00:03:08 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-td 00:21:40 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-td 00:39:13 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-td 00:57:51 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-td 01:17:55 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-td 01:37:42 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-td 01:46:19 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-td 02:03:43 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-td 02:25:33 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-td 02:43:45 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-td 02:56:48 EgeKorka_ has joined #wot-td 03:48:33 kaz has joined #wot-td 07:30:50 kaz has joined #wot-td 07:48:49 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-td 08:33:35 EgeKorkan has joined #wot-td 13:21:37 ktoumura has joined #wot-td 13:58:53 rrsagent, bye 13:58:53 I see no action items 13:59:02 RRSAgent has joined #wot-td 13:59:02 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/01/09-wot-td-irc 13:59:08 meeting: WoT-WG - TD-TF - Slot 2 14:00:36 present+ Kaz_Ashimura 14:02:21 present+ Ege_Korkan, Tomoaki_Mizushima 14:02:59 rrsagent, make log public 14:03:07 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:03:08 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/09-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:03:30 chair: Ege, Koster 14:03:49 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#January_08-09%2C_2024 14:06:27 present+ Michael_Koster, Kunihiko_Toumura 14:06:44 mjk has joined #wot-td 14:07:55 present+ Sebastian_Kaebisch 14:11:20 scribenick: mjk 14:11:32 topic: binding requirements 14:11:46 q+ 14:12:29 ack k 14:12:37 kaz: we need to discuss what should be discussed in the main call 14:12:53 s/need to discuss/need to clarify/ 14:13:01 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:13:02 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/09-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:13:54 ege: there are items labeled "DISCUSS" we can review 14:14:11 i|we need|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/pull/378 wot-binding-templates PR 378 - Registry Requirements Update| 14:15:01 ... there are seven items, 2 or three of them are easier to discuss 14:15:14 i|we need|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-binding-templates/edit/egekorkan-patch-4/registry-requirements.md?pr=%2Fw3c%2Fwot-binding-templates%2Fpull%2F378 Rendered registry-requirements.md proposal| 14:15:18 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:15:19 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/09-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:15:40 ... start with the fourth item, the document may be a section of a larger document 14:15:57 ... the link should point to the section of the document 14:16:02 s/topic: binding requirements/subtopic: Binding Registry Requirements/ 14:16:10 ... are there any divergent opinions? 14:16:15 q? 14:16:20 i/subtopic: Binding Registry Requirements/topic: Binding Templates/ 14:16:23 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:16:24 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/09-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:16:39 MIzushima has joined #wot-td 14:16:41 ... seeing no objections, we can remove the DISCUSS label 14:16:44 sebastian has joined #wot-td 14:17:11 ... next item, "how is the review decision communicated"? 14:18:02 ... the proposal is for comments to be added to the issue when the status changes 14:18:15 mjk: does this show up in our PM? 14:18:39 ege: we should create a view for tracking binding state in PM 14:19:09 q? 14:20:49 dape has joined #wot-td 14:20:50 present+ Daniel_Peintner 14:22:29 ege: (creates PM column headings and policy text) 14:23:19 q? 14:24:39 ege: there is also the higher level lifecycle to consider, from initial submission to final 14:26:18 q? 14:26:33 ege: any opinions on the suggested PM rubric? 14:26:48 q+ 14:26:51 mjk: this is what I was thinking about 14:27:13 kaz: what are the lifecycle states to be used for this purpose? 14:27:49 ... we have been discussing the PM aspect but need to think about the lifecycle terms more 14:28:10 ... this is a good starting point and may need refinement 14:28:53 ege: some of these terms come from the registry analysis document we prepared 14:29:32 ... they were inspired by the TTWG rubric 14:30:15 kaz: we should start with the current best practice 14:31:15 ege: some of the state terms don't exactly describe the situation 14:31:18 s/we should start with the current best practice/I'm OK with starting with this current best practice by the TTWG, and would suggest we explicitly mention we'd like to use this term set based on the TTWG's practice./ 14:31:27 ... any opinions on the current set of terms? 