IRC log of wot-profile on 2024-10-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:59:46 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #wot-profile

12:59:51 [RRSAgent]

logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-irc

13:01:30 [kaz]

meeting: WoT Profile

13:01:59 [kaz]

present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Luca_Barbato, Ben_Francis, Jan_Romann, Josh_Thomas, Michael_Koster, Tomoaki_Mizushima

13:02:10 [kaz]

q+

13:02:12 [mjk]

mjk has joined #wot-profile

13:02:20 [kaz]

q-

13:02:29 [luca_barbato]

luca_barbato has joined #wot-profile

13:03:23 [kaz]

agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Profile_WebConf#Profile_-_Oct_9th%2C_2024

13:03:36 [JKRhb]

scribenick: JKRhb

13:03:58 [JKRhb]

topic: Minutes Review

13:04:06 [kaz]

-> https://www.w3.org/2024/09/11-wot-profile-minutes.html Sep-11

13:04:08 [JKRhb]

lb: They were very brief

13:04:12 [JKRhb]

... not much to say

13:04:20 [JKRhb]

... does anyone want to add something?

13:04:29 [JKRhb]

... also regarding the minutes from TPAC?

13:04:43 [kaz]

https://www.w3.org/2024/09/27-wot-minutes.html#t07

13:04:44 [JKRhb]

... Ege, do you have the link to the TPAC minutes?

13:04:49 [benfrancis]

https://www.w3.org/2024/09/26-wot-minutes.html

13:04:55 [benfrancis]

https://www.w3.org/2024/09/27-wot-minutes.html

13:04:59 [JKRhb]

kaz: (links the minutes)

13:05:07 [JKRhb]

bf: (also adds a link)

13:05:14 [JKRhb]

lb: Thanks, Kaz and Ben

13:05:19 [JKRhb]

... regarding the TPAC minutes

13:05:29 [JKRhb]

... who was there and wants to say something?

13:05:38 [JKRhb]

... is this the correct one?

13:05:45 [JKRhb]

kaz: Yes, this one and the day two

13:06:05 [EgeKorkan]

q+

13:06:08 [JKRhb]

lb: Who was present and wants to add something? Or wants to add to the minutes?

13:06:17 [JKRhb]

... otherwise we can just approve them

13:06:27 [JKRhb]

... (shows one part of the minutes)

13:06:40 [JKRhb]

... this is the part that I want to discuss today

13:06:47 [kaz]

s/this one and the day two/and the Profile discussion was done on the 2nd day/

13:07:00 [JKRhb]

... if we can write a paragraph on the relationship between bindings and profiles and hopefully can agree on that

13:07:12 [kaz]

rrsagent, make log public

13:07:17 [kaz]

rrsagent, draft minutes

13:07:18 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz

13:07:25 [JKRhb]

ek: In the TPAC, we had more or less the reolution that profiles should not extend the TD

13:07:40 [kaz]

chair: Luca

13:07:46 [JKRhb]

... but I guess that should not matter too

13:08:08 [JKRhb]

lb: For today's topic, I hope everyone has seen what has been written on the mailing list

13:08:09 [kaz]

present+ Ege_Korkan

13:08:11 [kaz]

rrsagent, draft minutes

13:08:12 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz

13:08:18 [JKRhb]

... if somebody did not

13:08:50 [JKRhb]

... the idea is, we have bindings to extend what to represent in a TD, and the idea is to use profiles as a boundry for what you can describe in a TD

13:08:54 [jthomas]

jthomas has joined #wot-profile

13:09:07 [JKRhb]

... with that, we can restrict what is part of a TD and also validate the content

13:09:19 [EgeKorkan]

q?

13:09:19 [kaz]

q+

13:09:21 [jthomas]

present+ Josh_Thomas

13:09:22 [JKRhb]

... if someone wants to take the floor and voice their opinion, this is the right time

13:09:35 [kaz]

ack e

13:09:57 [JKRhb]

ek: Regarding your question on the mailing list, Sebastian has sent a mail that also includes my opinion

13:10:05 [JKRhb]

... maybe you can share it

13:10:07 [kaz]

i|For today|-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-wg/2024Oct/0000.html Luca's message (Member-only)|

13:10:08 [EgeKorkan]

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-wg/2024Oct/0004.html

13:10:16 [kaz]

[[

13:10:17 [kaz]

Binding Templates enable a Thing Description to be adapted to a specific

13:10:17 [kaz]

protocol, data payload formats or platforms that combine both in

13:10:17 [kaz]

specific ways. A Profile warrants that only the Binding Templates it

13:10:17 [kaz]

mandates, or a subset of them, will be used to describe all the

13:10:18 [JKRhb]

lb: I also noticed that Ben has expressed his opinion

13:10:19 [kaz]

Affordances exposed by a conforming Thing.

