Meeting minutes
Minutes
Ege: (goes through the minutes)
… any comments?
(none)
approved
Agenda
Ege: would like to talk about the Issue around the Binding registry
Binding
Registry inclusiveness
Issue 393 - Registry Inclusiveness
Ege: should follow the W3C rule, look/feel?
Cristiano: we can be flexible here
… would be OK to use a different style
McCool: we should recommend the same order
… of the sections
… e.g., Introduction
… should be defined
Luca: anything within the registry should follow the W3C rules
… regarding the look&feel, also should be the same
Luca: less burden if we have the same style
… should be machine readable and parsable
Kaz: not really sure what we're talking about
… the Registry Track has its specific style and structure already
Ege: it's about the entry
Ege: (shows the requirements.md)
McCool: that's still "nice to have"
The WoT binding CAN be just one section of the document. In that case, the "Link to the binding document" in the registry entry MUST point to the specific location. PDF or similar document types CAN be submitted if the "Link to the binding document" in the registry entry contains a text pointing to the section. However, HTML and Webpages SHOULD be favoured.
Luca: would like to think about something similar to the IANA registry
McCool: it's rather similar situation of MPEG here
… everyone still implements the format
… some of the entries are not free
<McCool> (I would like to propose a compromise...)
Kaz: think the question here "Should the binding document be required to follow W3C copyright rules, and should the document follow the exact template and look and feel?" should be clarified a bit
… e.g., what kind of binding definition document (our own ones or externally defined ones)
… and then the copyright, style, and so on can be discussed
Ege: (tries to split the question into two pieces)
Ege: question 1.1: should the linked binding document have the W3C copyright?
… question 1.2: should th elinked binding document have the same "look and feel" of the W3C documents?
Luca: binding registry document should follow the W3C style
… if we provide some kind of template
Ege: we don't really provide templates for the Binding definition
McCool: would suggest some compromise
… may be a published ontology
… organized by the other SDOs
… need to think about more than just a link
Ege: seems we're restarting the big part of the discussion...
… thought the registry document itself would just include links
Kaz: think we're all thinking about something like the IANA registry
… so the registry document itself only manages the list of the entries with links to the actual definition documents
… and the definition documents might be generated by external SDOS
… so we can't control the copyright or style of them
Ege: right
McCool: agree
Luca: guess we can have the situation with only the index rather than the links
… all we need is showing a link for the binding definition
… let's go for this direction
… we have a correction of bindings
… if we want to keep the full registry, then there is a potential burden
… if the custodian hosts, the implementation is easier
… if not, it's easier to write the documents but more difficult to implement
McCool: agree with that point
… would try to make WoT relevant
Luca: don't see what would be problematic
… let me explain a bit
… if there is a proprietary protocol, you still might want to use it
McCool: it's huge amount of legal work...
Kaz: btw, the answer for the question should say "We cannot do it for all the bindings for legal reasons."
… for free kind of protocols or our own defined protocols, we can generate binding documents ourselves
McCool: yeah, there are gray areas
Ege: can understand it would be easier for implementers if we could define all the binding documents
… but defining everything in the W3C manner is difficult
<McCool> (btw... the RTP registry has been closed... https://
Ege: so could we make a consensus here?
Luca: if the consensus is just keeping the index, that's fine
… but we can set a rule for those who are out of our target
… also we have a need a way to reach the linked documents which actually define the bindings
… so we need a way to verify them
Ege: (adds some points)
<McCool> (could just add a rule that the link should be stable and if it can't be resolved the entry will be removed from the registry, and also that the document should be a specific stable version - not updated in-place)
Ege: if the document is detected to change and not fulfill the requirements, it can be removed.
… would make a decision now
… the custodian does not host the binding documents
Cristiano: does not have to?
Ege: right
Kaz: that's inline what I mentioned 5 mins ago
Ege: then 2nd point
… as the custodian does not host it, it cannot enforce the W3C copyright.
Kaz: we should make resolution for those points
… and for that purpose "it" here should be clarified again
McCool: yeah
… also we should define what the minimum requirements would be
<Ege> proposal: Custodian does not have to host the binding documents and associated files. Custodian hosts the summary document. The summary document's content will be decided later
RESOLUTION: Custodian does not have to host the binding documents and associated files. Custodian hosts the summary document. The summary document's content will be decided later
<Ege> proposal: As the custodian does not host the binding document, it cannot enforce the W3C copyright. Thus, the linked binding document does not have to follow W3C copyright.
Kaz: 2nd point should be a "draft resolution" now and to be confirmed with McCool
<Ege> draft resolution: As the custodian does not host the binding document, it cannot enforce the W3C copyright. Thus, the linked binding document does not have to follow W3C copyright.
[adjourned]