Meeting minutes
Agenda
Minutes
<kaz> Dec-13
<MM scans the minutes from last meeting>
McCool: We need to fix to "any changes"
… should be versioned
Kaz: we need to clearify the Policy when we want to change the minutes
McCool: It is wrong recorded in the minutes, so it should be fixed
McCool: something else we need to change?
Kaz: that should be clarified as the maintenance policy for the wot-resources repository.
McCool: agree
McCool: any objections?
no
minutes approved
Quick Updates
End-of-year Agenda Archival
McCool: will archive meeting agendas on the WoT main wiki at the end of the year
Nordic Chapter CG
McCool: there are around 20 people in the meeting
… it was like a mini conference
… missed one hour
… they switched to Swedish for doing organization things
Kaz: they had around 10 topics
<kaz> Nordic CG's Dec-18 meeting agenda
Kaz: we need to clearify the liaison between the Nodrdic CG and WoT WG. Let's continue discussion with their Chair separately by email.
Meeting Schedule Changes
<MM shows the latest Cancellation overview>
https://
Ege:: we need to change tentative to confirmed for the TD calls
Kaz: scripting, Just to make sure, security and discovery will start on the 15th of January. Right?
McCool: yes
<McCool updates the Schedule page>
use cases
McCool: Seem there was some confusion
McCool: intention to the doodle was to find new time slot
… even there is no new task force lead yet
… hope, that there some volunteers
<kaz> doodle
Daniel: an email reminder would be good
McCool: there was an email shared
Sebastian: welcome to apply as a Use Case moderator, should be not that time consuming
Kaz: I'm ok to start a preliminary doodle poll in parallel, but our priority should be finding a moderater. Maybe we need to hold a doodle again if it takes longer than expected to find the moderator.
Kaz: note that the work for moderators might be busier than usual for a while to have initial discussion on the policy, template, workflow, etc., but would become easier in a few months.
WG planning
McCool: some topics have to be done
… e.g., policies, some open PRs, decissions about Twitter
… we need to find some new TF leads
McCool: we can think about a PlugFest during the Fiware Summit
… it takes place in June, somewhere in Europe
Kaz: there is already another thread about a Fiware liasion.
Sebastian: I think its ok to record, so that we have an overview whats is going on
Kaz: We should think about all the related SDOs in addition to FIWARE, so let's say "need to void overlaps with related SDOs meetings, e.g., FIWARE."
Resources
McCool: Jan is looking into the ontology rendering issue
… there is also an empty TM html file
Ege:: we need to update TM ttl file to make html work
… Mahda has already provided a PR
… in the future we should think about versioning for the subsequent changes
… problem we linking a specific version in the TD spec
McCool: there is the option of an errata to update the link
Ege:: when we update the repository we need to touch the REC all the time, this is annoying.
McCool: first of all we need to adjust the implementaion and have an errata
… we can have link to the errata which have the latest links
… we can warn the people in the errata document that they should use the updated URLs
Ege:: I can setup such a document
Kaz: I agree on the discussion, and wanted to suggest again we clarify our policy on how to maintain wot-resources. What is related for TD 1.1 and what is relevant for TD 2.0. If some of the problems are actual bugs for 1.1 specs, we need to record them within the errata files too.
McCool: Let's table this for now. Ege will provide a policy document and lets discuss this then
Meetups
WoT CG
Ege:: there was a presentaion from Grundfos about WoT. Presentation and video are available
McCool: Grundfos mention an ISO standard that uses WoT ontologies
Ege:: I send an email to get more information and contact person about the ISO standard
Kaz: after getting clarification based on Ege's message, I'll work with the W3C Liaison Team for the possible new liaison with the ISO group.
Liasion
OPC UA
Sebastian: starting the "OPC UA Binding for Web of Things", internally it is setup the formal procedure within OPCF
… expect the WG begin of next year
Koster: is the same time slot used?
Sebastian: not discussed yet, would make sense
Kaz: how does the colleboration look like?
Sebastian: OPCF will act independent since there is no joint deliverable
Kaz: even though we won't have a joint deliverable, we need to think about how to proceed with our collaboration. From time to time, we (WoT WG) should let them know about our updates on Binding Template registry, etc.
