Meeting minutes
Previous minutes
Ege: We had only one session
… 6 Feb
Ege: spotted some issues with unwanted text in minutes
Kaz: just fixed
Ege: No other objections -> minutes are approved
Agenda Cleanup
<EgeKorkan> https://
Ege: Did some clean-up for 2024 on the TD wiki above
GitHub Project Cleanup
<EgeKorkan> WoT TD Project
Ege: added labels and moved to "categorized" column
TD SpecWork
<EgeKorkan> w3c/
Prettier issue
Ege: w3c/
<EgeKorkan> w3c/
Ege: Daniel and I had the same issue
… looked up possible causes
… don't have access to the settings
… got in contact with system teams
… others like ARIA have similar issues
… it means now, that formatting needs to be done locally
… see w3c/
Daniel: wonder we should back again with system team
… it worked before
Ege: Yes, can follow-up
… we don't have a real fix for now
Kaz: I am wondering about the potential cause
… it might be some secret update the prettifyer mechanism
Ege: Maybe also GitHub itself is changing
Jan: I had this problem some months ago
… the fix looks good to me
Ege: Okay let's merge PR 2076
Daniel: will merge master in 2070 and we can see whether it works
PR Template not working
w3c/
Ege: we have that template
… in VS code it shows up.. on GitHub it doesn't show up
… not sure why?
… does anyone have an idea?
… otherwise will create issue to track it
<kaz> PR 2077 - add required property key to example
<EgeKorkan> Issue 2078 - PR Template not working
Binding Registry
<EgeKorkan> Binding Registry Issues
Ege: All open points are tracked with according label
… with Koster we went through all of them
… e.g., question from Ben what happens with bindings for same protocol
Issue 398
wot-binding-templates Issue 398 - Handling Binding Submissions for Existing Bindings
Ege: only the 3rd problem is cirtical
… idea with Koster was to not allow 2 bindings with different flavors
… we could add some checkpoints in review process
Ege: Are people fine with the proposal in issue 398 ?
… then a PR can be made
Kaz: Direction should be okay
… do we want to think about subprotocols later?
Ege: Yes, are different documents
Issue 402
Ege: Next is Summary document
wot-binding-templates Issue 402 - Summary Document Requirements
Ege: We did have the consensus to have a summary document
… custodian creates summary document
… it should contain abstract
… it should contain examples, but we cannot require it
… it should contain access/usage restrictions
Ege: does anyone object custodian posting summary document?
Kaz: Who will generate the text?
Ege: Submitters themselves use a dedicated form
Ege: Remarks on content of summary document?
Cristiano: Purpose is to let us understand what the binding is about, right?
… do we need something else beside abstract and example ?
Ege: We should get idea what the binding is about
<EgeKorkan> example summary document from IANA registry: https://
Cristiano: short explainer?
Ege: Yes
Kaz: I am okay with the direction
… we should provide our own examples description
… how to use the form in general
Cristiano: For example for HTTP
Ege: I don't hear any objection .. mark as PR needed
Issue 399
wot-binding-templates Issue 399 - Registry Entry Field on "Access and Usage Rights"
Ege: we propose to close this issue since it is tackled by summary document
Issue 403
wot-binding-templates Issue 403 - Stable/Current Status Requirements
Ege: How do we expect implementation experience
… testing can happen over long time
… increases confidence of binding
… STABLE state needs two separate code bases
Kaz: Technically, asking for 2 interoperable implementations would be nice
… but I am not really sure if we can / should require that for binding registry
Ege: Too much requirement?
Kaz: Possibly. I'm not really sure if it is the right option at the moment because this is the first trial within W3C.
… Let's talk with PLH and TAG
Ege: Yes, but we are free in that regard
kaz: Right. However, this is the first trial within W3C for Registry to require 2 interoperable implementations. So we need to talk with PLH and TAG anyway.
Koster: Broader review makes sense
Ege: Agree
… will add label "PR needed"
Ege: We have now 3 issues labelled with "PR needed"
… anyone interested on working on it
… I can take one
Koster: I can take another one
Cristiano: I can take the 3rd one
Issue 404
wot-binding-templates Issue 404 - Required Machine Readable Documents for Registry Entries
Ege: Is there any opinion?
… require just JSON schema ?
… main question is about ontology file
… not sure if anyone is capable providing it... since it is not needed when processing JSON only
Cristiano: JSON-LD context would be more useful than ontologies
… w.r.t. JSON Schema I don't have a clear answer
… the current way we do it is rather hacky
… e.g., redefining properties etc
… for outsiders a form validation should be enough
… JSON schema depends on what we allow bindings to do
Kaz: We should clarify what "machine-readable" means
… 1 format might be enough
[Adjourned]