my PR/latest PRs/
11:27:17 <kaz> ... would like to discuss Architecture spec
11:27:36 <kaz> mm: I do want to discuss existing document structure
11:27:56 <kaz> ... it relates to not only the Architecture spec but also all the WoT specs
11:28:14 <kaz> ... would like to analyze the whole structure
11:28:54 <sebastian> sebastian has joined #wot
11:28:58 <sebastian> q?
11:29:15 <kaz> ... some of the stuff within the Architecture could be moved to another spec, for example
11:30:17 <kaz> ... personally think we still need one normative spec even if we make Architecture informative
11:30:30 <kaz> ml: the question is what problem to be resolved here?
11:30:33 <sebastian> q+
11:30:35 <Ege> q+
11:30:52 <kaz> mm: (explains the history)
11:31:08 <kaz> ... there is an issue with testability
11:31:29 <kaz> ... we've been asking the group participants to provide implementations
11:32:06 <kaz> ml: the question is related to the security section, so would make sense to move it to another spec?
11:32:13 <kaz> mm: that's true...
11:32:33 <kaz> ... I've been paraphrasing Ege's comments
11:32:48 <kaz> ... some of the assertions could be moved over to the TD
11:33:00 <kaz> ... but other things, like Scripting
11:33:06 <kaz> ml: ok
11:33:21 <kaz> ... Scripting is not a problem within the Architecture
11:33:48 <kaz> mm: normative assertion about runtime within Architecture
11:33:54 <kaz> q?
11:34:15 <kaz> ml: would object we mandate Scripting API
11:35:45 <kaz> kaz: think we should rather start with the third item here
11:35:55 <kaz> ... "Where can existing *categories* of normative content be moved, in theory?"
11:36:19 <kaz> ... if there is no normative section for Architecture in the end, that spec will be automatically informative
11:36:23 <kaz> mm: right
11:36:36 <kaz> ack k
11:37:06 <kaz> ... note that there might be something which would not be movable within Architecture
11:37:23 <kaz> sk: 3 points
11:37:31 <kaz> ... since we're thinking about new Charter
11:37:46 <kaz> ... we should learn from what we did for the previous Charters
11:38:03 <kaz> ... Architecture spec had been always controversial
11:38:31 <kaz> ml: what do you mean?
11:38:56 <kaz> sk: we have to get AC review and Wide reviews
11:39:18 <McCool> q+
11:39:46 <kaz> (Sebastian's voice is breaking, and will type in)
11:39:50 <kaz> ack s
11:39:54 <McCool> ack se
11:40:03 <kaz> ek: one of the arguments is Ben's comment
11:40:26 <mlagally_> qq+
11:40:28 <kaz> ... difficulty with implementations, e.g., section 8
11:40:50 <Ege> ack e
11:41:31 <kaz> ml: if developers overlook requirements for security, security, etc., can see the TD spec, etc.
11:41:44 <kaz> mm: so clearer reference would help
11:41:46 <kaz> ml: right
11:42:11 <kaz> mm: ReSpec doesn't let us refer to specific sections, and that's a problem
11:42:12 <kaz> q?
11:42:15 <kaz> ack ml
11:42:15 <Zakim> mlagally_, you wanted to react to se
11:42:46 <kaz> mm: given we have less than 20 mins, seems we don't have consensus about the goal for this meeting
11:43:04 <kaz> ... should we see the Architecture spec as Kaz suggested?
11:43:14 <kaz> ... would organize the discussion better
11:43:15 <mlagally_> q+
11:43:18 <kaz> q+
11:43:21 <kaz> ack mc
11:43:37 <kaz> mm: personally think the draft Charter is getting close for the AC review
11:44:16 <kaz> ... one option is (as suggested yesterday) keep the Architecture normative for the moment and see the content later
11:44:21 <sebastian> We should learn from our current situation of the charter. In the past we had already contorversal discussion why we should have Arch as REC. We should simplify our standardization work in the next charter and concentrate on the actually deliverables like TD and Discovery.