13:10:21 [kaz]

]]

13:10:26 [luca_barbato]

[[[ Binding Templates enable a Thing Description to be adapted to a specific protocol, data payload formats or platforms that combine both in specific ways. A Profile document contains only a subset of features of the Thing Descriptions specification and of individual Binding Template documents to describe all the Affordances and metadata exposed

13:10:26 [luca_barbato]

by a profile-conforming Thing. ]]]

13:10:31 [JKRhb]

kaz: That has been sent to the member's list, will share it one IRC

13:10:49 [JKRhb]

lb: (also pastes the proposed text)

13:10:55 [JKRhb]

... this is the proposed text

13:10:56 [benfrancis]

q+

13:11:00 [JKRhb]

... I think the spriti is okay

13:11:08 [kaz]

ack k

13:11:09 [JKRhb]

... but the use of "document" needs to be specified first

13:11:23 [JKRhb]

bf: Sorry to interrupt, but what is the proposed text for?

13:11:36 [JKRhb]

... is it a resolution? Or something else?

13:11:51 [JKRhb]

lb: Wanted to use it as an introduction to the document and at least agree on that

13:12:00 [JKRhb]

... and build consensus based on that

13:12:17 [JKRhb]

... and eventually expand to consensus on how the profiles should behave

13:12:27 [JKRhb]

... we will probably have some disagreements along the way

13:12:38 [JKRhb]

... but eventually we should end up with a registry

13:12:49 [JKRhb]

... my proposal is to start with that introduction

13:13:18 [JKRhb]

bf: I've responded to the email, but I suppose it went to a private mailing list

13:13:29 [JKRhb]

lb: Everyone should have received it here

13:13:37 [JKRhb]

bf: Agree with the basic concept

13:14:05 [JKRhb]

... think everyone is agreeing here, disagreements are about the details on how to go there

13:14:21 [JKRhb]

... don't think that your text and Siemens' version capture that

13:14:58 [JKRhb]

lb: Two parts, first how profiles behave and second, why they are useful

13:15:07 [JKRhb]

... two essential components:

13:15:15 [JKRhb]

... 1. profiles restrict

13:15:28 [JKRhb]

... 2. ensure that the Thing it describes complies to the profile

13:15:54 [JKRhb]

... to ensure out-of-the-box interoperability, need to ensure that no additional properties are added that break the contract

13:16:13 [JKRhb]

... what I did in June was describing why Profiles are useful

13:16:27 [JKRhb]

... today I would like to agree on the two fundamental aspects

13:17:04 [benfrancis]

q?

13:17:05 [JKRhb]

rrsagent, draft minutes

13:17:07 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html JKRhb

13:17:13 [EgeKorkan]

q+

13:17:13 [benfrancis]

q-

13:17:27 [JKRhb]

ek: What was this June meeting?

13:17:34 [JKRhb]

lb: I think you were there

13:17:39 [JKRhb]

... it was a pull request

13:17:44 [benfrancis]

https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/412

13:17:47 [JKRhb]

ek: The introduction pull request?

13:17:51 [JKRhb]

bf: Yes

13:18:18 [JKRhb]

lb: It was the PR where I tried to clarify what we mean by "out-of-the-box interoperability"

13:18:30 [JKRhb]

... would like to have more opinions on these two points

13:18:41 [JKRhb]

... or maybe even have proposals that are more clear

13:18:57 [JKRhb]

... the Siemens proposal is fine if we could be more precise on "documents"

13:19:07 [benfrancis]

luca_barbato: Or did you mean this PR? https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/415

13:19:13 [JKRhb]

... otherwise, we could focus on the relationship between the Thing and its description

13:19:16 [JKRhb]

ek: Agree on this

13:19:34 [JKRhb]

... with "document", we were trying to make sure that we are referring to the Profile spec

13:19:46 [JKRhb]

... and not to another document, such as a Binding or the core requirements

13:20:03 [JKRhb]

s/to the Profile spec/for a Profile/

13:20:26 [JKRhb]

... like for the bindings, we defined it as a binding sub-specification

13:20:38 [JKRhb]

lb: For profiles, we could call it just profile

13:20:42 [JKRhb]

... but that might be ambigious

13:20:52 [JKRhb]

... or we could call it profile instance

13:20:58 [JKRhb]

... I am open for suggestions

13:21:09 [JKRhb]

... "documents" might be too ambigious

13:21:30 [JKRhb]

ek: If you have a registry, then you could have documents, in my opinion (?)

