Meeting minutes
PRs
<kaz> Draft Charter
PR 88
<kaz> PR 88 - Revised scope section, reordered, clarified language
mm: I will make a new PR with the parts that are not problematic
mm: no, I will edit it in place
… let's look at suggested changes first
mm: the other part is the managed tds
ek: it is weird to say signing is a use case
kaz: Are you editing his PR?
mm: I will make a PR if I can
kaz: We should discuss what would be the better description a bit more.
mm: we seem to have enough consensus
ek: you need to merge the PR to his branch first, though
mm: let's do a test
mm: ok we have a new PR now
mm: so I will add the signing to other work item
ek: This is looking good
mm: the diff is against michael's PR
mm: should we keep more or wider use case
… additional sounds better
… ege are you ok with using describe payloads
ek: we can say better describing payloads
mm: we are looking at the diff against your branch
ml: ok I see
<kaz> PR 96 - Update wot-wg-2023-draft.html - scope PR 88 (modifying Lagally's proposed text)
<kaz> diff
mm: scalable cloud events part was a commit merged already
ml: linting etc. are too technical
mm: ege are you ok to remove it?
ek: we can remove the whole yellow part
kaz: fine by me too
ml: what is meant by external vocabularies?
mm: so that we can have them individual to protocols
ek: we can remove all technical details since it is for a wide audience and not todos for the WG anymore
kaz: could you explain your intention?
ml: we want to have separate ontologies for security schemes so that they can be used in wot specs flexibly
mm: is it ok to merge this PR 96?
ml: yes go ahead
<kaz> (PR 96 merged)
<kaz> (and going back to the original PR 88)
<kaz> PR 88 - Revised scope section, reordered, clarified language
<kaz> diff
kaz: Let's quickly skim the diff to make sure
<kaz> (some merge conflicts there)
mm: we have refactored some things here
… we seem to have some problems with github diff
… let's find the next thing to merge
PR 87
<kaz> PR 87 - Update wot-wg-2023-draft.html - Revised Introduction
ml: the first part makes the language more precise
mm: I do not think that this new paragraph belongs here
… you can put it at the top of the scope section
ml: I made some changes but they do not show up
mm: I would like to get this first paragraph changes about the enhancing the standards removed
ml: how do we enhance standards?
mm: for example with MQTT, we allow a way to have metadata
<kaz> diff
ek: I think that the problem is the usage of model and what is meant by that
ml: like the information model, architecture model, discovery model
ek: so td is one information model?
ml: yes the initial information model in it
… we are copying over the introduction from last ones. So it seems we are not changing anything
… what is new for an initial reader?
kaz: I think "Common Model" here needs some more clarification. If that is "Thing Description and/or some potential extension", the original mission statement should be OK. On the other hand, we should explicitly mention that we'd like to consider actual industry adoption more for the next Charter period.
mm: we should use at least metamodel. People think that we are standardizing, e.g. a specific way to describe a washing machine
sk: I understand what Michael Lagally intends. This can be easily misunderstood since even meta model implies models within yet another meta model and this is criticism we see sometimes
mm: I think we should get rid of this paragraph
ml: it would be better for a business people
ml: what are the major new things?
mm: we can have a separate PR for it and put it at the top of the scope
<sebastian> I have to go
ek: Michael Lagally, do you want to make the charter more attractive and marketable?
ml: in a way yes, having more clear and crisp language that does not need context of the current work
Schedule for the Charter discussion
kaz: We need to confirm how to proceed. Cristiano and Daniel agreed to use the Scripting slot on Monday, March 27. So I'm wondering about the possibility of using the Security slot and the Discovery slot on Monday.
mm: Right. Can sacrifice the Security call then.
kaz: Thanks. Please send a reminder to the group lists to make sure.
mm: see you on monday
<kaz> [adjourned]