Meeting minutes
Minutes Review
<kaz> Mar-22
Ege: We did a lot of PRs
… we had the whole thing about TF lead, which did not do its entirety
… then we looked at the charter, changed one work item, looked at the slides for the dev meeting
… in the Binding Templates section, we looked at the figures and terms
… influenced by different types of bindings, looked at the CoAP binding and cooperation with SDOs
… then we discussed PRs regarding TD consumption, we will have follow-ups today
… discussed simple PRs for the TD repo, improving formatting/table numbers
… minutes look good, there are only some discrepancies regarding the names
… also a bit weird that some chat messages are in the minutes, should be deleted
Kaz: I will include my comment regarding the TF lead in the minutes
Ege: Afterward, minutes are approved
TF Lead
Ege: What we've agree on last time was that I am taking over the TF lead
… since Sebastian is occupied for the last couple of months
<cris__> fine by me
Ege: so I would propose that I take over the lead until the end of April, then we make a formal discussion
Kaz: I think, Sebastian should have asked beforehand, but I am personally okay with you taking over his role as a temporary TF lead until the end of April, I assume?
Ege: I would say end of April to be sure
Kaz: Then I will propose that we make the resolution that you will take over the TF lead over the course of April, just to clarify the procedure, if the others are fine with that
Koster: I am okay with that
Ege: I'll prepare a resolution
Kaz: You can then report it back to the main call
<Ege> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ege Korkan will be interim TF Lead for TD+Binding call until end of April
Ege: Does it look okay, Kaz?
Kaz: Yes
RESOLUTION: Ege Korkan will be interim TF Lead for TD+Binding call until end of April
Ege: Any objections to the proposed resolution?
Jan: I am okay with it as well
Ege: April 26 is the last call, on May 3 there is going to be a decision
Kaz: Fine, as I mentioned having two TF leads from the same company is not ideal by the way
PRs
PR 266
<kaz> PR 266 - Reorganize intro and section 4
Ege: I have been working on a reorganization of the introduction and section 4
… there is a big diff since content has been moved around
… (shows the diff in the rendered document)
… some content has been moved around, as you can see
… I also applied some fixes to the introduction
… I added three introduction paragraphs
… this is very close to the Architecture
… (shows the respective section 7 in the Architecture document)
… I think this makes it a bit nicer, the rest is what we have talked about last time
… I am showing the local version since the rendered web version does not render pictures correctly
… however, the netlify version shows them
<kaz> preview
Ege: (pastes a link to the netlify version into the IRC)
… what does everybody think?
… another thing I did was changing the platform bindings to the same structure as the protocol bindings
Kaz: This is a good starting point for further discussions, thank you
No objections, to be merged, bu need to resolve the conflicts.
PR 269
<kaz> PR 269 - Move ontologies into individual protocol binding folders
Ege: This is another PR that is changing content around
… previously, the ontology files were into a separate folder
… this PR moves them to the respective protocol binding folders
… this makes them a bit easier to manage
Koster: This is what we'll expect a registry to work like, this is the right direction for that
Ege: (adds a comment)
… another positive aspect is that protocol bindings will become self-contained
Cristiano: I am not against this change, however, if we take this approach we might be able to further simplify the structure as we did with CoAP
… at the moment, this will only be relevant for Modbus, in the case of MQTT we did not a whole description. We might need to add an explainer for this decision
Kaz: Maybe this is an easier direction for specification generators, however, we should think about how to export the ontologies to the public later
… so that later, developers from all over the world can refer to these ontologies
… if we want to expose them via w3.org, we need to think about how to that
Ege: I would imagine that the public ontologies would not necessarily be exposed under w3.org
… however, the content negotiation needs to be considered
Koster: We are setting a bigger set of requirements for these documents
<mjk> s/ackmjk//
<kaz> merged
Ege: (completes his comment)
… merges the PR
PR 270
<kaz> PR 270 - remove duplicate "Figure"
Ege: This is an editorial change, I would simply merge this
<kaz> s|s/ackmjk//||
Ege: any objections to merging this?
Merged
PR 273
<kaz> PR 273 - Remove GitHub io links for specs like Arch and TD
Ege: Another simple PR
… Daniel simply corrected the links, that were pointing to github.io previously
Kaz: Just to make sure, is that for the main body text?
Ege: Yes, it's to the index.html
Kaz: Technically, all specifications should be linked via the reference link, right?
Ege: Yes
… (merges the PR)
PR 277
<kaz> PR 277 - Add table numbering and captions
Ege: This introduces the new ReSpec table numbering feature
… the PR basically adds this to the document
… merging
Merged
PR 268
<kaz> PR 268 - Add TD Consumption step
Ege: Last week we talked about this topic, the consumption of TDs with bindings
… this PR adjusts the document that consumers don't need to use JSON Schema but can also validate programmatically
Ege: also included definition links, but the validation is the main change
… Luca, I think you had a comment regarding JSON Schema, are you fine with this version?
<kaz> diff - 4.1.3 Using a TD with a Protocol Binding Template Subspecification
lb: Looks good
Kaz: Just a minor question: Is it fine as a general policy to use "TD" in a section title?
<cris__> I would expand the name
Ege: Good point, I will write it out
Kaz: Another point, as raised by Ben: the title uses "Binding Template", should be discussed
Ege: Needs to be discussed. For the moment, it's fine to say "Protocol Binding Template" at section 4.1.3 within section 4.1, though. when the people are present, for now I kept it consistent with the current terminology.
Ege: (Adds a comment to the issue)
… (merges the PR)
Merged
Issue 232
<kaz> Issue 232 - Next WD Path
Ege: After we are now done with a lot of restructuring, we can now discuss how to proceed
Koster: I think we decided that we need people to implement this, I think we have something that is almost ready for publishing
… I think it is important to make some progress
Ege: This is just related to the core document, there are ongoing discussions with the binding document
Koster: This is the guidance we need when refactoring the other documents also
Ege: Then I would say we make a resolution for the main call, then we can start the two week review process
… applied some last fixes to PR 266, afterward we can proceed in this regard
… (resolves merge conflicts)
<kaz> PR 266 - Reorganize intro and section 4 has been merged after resolving the conflicts
Ege: (now finally merges PR 266)
<Ege> PROPOSAL: TF agrees to start the WD review process of the binding templates document
Ege: any objections or comments on the proposal?
… If not, then we can make it into a resolution
<Ege> PROPOSAL: TF agrees to start the WD review process of the binding templates document of two weeks
Ege: I will add "of two weeks" at the end
<Ege> PROPOSAL: TF agrees to start the 2 week Working Draft review process of the binding templates document
Ege: or rather "two week WD review process"
… any objections?
RESOLUTION: TF agrees to start the 2 week review process of the binding templates document
There are no obejctions, resolution has been adopted
<JKRhb> s/obejections/objections/
Kaz: This is a Working Group Note, not a Working Draft, though (Kaz removed "Working Draft" from the resolution)
The resolution text is adjusted
[adjourned]