13:21:45 [benfrancis]

q+

13:21:51 [JKRhb]

lb: We can call it documents, if that is not used by a binding yet

13:21:56 [EgeKorkan]

https://www.w3.org/TR/wot-binding-templates/#dfn-subspecification

13:22:23 [JKRhb]

ek: I shared a link on the terminology

13:22:53 [JKRhb]

bf: Is it still called a sub specification if it is part of a registry?

13:23:06 [JKRhb]

ek: We could call them registry entries

13:23:16 [benfrancis]

q?

13:23:19 [kaz]

q+

13:23:21 [JKRhb]

... so for binding documents, that would be Binding Template Registry Entry

13:23:33 [EgeKorkan]

ack e

13:24:01 [JKRhb]

kaz: We as a TD task force need to think about how to fix the terminology

13:24:05 [kaz]

ack k

13:24:07 [JKRhb]

... within the TD taskforce in the end

13:24:08 [kaz]

ack b

13:24:11 [JKRhb]

ek: Correct, yes

13:24:27 [kaz]

q+ benfrancis

13:24:34 [JKRhb]

bf: So, I think we are all trying to describe the same things

13:24:51 [kaz]

rrsagent, draft minutes

13:24:52 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz

13:24:58 [JKRhb]

... if we make a new attempt, we need to be very precise with our language

13:25:02 [JKRhb]

... don't think that the Siemens approach is that

13:25:10 [JKRhb]

... gave examples in my email

13:25:23 [EgeKorkan]

q+

13:25:31 [JKRhb]

... don't think a TD should, for example, restrict the kind of properties a TD should contain

13:25:46 [JKRhb]

... in my opinion, a Profile should constrain the extension points of a TD

13:26:05 [JKRhb]

... for example, bindings, payload formats, or even discovery mechanisms

13:26:35 [JKRhb]

... so it is not really a restriction of the feature set from the TD specification, but rather a restrction on the extension points

13:27:02 [JKRhb]

... the reason is also the out-of-the-box interoperability and not another motivation

13:27:09 [JKRhb]

... need to be very careful with the wording

13:27:21 [JKRhb]

ek: I don't think we are really on the same page then

13:27:59 [JKRhb]

... I don't think a profile should not be able to restrict a TD to only use string as a type for properties

13:28:18 [JKRhb]

... or that it should not restrict the length of descriptions, for example

13:28:19 [kaz]

q+

13:29:08 [JKRhb]

... at some point, we might want to have a TD that is extendable from a profile-compliant TD(?)

13:29:30 [JKRhb]

... maybe we should write down the questions we have and then come up with answers

13:29:56 [JKRhb]

bf: So, Ege, do you think that profiles should just be a set of assertions, then?

13:30:01 [kaz]

-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-wg/2024Oct/0000.html Luca's original text

13:30:03 [kaz]

[[

13:30:03 [kaz]

Binding Templates enable a Thing Description to be adapted to a specific

13:30:03 [kaz]

protocol, data payload formats or platforms that combine both in

13:30:03 [kaz]

specific ways. A Profile warrants that only the Binding Templates it

13:30:05 [kaz]

mandates, or a subset of them, will be used to describe all the

13:30:07 [kaz]

Affordances exposed by a conforming Thing.

13:30:08 [JKRhb]

... because that would make profiles more open-ended

13:30:09 [kaz]

]]

13:30:17 [JKRhb]

ek: @@@

13:30:20 [kaz]

-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-wg/2024Oct/0001.html Siemens' proposed fix

13:30:21 [kaz]

[[

13:30:28 [kaz]

Binding Templates enable a Thing Description to be adapted to a specific

13:30:28 [kaz]

protocol, data payload formats or platforms that combine both in

13:30:28 [kaz]

specific ways. A Profile document contains only a subset of features of the Thing Descriptions specification and of individual Binding Template documents to describe all the Affordances and metadata exposed by a profile-conforming Thing.