14:31:46 q- 14:31:48 kaz: we can modify these terms ourselves if needed 14:31:52 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:31:54 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/09-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:32:15 ege: (records the terms as we just discussed) 14:32:21 q+ 14:32:25 sebastian has joined #wot-td 14:33:02 dape: deprecated is probably not the preferred term 14:33:08 ack dape 14:33:14 ... we may want to choose another one 14:33:49 dape: the W3C convention is to indicate that a newer version is available 14:34:27 ege: the W3C warning uses the term "outdated" 14:34:44 ... and points to the most recent version 14:35:14 ... the most recent version is called "latest" 14:35:41 ... (changes proposed terms) does this look good? 14:35:46 dape: LGTM 14:36:16 q+ 14:36:53 https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#RecsObs 14:37:06 kaz: W3C document also defines "superseded" and "rescinded" types for outdated documents 14:37:37 ... we could think about which would apply more precisely to our binding registry 14:38:15 ege: reviews the W3C process document, also includes "Obsolete" 14:38:59 q? 14:39:02 s/"superseded" and "rescinded"/"superseded", "obsolete", "rescinded" and "discontinued" regarding "outdated"/ 14:39:04 q- 14:40:22 q+ 14:41:42 mjk: why not just use these terms? "rescinded"might need some policy definition 14:41:58 ege: obsolete makes sense 14:42:16 kaz: we can refine the policy later as needed 14:42:33 ack k 14:42:45 ege: we need to write down the definitions 14:42:48 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:42:50 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/09-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:43:18 s/W3C document also/W3C Process Document also/ 14:43:33 s/W3C Process/As above, W3C Process/ 14:43:35 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:43:37 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/09-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:43:50 s/obsolete makes/"obsolete" makes/ 14:44:18 present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi 14:45:03 q? 14:45:49 cris has joined #wot-td 14:46:10 mjk: how does this work with semantic versioning? 14:46:22 ege: there is some discussion already 14:47:41 q? 14:48:30 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:48:31 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/09-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 14:49:22 ege: how does the state change from initial to current? What are the specific requirements? 14:49:45 ... how do we determine implementability criteria? 14:50:04 ... we should not require a face to face event 14:50:19 ... how much interop testing should be done? 14:51:27 ... we discussed on Tuesday and propose that there could be an event where a set of affordances are tested and examples of usage scenarios are provided 14:51:57 ... this can be VPN or face to face, and should include at least two entities 14:52:18 ... ideally there would be a well attended plugfest 14:52:54 q+ 14:52:56 q+ 14:53:02 ... does anyone have opinions? 14:53:27 seb: the problem is that we don't in general have experience with specific protocols 14:53:57 ... if we don't know about a protocol, how do we procees 14:54:40 ege: it's done by the submitters and we need to have good faith since we don't do our own testing 14:54:55 q? 14:56:42 cris: there could be a playground for evaluation of bindings, and we could let the market/community of users to decide 14:57:29 ege: it could be as simple as two companies doing the testing and providing us with the result 14:58:07 cris: there could be some well-formatted way to manage the process and some public recognition 14:59:30 dape: interop testing should require two parties involved, what can we require? 14:59:44 ege: we expect to require two entities 15:00:37 dape: this seems a bit strong because it requires a second company and there may be some simple corner cases that only involve one company. Is there a requirement we could set up for these cases? 15:00:58 ege: maybe require two code bases or some other diversith factor 15:01:11 s/diversith/diversity 15:01:19 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:01:21 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/09-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 15:01:28 q? 15:01:33 ege: any opinions, or should we continue the discussion? 15:01:46 seb: it depends on the implementations 15:02:19 ege: maybe we should require more than one codebase 15:02:49 seb: that may even be too restrictive. In some cases there are not many different codebases 15:03:44 seb: we could provide comments to go with the bindings and explain the situation to potential users of the binding 15:04:44 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:04:45 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/09-wot-td-minutes.html kaz 15:04:51 ege: any other business for today? 15:05:01 ... adjourned 15:05:05 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:05:06 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/01/09-wot-td-minutes.html kaz