Meeting minutes
Agenda
Ege: binding registry and initial connection
… as well as the minutes review
Minutes
Ege: any remarks?
(none)
approved
Binding registry
Ege: yesterday we started some discussion
… how to proceed with the Registry requirements document?
Registry requirements document (MD)
Ege: need to change the title and the document type when we publish this as a Note
… (refers to an example of Web Codec Registry)
… probably need to check with PLH but should be OK since this is a Note
Kaz: Technically, it's not republishing the existing "WoT Binding Templates Note" but rather publishing a new "WoT Binding Registry Document"
… so don't think it would be problematic
… but registry publication is rather new, so would suggest we consult with PLH to make sure
Ege: (goes through the W3C Process document)
Ege: so would confirm everybody is OK with moving the content from the existing/remaining WoT Binding Templates Note to the WoT Binding Registry Document
Daniel: quick question
… the content will be moved but the URL of the old Note will be there. right?
… what would happen with the old URL?
Ege: if needed, we can change the URL
… but if we want to continue to use the "wot-binding-templates" URL for the WoT Binding Registry Document, we need to move the old content to a new repository
Kaz: think it would be less confusing if we should use a new URL, e.g., "wot-binding-registry" for the new WoT Binding Registry Document
Ege: which would be better?
<EgeKorkan> proposal 1: Use the https://
<EgeKorkan> proposal 2: create new repository, e.g. wot-binding-templates-registry, and start fresh in that repository with the registry content. The old document will have a banner directing people to the relevant place
Cristiano: no big preference
… but if we go for the proposal 1 above, what would happen?
Ege: the new content will be included in the index.html under wot-binding-templates
Cristiano: so not describing the Binding Templates itself as we used to be doing
Ege: right
Cristiano: we can reuse this but no big preference then
Ege: there is an Editor's Note about "Future Work"
Cristiano: do we want to keep the content of this old Note?
Ege: binding template mechanism itself is already handled by the WoT Thing Description spec
… and we need to describe how to manage the registry for the WoT Binding Registry Document
Cristiano: slightly concerned about the cost to create a new repo, but not a big concern
… if we're ok with creating a new repo for the Binding Registry Document, I'm OK with putting a banner saying "This Note at wot-binding-templates is obsolete."
Daniel: both solutions might work
… we should make sure the old WoT Binding Templates Note is not maintained
… and guide people to the new place
Ege: in that case, we can put some text on this obsolete WoT Binding Templates Note and lead them to the new Registry Document
… but for today, we don't have a strong preference yet
… so would create a new GitHub Issue for further discussion
Binding Issue 421 - Where should the registry live?
Ege: WoT Binding Template mechanism itself is described by the WoT Thing Description spec
WoT Thing Description ED - 8. Binding Templates
Ege: which repository to put the actual registry information?
Initial Connection
Ege: how to proceed?
Ege: our proposal is available online as MD above
… should we include the proposal into the WoT Thing Description Editor's Draft now?
Cristiano: is the new tooling ready?
Ege: not yet
Cristiano: what would be the impact of the tooling change then?
Ege: potentially big impacts...
Cristiano: would be better to clarify possible algorithm, etc., first then
Ege: so you mean we should update the index.html itself until the tooling is ready?
Cristiano: right
Ege: tables and diagrams will be changed
… tables are all normative
Daniel: thinking now...
… with this initial connection, we could get much flexibility
… but wondering about the usage from the users' viewpoint
… maybe we can say we just define TD
… and another spec about how to use TD could mention this
… simpler version TD and full version TD
Ege: simplified vs condense/full
… there will be some changes other than this proposal
… (goes through Table 3)
Daniel: might be going to be too difficult to use the full spec TD around reusable connection
Ege: maybe would be better to add restructure
Kaz: tend to agree with Daniel
… the initial/reusable connection proposal is getting bigger
… so should think about how to put the proposal into the TD spec
… as Daniel also mentioned, might be better to have another separate document about TD connection for this
Ege: don't want to have a separate document...
Kaz: we're not really suggesting we should have a separate document for today
… but would suggest we should think about the document structure a bit more
Ege: (creates a new TD GitHub Issue for this discussion)
TD Issue 2089 - Moving ahead with the initial connection feature
TD Project
Issue 2084
Issue 2084 - Better description for EventAffordance subscription and cancellation
Ege: would talk about it next time
AOB
Ege: next week, we'll have informal discussion about Conexxus liaison on Wednesday
… the call will start 30 mins later than usual
[adjourned]