13:30:29 [kaz]

]]

13:30:45 [luca_barbato]

q+

13:30:52 [EgeKorkan]

ack e

13:31:04 [JKRhb]

... but of course, if we would just extend to the properties, then that would already ensure out of the box interoperability, but you would need to rework the data model

13:31:14 [JKRhb]

... otherwise you would never reach that goal

13:31:36 [JKRhb]

kaz: Thank you very much, very good and meaningful discussion so far

13:32:11 [JKRhb]

... since the discussion was only on the members list, maybe we could copy over the discussion to a GitHub issue and continue the discussion there

13:32:23 [JKRhb]

... also including the comments by Sebastian and the others

13:32:39 [JKRhb]

lb: We should be able to that very quickly

13:32:45 [JKRhb]

... (starts opening an issue)

13:34:13 [JKRhb]

bf: While you are writing: Where was the discussion that there was a consensus or a resolution?

13:34:32 [JKRhb]

ek: There actually wasn't one, therefore we should agree on something here

13:34:43 [JKRhb]

lb: Ege, please add the statement from Siemens

13:35:06 [JKRhb]

... it is better if someone from the company itself does that

13:35:28 [JKRhb]

ek: (adds a comment to the issue)

13:36:03 [JKRhb]

kaz: Ben, very sorry, but ...

13:36:36 [JKRhb]

lb: Does anyone else have a different opinion or wants to give a +1 to something anyone said?

13:36:48 [JKRhb]

ek: Wanted to give a +1 to what Ben said

13:37:05 [luca_barbato]

luca_barbato has joined #wot-profile

13:37:15 [benfrancis]

q?

13:37:18 [JKRhb]

... can reword to it say something like "should constrain the features of the TD specification" (?)

13:37:21 [kaz]

i|Does|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/418 wot-profile Issue 418 - TPAC summary and Proposed wording to explain the concept of "Bindings extend, Profile restrict"

13:37:24 [kaz]

ack k

13:37:25 [JKRhb]

... we need to be careful here

13:37:47 [JKRhb]

... we could say something like "it constraints the information model of the core TD specification"

13:38:00 [JKRhb]

... to be a bit more specific but still generic

13:38:14 [JKRhb]

bf: I think we need to go through a couply of concrete examples

13:38:21 [kaz]

i|Issue 418|topic: Starting over the discussion based on Issue 418|

13:38:28 [JKRhb]

... of what features and constraints mean, since there is a lot of potential ambiguity here

13:38:49 [kaz]

rrsagent, draft minutes

13:38:51 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz

13:39:28 [luca_barbato]

q+

13:39:38 [JKRhb]

bf: Ege, can you explain the second sentence of your proposal?

13:39:46 [JKRhb]

... is that supposed to be the motivation?

13:39:57 [kaz]

s/but .../but could you please copy your comment to the GitHub Issue 418?/

13:40:04 [JKRhb]

ek: No, out-of-the-box interoperability should be the motivation

13:40:31 [JKRhb]

... I think the important aspect is that a Profile should restrict a TD while still being valid

13:40:48 [JKRhb]

... the second aspect is that a Profile restricts @@@

13:41:06 [JKRhb]

lb: Ege, do you know whether JSON-LD already has the concept of a "negative" context?

13:41:11 [JKRhb]

ek: I don't know

13:41:15 [kaz]

i|shoes one part|topic: Profiles philosophy|

13:41:32 [JKRhb]

lb: Since the way a Profile is supposed to work is removing items from the context

13:41:38 [JKRhb]

... so it is like a substraction

13:41:47 [benfrancis]

q?