11:44:37 <kaz> ... another option is using a few more weeks to clarify the issue before the AC review
11:44:49 <kaz> ... any opinions?
11:44:50 <kaz> q?
11:45:24 <kaz> ml: coming back to the Charter itself
11:46:14 <kaz> ... (gives his own views)
11:46:53 <kaz> ... from Oracle's viewpoint, we need a good balance between the device side and the cloud side
11:47:05 <kaz> mm: agree it's an important question
11:47:21 <kaz> ... we need to improve the mission, background and scope for that
11:47:31 <Ege> q+
11:47:41 <kaz> ... the question is if there is anything which would impact
11:48:22 <kaz> ... if you need any additional scope which requires significant change, you should give proposal
11:48:51 <kaz> ml: we can talk about which content from Architecture to be moved
11:49:15 <kaz> mm: so are you open to the possible change of Architecture from normative to informative?
11:49:28 <kaz> ml: I'm open to any direction
11:49:32 <kaz> ack ml
11:49:53 <kaz> mm: the fact is that many assertions from the Architecture is at risk
11:51:21 <McCool> q+
11:51:52 <kaz> ack k
11:51:58 <kaz> kaz: start with the analysis
11:52:05 <kaz> ... collaboration with develeopers important
11:52:07 <kaz> ack e
11:52:39 <kaz> ek: would like to have dedicated discussion about supporting cloud scenario
11:52:53 <kaz> mm: new mission statement required or not
11:53:08 <kaz> ... but would like to focus on the Charter doc itself
11:53:43 <kaz> ... we could do the necessary analysis as part of the Charter discussion though it would be a big bucket
11:53:52 <mlagally_> q+
11:54:11 <kaz> ... still would like to have a central place about what WoT is like
11:54:30 <kaz> ... and Architecture should be a good place for that purpose
11:54:39 <kaz> ack mc
11:54:57 <kaz> ... think we need to sacrifice the Discovery call on Monday for further discussion on the Charter
11:55:25 <kaz> ... maybe would be useful to generate a sheet on the assertions from specs
11:55:33 <kaz> q?
11:55:35 <kaz> q+
11:56:05 <kaz> ml: want to ask people about the WoT Architecture spec
11:56:52 <kaz> ... e.g., if we really have serious problems with implementing the WoT Architecture spec
11:58:14 <kaz> kaz: section review
11:58:22 <kaz> mm: should be incrementally?
11:58:43 <kaz> ... like the idea of section review
11:58:57 <kaz> ... note we need to skip "Overview", etc. :)
11:59:00 <kaz> kaz: sure :)
11:59:16 <kaz> topic: Logistics
11:59:34 <kaz> mm: let's use all of the Discovery for Charter
11:59:46 <kaz> ... then half of the main call for Charter
12:00:06 <kaz> ... then all of the Architecture for Charter
12:00:17 <kaz> ... to see existing normative content
12:00:29 <kaz> ... also see PRs for the draft Charter
12:00:44 <kaz> ... we can add Lagally's points to the draft Charter
12:00:55 <kaz> s/Logistics/Next steps/
12:00:57 <Ege> q+
12:01:02 <kaz> ack ml
12:01:03 <kaz> ack k
12:01:05 <mlagally_> ack ml
12:01:30 <kaz> ek: Lagally asked us an important question
12:01:57 <kaz> ... but could you please repeat that?
12:02:17 <kaz> ml: what is the difficulty with implementing the Architecture spec?
12:02:28 <kaz> mm: Architecture specifically?
12:02:38 <kaz> ... or should be WoT in general
12:02:43 <kaz> ml: yeah
12:03:30 <kaz> mm: can generate an Excel sheet of normative assertions for further discussion
12:03:43 <kaz> [adjourned]
12:03:49 <kaz> rrsagent, make log public
12:03:53 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:03:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/09-wot-minutes.html kaz
12:06:54 <kaz> chair: McCool
12:06:55 <kaz> rrsagent, draft minutes
12:06:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/09-wot-minutes.html kaz
12:07:29 <kaz> rrsagent, bye
12:07:29 <RRSAgent> I see no action items