Meeting minutes
<Ege>
https://
minutes review
<kaz> Apr-26
Ege: any comments?
no
minutes approved
Moderator
<Ege>
https://
Ege: the idea was to
select a new moderator in today's call
… there was also an email sent
Ege: there can be multiple moderators
Sebastian: we should
keep the mode until end of this charter
… lets start a new moderators in new
charter
Kaz: If Ege is interested in becoming the TF moderator, Siemens should official announce that Ege takeover moderation
Kaz: Note that Michael Koster is also intersthing in becoming the TF lead. We could have two co-Moderators if needed, but we should clarify who to work on what.
Koster: I'm working
together with Siemens on the BACnet binding
… there should be moderators from different
organizations
Kaz: the current model is odd
Ege: shall we decided now or in next charter?
Koster: I'm still interested in that role
Kaz, I agree
:-)
Daniel: in scripting having two moderators works quite well
Sebastian: agree, 2 moderators make sense. When we started TD work there were also 2 moderators: Taki and myself
Kaz: if sebastian busy currently, then Ege can takeover moderation and maybe togehter with Michael Koster
Ege: So maybe then we can have a proposal to to continue like this to the end of the current extended Charter and agree on 2 moderators
Koster: I could be a candidate
I cannot hear MK well
ok, I have connection problems
Kaz: don't really think
we could get actual resolution today
… so would suggest both the candidate moderators
think about the expected roles, e.g., technical spec descriptions
and project management
Koster: makes sense
Ege: one of the moderators mainly works on technical descriptions and another works on project management makes to me too
<Ege> proposal: one moderator focuses on the technical text (the specification) and the other one does project management work such as keeping up with the timeline, relationships to other deliverables (dependencies)
<MIzushima> +1 kaz
<Ege> proposal: one moderator mainly works on the technical text (the specification) and the other one mainly does project management work such as keeping up with the timeline, relationships to other deliverables (dependencies). Both moderators keep sync with each other.
Mizushima: this
resolution should period only valid for this charter
… next charter we should discuss again
Kaz: to clearify TM statement, we should evaluate the working mode again in the new charter
<Ege> proposal: For this charter period, the TF decided that one moderator will mainly work on the technical text (the specification) and the other one mainly does project management work such as keeping up with the timeline, relationships to other deliverables (dependencies).
<Ege> proposal: For this charter period, the TF decided that there will be two moderators. One moderator will mainly work on the technical text (the specification) and the other one mainly does project management work such as keeping up with the timeline, relationships to other deliverables (dependencies).
<Ege> proposal: For this charter period, the TF decided that there will be two co-moderators. One moderator will mainly work on the technical text (the specification) and the other one mainly does project management work such as keeping up with the timeline, relationships to other deliverables (dependencies).
Kaz: I'm ok to put the names in the resolution itself
Koster: propsal that Ege will do the work stream and myself the project management
Kaz: please note what is more important is the co-Moderators are encouraged to talk with each other closely about how to run the TF, and I'm happy to help you :)
<Ege> proposal: For this charter period, the TF decided that there will be two co-moderators. Ege Korkan will mainly work on the technical text (the specification) and Michael Koster mainly does project management work such as keeping up with the timeline, relationships to other deliverables (dependencies).
Ege: any objections?
RESOLUTION: For this charter period, the TF decided that there will be two co-moderators. Ege Korkan will mainly work on the technical text (the specification) and Michael Koster mainly does project management work such as keeping up with the timeline, relationships to other deliverables (dependencies).
no
<dape> Daniel: +1
Koster: thanks
TPAC agenda
Ege: we are collecting
TD based topics here
https://
Ege: are there any topics to add so far?
Daniel: are the groups in Spain which we want to meet?
Kaz: we need to check the questionnaire. It seems there will be at least the JSON-LD CG meeting, which may be combined with the JSON-LD WG meeting.
<kaz> TPAC questionnaire (Member-only)
<EK enters deadline for contributions, 28.2023>
Kaz: it seems that we can have a meeting with Greg Kellog, he organize a meeting for the JSON-LD CG
Binding Templates
Publication
<Ege> https://
Ege: question to Kaz, if some help needed for the publication
Kaz: we did the resolution in today's main call. We need to run the W3C checking tools such as the Link checker
<kaz> guideline for publication instruction on wot-thing-description
<Ege creates a new issue for the ToDos for publication>
Thing Description
Ege: McCool generated a new version of the testing report
Updated Implementation Report for TD
<Ege> https://
Ege: McCool is going to provide PRs to remove the remaining at-risk assertions
TD PRs
PR 1800
PR 1800 - Mention apikey creation is only for object and arrays
merged
PR 1802
PR 1802 - Fix html checker errors
<sebastian> +1
Ege: need to add edits to the TTL files
merged
PR 1790
PR 1790 - Editorial fixes for issue 1735
Ege: (shows the changes)
Kaz: note that we should be very careful to add any changes at this stage, because we had already published a Candidate Recommendation
Ege: yeah
… completely editorial and typo fixes
… also added clarification for a term definition
"Levels of a TD" which is also non-normative
Kaz: ok
Kaz: btw, what is the cause of the validation error for the PR 1790?
Ege: bug within the SHACL definition. can be still merged
merged
PR 1820
PR 1820 - Add semantic annotation def and use it
Ege: (shows the
diff)
… Sebastian has fixed the problem
merged
PR 1821
PR 1821 - Extend proxy-to description
Ege: (shows the changes)
merged
PR 1822
PR 1822 - Explain multiple inputs
Kaz: do you still want to wait for Zoltan's feedback?
Ege: yes, he generated the original issue 913
<sebastian> I have already to go. Bye
Issue 913 - Improve the text on Action parameters (vs input)
PR 1823
PR 1823 - Remove manually added rfc classes
Ege: would like to wait
for McCool as well
… but it seems there is mixed syntax for the RFC
keywords
… one generated by ReSpec, and another manually
generated for the CSS setting
Kaz: I'm OK with automatic generation by ReSpec but we should be consistent about how to handle the CSS setting for the RFC keywords
Ege: agree
… it seems the actual difference is
[[title="MUST"]]
… the line generated by ReSpec doesn't have
[[title="MUST"]] attribute
Kaz: However, I'm
afraid it's rather a bug of ReSpec in that case...
… maybe we need to look into the other WG's HTML as
well to see how ReSpec works with ordinary HTML
Ege: yeah, would like to look into the other specs as well to see what is happening with them
Kaz: yeah, checking our own tooling and also what's happening with the the other WG's HTMLs would make sense
[adjourned]