13:41:52 [JKRhb]

... but I don't know whether JSON-LD would allow us to do

13:41:53 [kaz]

i|topic: Profiles philosophy|(minutes themselves have been approved)|

13:41:55 [kaz]

rrsagent, draft minutes

13:41:57 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz

13:42:08 [JKRhb]

... since that is what we need and we could feed that into a parser

13:42:20 [JKRhb]

... unclear whether we already have the tools for that

13:42:26 [kaz]

i|shows one part|topic: Profiles philosophy|

13:42:36 [JKRhb]

... in my opinion, a profile could be seen a diff that could be applied to a TD

13:42:41 [kaz]

i|shows one part|topic: Profiles philosophy|

13:42:46 [JKRhb]

s/TD/context/

13:42:47 [kaz]

i|topic: Profiles philosophy|(minutes themselves have been approved)|

13:42:50 [kaz]

rrsagent, draft minutes

13:42:51 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz

13:43:01 [JKRhb]

bf: Although that would be neat, I don't think that this will enough

13:43:11 [JKRhb]

... the discussion is very much focused on TDs

13:43:26 [JKRhb]

... should also include the behavior of a Thing

13:43:37 [kaz]

s|topic: Profiles philosophy||

13:43:39 [kaz]

rrsagent, draft minutes

13:43:41 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz

13:43:47 [JKRhb]

... adjusting the context is not enough for that

13:44:08 [JKRhb]

... another aspect that should be dealt with in a profile is whether a Thing should stick to the defaults of a protocol binding

13:44:27 [JKRhb]

... and that is also something that goes beyond just adjusting a TD itself

13:44:35 [JKRhb]

lb: I think we have more agreement on that

13:44:54 [JKRhb]

... so the first part is to get someone to reword the paragraph that provides that led

13:44:58 [JKRhb]

s/led/lead/

13:45:08 [JKRhb]

... second aspect is that we agree on the main parts

13:45:35 [JKRhb]

... one aspects is removing vocabulary, the other one is restricting behavior of Things and Consumers

13:45:58 [JKRhb]

... when it comes to consumers, once they know the protocol binding they should know the intended behavior

13:46:06 [benfrancis]

q+

13:46:15 [JKRhb]

... we need to see how it fares in a practical example

13:46:28 [JKRhb]

bf: I think we are focusing too much on bindings at the moment

13:46:46 [JKRhb]

... only one of five aspects, others are semantic context or discovery

13:46:54 [JKRhb]

... can they also be restricted?

13:46:58 [JKRhb]

lb: If these aren

13:47:03 [benfrancis]

protocol bindings, payload bindings, security mechanisms, link relations and semantic contexts, and maybe discovery mechanisms

13:47:15 [JKRhb]

s/lb: If these aren/lb: If these aren't bindings, then what are these?/

13:47:32 [JKRhb]

... idea remains the same for other aspects as well

13:47:39 [EgeKorkan]

q+

13:47:55 [luca_barbato]

q-

13:47:55 [JKRhb]

bf: So could a profile say "A Thing must support this semantic context?"

13:48:10 [JKRhb]

ek: Given that the bindings are also vocabularies, I would say yes

13:48:23 [JKRhb]

s/Thing must/Consumer must/

13:48:33 [JKRhb]

... I am talking by the way about the broadest sense

13:48:46 [mjk]

q?

13:49:07 [JKRhb]

... I would say that a profile can mandate the use of a certain vocabulary

13:49:21 [JKRhb]

... funnily enouhgh, even bindings are doing that

13:49:33 [JKRhb]

... for example, in the case of the MQTT binding

13:49:47 [JKRhb]

... I would assume that there is an MQTT URI scheme used in at least one affordance

13:50:06 [JKRhb]

bf: I assume also security schemes would be part of bindings eventually, right?

13:50:08 [JKRhb]

ek: Yes

13:50:27 [JKRhb]

bf: Then the other things from my list are @@@ and discovery mechanisms

13:50:44 [JKRhb]

ek: I would say that bindings should also be able to restrict discovery mechanisms

13:50:55 [JKRhb]

... should also be able to restrict the data model

13:51:18 [JKRhb]

... for example, the data length or how temperature is being described

13:51:31 [JKRhb]

bf: Data structures are not really an extension point

13:51:50 [JKRhb]

... a bit different to the other items I mentioned

13:52:04 [JKRhb]

... but the other aspect you mentioned, about units ....

13:52:11 [JKRhb]

ek: Units are actually another thing

13:52:32 [JKRhb]

... more about the data structure, so for example whether it is two numbers

13:52:50 [JKRhb]

... but also about the name of affordances, see Matter for example

13:53:05 [JKRhb]

bf: For WebThings, we are rather using sementic annotations

13:53:23 [JKRhb]

... that is then an overlap of semantic context and also Thing Models

13:53:54 [JKRhb]

ek: To add to that, if someone would use a different property name, they would not be out-of-the-box interoperable

13:53:57 [mjk]

q?

