Meeting minutes
PRs
McCool: (quickly goes through the PRs)
<McCool> w3c/
PR 89 PR 89 - Add consumer description topics
McCool: related to detailed work item
… Ege, OK with closing this?
Kaz: as I've been suggesting, we could move this kind of technical problems to the other repo like wot-thing-description or simply wot
McCool: maybe it would be better to close this PR itself, and then create another PR on concrete work item for the "detail" document
Kaz: for the moment, that's fine
… but we need to consider moving this kind of detailed technical discussion to other repos once the Charter discussion is done
McCool: right
PR 85 and 82
<McCool> PR 82 - Add Architecture as a normative deliverable
PR 85 - Add Architecture as an informative deliverable
<McCool> related Issue 16 - Architecture Restructuring
McCool: The bigger question is refactoring the specs in general
… not only Architecture
… we should work on the whole refactoring during the next Charter period
… Sebastian has agreed on keeping the Architecture spec normative
… so we can merge the PR 82 to make the Architecture spec normative
… the question is making the scope section inline with the plan on refactoring as well
Ege: ok
Ege: question about the procedure
Kaz: as described by the Process document (and as I also mentioned during the calls), three steps: (1) Wide reviews by TAG, I18N, A11Y, Security and Privacy based on the Strategy Funnel Issue, (2) W3M Review, and then (3) AC Review
Ege: ok
(PR 85 closed)
(PR 82 merged)
(Issue 16 closed)
New PR on spec refactoring
McCool: would like to create a dedicated PR to record the refactoring issue
… (adds some text on spec refactoring to the "Scope" section)
Kaz: I'm OK with this updated text within the Scope section
… but we need to improve the Mission and the Motivation sections to lead to this refactoring goal
… note that I also had been suggesting we think about the spec refactoring and asked all the Editors to work together for that purpose, but unfortunately we kind of failed to achieve that during the current Charter period. So I think we need to think about how to achieve the refactoring seriously for the next Charter period.
McCool: right
… (directly commit the change to wot-wg-2023-draft.html wrongly, but that's OK)
Update and Refactor Existing Specifications: The WG will add new features, address issues discovered during implementation of already published specifications, and reorganize material between documents as appropriate. Unlike the last charter, these would not be limited to backward-compatible updates.
Issues
Issue 80
Issue 33 - TD and TM restructuring
McCool: marked with "Deferred" since it's not directly related to the Charter
Issue 33
Issue 33 - TD and TM restructuring
McCool: would like to mark with "Deferred" or close it
… TD TF agreed to leave TM in the TD spec
(closed)
Issue 61
Issue 61 - High Level Scope Description for TD and Binding
McCool: also should be closed
(closed)
Issue 14 and 65
Issue 14 - Confusing use of the term "protocol binding"
Issue 65 - Move IG Relationship from Mission Statement to Collaboration
McCool: can leave them open
PRs - revisited
PR 66
PR 66 - Move IG mention to collaboration section
McCool: two points here
Put WoT groups in a section of their own under collaborations Move IG to the top, to emphasize its special status
McCool: second part is easy
… so we can merge the second part quickly
… but need further discussion around the first point
Ege: need further discussion
McCool: ok, let's keep this open
… and have discussion as Lagally as well
PR 87
PR 87 - Update wot-wg-2023-draft.html - Revised Introduction
McCool: (goes through the diff)
… have many problems with the proposed changes...
Ege: wondering about "Common Model" here
McCool: there're various data models for IoT purposes like OneDM
… but what we're doing is not really a "Common Data Model"
… so don't think we can merge this as it is
… next the Motivation section has proposed addition highlighted by yellow
Kaz: agree with McCool, though we do need improvement for the Mission and Motivation sections.
… I'm personally OK with the original Mission statement.
… but think the Motivation section should describe we'd like to tackle WoT deployment within the actual IoT scenarios and ecosystems
McCool: yeah, the current proposed text for the Motivation section is just a summary of the Scope section
… (adds some comments on PR 87)
PR 88
PR 88 - Revised scope section, reordered, clarified language
McCool: (goes through the diff)
… need some more improvement
… maybe taking out the signing part, etc.
… OK with the description within "Support New Use Cases"
Kaz: you can add comments to PR 88
… also we should clarify what "reusable external security vocabularies"
McCool: yeah
… anyway don't think we can merge this now
Kaz: given we just have one more minute, we need to think about how to proceed now
McCool: maybe we need one more week to finalize the Charter
… small changes for Mission, Motivation and Scope
… don't want to expect too many changes
Kaz: which slot to be used for that discussion?
… we should make an announcement to the group too
McCool: would like to use the main call for that purpose
Kaz: what about the Architecture call slot?
McCool: would see the need during the main call
Ege: a bit concerned about "scalable events"
McCool: let's have discussion including Lagally
[adjourned]