Sebastian: what I wrote in the charter that we can run together PlugFests
TF reports
<Ege> https://
Ege:: Marketing TF decided to create Mastodon WoT account and the whole WoT WG also made a resolution for that direction last week
<Ege> w3c/
Ege:: regarding this there are some PRs
… we decided to keep the Twitter account and will link it on the WoT webpage
Kaz: We need to see which way to go. I'm ok to have both. Ege, you can tell which one would be better in the future.
Ege:: in the Marketing TF we decided to keep both. W3C MarComm is also ok with it.
<break till 10min past>
<continue 3:10pm CET>
IG Charter Discussion
Strategy Issue for 3-mo extension
<kaz> Strategy issue
Kaz: As you know, these days we need to create a Strategy repo issue for rechartering procedure, so I've creating one as above. Also asking for a 3-mo extension for the rechartering procedure. Will get approval tomorrow, and will send an advance notice message about that to the AC tomorrow.
Scope
Koster: we need to finalize the scope
<kaz> (Koster goes through the bullet points on "Scope Summary")
<kaz> * Support the Web of Things Working Group
<kaz> * Organize and run interoperability and testing events, including events for specific vertical industries, to evaluate the current working assumptions in regard to the Web of Things
<kaz> * Reach out and collaborate with interested organizations, industry specific and infrastructure vendors, and communities in support of the Interest Group's mission
<kaz> * Develop supporting materials such as implementation guidelines and tutorials
<kaz> * Explore areas and identify work that is ready for transfer to the W3C Recommendation Track
Koster: supporting the WG
… the changes to the scope is to take out the third point and update the second one
… we will take out tutorials from the 4th point
… once we update the scope, we can better explain the relationship between groups
McCool: the IG owns the website since we cannot transfer to the CG
Lagally: a couple of things. the IG is defining wg documents via use cases
… also organizing plugfests so that we also show that WG specs are working in real life
… bring people to the specification work in the WG
… use cases can help with that
Koster: bringing active people is good idea
Lagally: we should not split requirements from use cases. Otherwise it stays a theoritical activity
Koster: it makes sense
McCool: yes we are doing that
Ege: just to be clear. The website is an IG resource, marketing TF is also an IG TF. CG cannot own a part of IG resource. We can however link to CG resources etc.
Koster: right, that is what I remember as well
Kaz: I agree with focusing on the scope, but would suggest we start with the "Scope Summary" as Koster originally mentioned.
<kaz> (Koster adds comments on "Scope Summary" topics based on today's discussion)
Koster: Is social media part of website?
<sebastian> w3c/
Sebastian: there is a PR from Ege that shows the relationship between the groups
Koster: This is a nice diagram for discussion
Koster: how does outreach work at the moment?
<kaz> rendered relationship.md
Kaz: if everybody is OK, we can merge this with a draft title. it is a great start, but we still need to extract topics from this and put actual text to the IG Charter.
Koster: yeah we can do that
Lagally: nice figures, thanks.
Lagally: we should stress the fact that we want to bring new people
… so we should encourage people to contribute
… writing a use case is already a burden for some
Kaz: let's record Lagally's points on the Issue 122. regarding the roles of related groups, let's discuss them based on the relationship.md separately.
Ege: we should not imply that the IG participation is necessary first
Kaz: or clarify for what people should join the IG as part of the Scope discussion :)
Lagally: we should just get new members, doesn't matter the group
<McCool> ntd, sorry; ttyl (happy holidays!)
<sebastian> you too
<mlagally_> merry xmas
Plugfest and Testing PR (137)
Sebastian: testing is a wg activity so we make this clear
Koster: As sebastian mentioned, we should focus on interoperability events
Kaz: given we just have 5 more minutes for today, we should not change the subtopic now but concentrate on the discussion on the "Scope Summary". Also we should make decision on whether we want to merge PR 134 or not.
Relationship among WoT groups
Koster: Any remarks on the relationship document?
Koster: Let's merge the relationship PR
… so we can continue work on the charter
… aob?
<kaz> [adjourned]