13:54:37 [JKRhb]

... if we would enable that, we would be competing with Matter and BACnet and others at the same time

13:54:55 [JKRhb]

bf: Would be fine with that

13:55:01 [JKRhb]

... always competed with Matter

13:55:18 [JKRhb]

... what we ended up with is a descriptive and a prescriptive approach

13:55:27 [JKRhb]

... I hope that will work

13:55:52 [JKRhb]

... if you choose a presecriptive approach you are competing with something like Matter

13:56:19 [JKRhb]

... with the descriptive approach, you choose a protocol binding and then just describe what is already there

13:56:24 [JKRhb]

ek: I am fine with that

13:56:55 [JKRhb]

... we should just be aware that if we went all the way too prescriptive, we would not have out-of-the-box-interoperability

13:57:14 [JKRhb]

bf: That corresponds with what we had before regarding levels of interoperability

13:57:26 [JKRhb]

... with WebThings, we are using a capabilities approach

13:57:40 [JKRhb]

... kind of an extra layer of interoperability

13:57:58 [JKRhb]

... but even without them you would still have interoperability, you would just not have the same richness of what the data means

13:58:11 [benfrancis]

q?

13:58:25 [JKRhb]

ek: I will also write to this issue

13:58:40 [JKRhb]

... this point regarding vocabulary terms and how they can be restricted

13:58:50 [JKRhb]

... will start writing now and finish after the TD call

13:58:56 [benfrancis]

A Profile document constrains features of the Thing Descriptions specification and of individual Binding Template documents to describe all the Affordances and metadata exposed by a profile-conforming Thing.

13:59:14 [JKRhb]

bf: I just pasted another version of the Siemens proposal

13:59:29 [JKRhb]

... and just added the phrase "constrains"

13:59:33 [JKRhb]

... not happy yet

13:59:44 [JKRhb]

... as the text leaves open what "features" means

13:59:48 [JKRhb]

... but it is closer

13:59:51 [kaz]

rrsagent, draft minutes

13:59:53 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz

13:59:59 [JKRhb]

ek: Agree with the chnanges you've made

14:00:08 [JKRhb]

... also agree that it is not specific enough yet

14:00:25 [JKRhb]

... will try to come up with a definition of features

14:00:43 [kaz]

q+

14:01:02 [JKRhb]

bf: The motivation is also not clear yet, implication via the "to" is unclear

14:01:14 [JKRhb]

ek: Will add that to the issue description

14:01:25 [JKRhb]

bf: We are getting closer

14:01:25 [JKRhb]

ek: Agree

14:01:47 [JKRhb]

kaz: Should we continue the discussion on GitHub or at the next meeting?

14:01:56 [JKRhb]

bf and lb: GitHub is fine for us

14:02:08 [JKRhb]

lb: Thanks for attending, see you in two weeks

14:02:32 [JKRhb]

bf: Always unclear whether the call is happening or not, by the way

14:02:43 [JKRhb]

kaz: McCool made a proposal to make adjustments

14:02:52 [kaz]

[adjourned]

14:02:54 [kaz]

rrsagent, draft minutes

14:02:55 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/10/09-wot-profile-minutes.html kaz

14:04:52 [mahda]

mahda has joined #wot-profile

14:28:29 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

16:02:16 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #wot-profile

16:15:54 [EgeKorka_]

EgeKorka_ has joined #wot-profile

16:54:22 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

17:03:25 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

17:50:57 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

17:52:28 [JKRhb_]

JKRhb_ has joined #wot-profile

18:00:30 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

18:09:53 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

18:35:39 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

18:41:12 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

19:47:27 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

19:55:14 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

19:56:01 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

20:14:43 [EgeKorkan]

EgeKorkan has joined #wot-profile

20:18:37 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

20:18:56 [EgeKorkan]

EgeKorkan has joined #wot-profile

20:53:22 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

21:10:44 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

21:20:35 [EgeKorkan]

EgeKorkan has joined #wot-profile

21:28:18 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

21:47:40 [EgeKorkan]

EgeKorkan has joined #wot-profile

22:20:41 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

22:26:41 [EgeKorkan]

EgeKorkan has joined #wot-profile

22:38:37 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

23:13:50 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

23:34:34 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

23:52:15 [JKRhb]

JKRhb has joined #wot-profile

23:54:36 [kaz]

kaz has joined #wot-profile